Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Research in Science Education (RISE): A Review (and Story) of Research in RISE Articles (1994–2018)

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Australasian Science Education Research Association’s annual conference, this paper reviews the last 25 years of the Association’s journal Research in Science Education (RISE). All RISE papers, at 4-year intervals (1994–2018; seven volumes), were reviewed: a total of 262/970 (27%) papers. Abstracts, together with the methodology/methods sections, were the main source of data, although theoretical/conceptual frameworks were also identified. Using a range of research indicators (e.g., research theme; paradigm and research design/methodology choice; methods used; sample characteristics; authors’ nationality), various trends emerged. Other data and trends were accessed using the Scopus database (e.g., research areas, most cited papers). Comparisons are made with similar reviews of the leading international science education journals (JRST, Science Education and IJSE), as well as White’s review for the first 25 years of ASERA (RISE, 27(2)). Findings indicate the increasing diversity of areas investigated, the mix of research approaches used, and a plurality of research designs. Trends are interpreted and overlooked areas identified. Future research possibilities are proffered and the direction that RISE appears to be heading.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To celebrate the 50th anniversary of ASERA, this paper was presented at the 2019 conference in Queenstown, New Zealand.

  2. There were no conference proceedings in 1969. Early conference volumes were titled Research 1971 and Science Education Research 1973. From 1974, RISE was the adopted title. For an early history of RISE, see Gardner (1994, pp.vi–vii) and https://www.asera.org.au/about/history.

  3. SJR (Scimago Journal and Country Rank) rankings (across “Education” journals) and 2016 and 2017 impact factors were: JRST (17; 3.007 & 2.708); SE (31; 2.151 & 2.240); RISE (120; 1.328 & 1.019), and IJSE (143; 1.223 & 0.906) (SJR: https://www.scimagojr.com accessed May 7, 2019; sources for the 2017 impact factors are from the journals’ websites).

  4. It is acknowledged that some argue that “research design” is more inclusive in that it embraces the whole research enterprise (e.g., research questions etc.) (e.g., see Babbie 2016).

  5. The WoS database did not include RISE issues from 1995 to 2001. Hence, Chang et al.’s RISE analyses are therefore incomplete and their conclusions may not hold.

  6. This was mainly due to a Special Issue on “Science and technology studies and science education” (1998).

  7. Recall that RISE (1994) was only conference proceedings, while in 1995 RISE was an international refereed journal.

  8. Tippet et al.‘s (2019) RISE analysis (1971–2019) found ECE teachers were the focus of some papers.

  9. There were five autobiographical studies by university lecturers (in Special issue ‘Autobiography and science education’ (2000)).

  10. As completing a degree was not a requirement in the pre-service education of Australian primary and secondary teachers during the early years of RISE, White’s undergraduate figures may have included more non-teacher education undergraduates.

  11. As the 7V analyses were completed, an informal determination of the dominant theoretical/conceptual bases of the RISE papers was recorded. It was consistent with the Scopus analyses. Main 7V themes and their dominant years were constructivism/conceptual change/conceptions (23%; 1994), classroom processes (12%; 2010), pedagogical content knowledge (9%; 2018), nature of science (6%; 2018), and student views and attributes (e.g., reasoning) (6%; 2010).

  12. Interestingly, a very common component of PCK, “explaining scientific concepts,” has received scant attention in RISE with only seven papers exploring this issue since 1983 (Geelan 2019).

  13. Some papers revolving around socio-scientific issues did use environmental contexts (e.g., climate change).

  14. Data from O’Toole et al. (2018) were not used for comparison purposes as they stated that the “type” of research (as defined in this paper) could only be identified in 56% of abstracts.

  15. Other researchers are also “stakeholders.” Chang et al. (2010), for example, pose an interesting question: does an increase in published papers in an area mean that they are impacting other researchers? The example of an increase in published Turkish papers (in earth science) was investigated, and it was found that they were not accompanied by an increase in citation frequency; this type of investigation warrants such an analysis for RISE papers.

  16. From journal website https://link.springer.com/journal/10956 (accessed May 19, 2019)

References

  • Abrahao, M. (2012). Autobiographical research: memory, time and narratives in the first person. European Journal of Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 3(1), 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Academy of Science. 2019. Primary connections. https://primaryconnections.org.au (Accessed May 16 2019).

  • Babbie, E. (2016). The practice of social research (14th ed.). USA: Cengage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruguière, C., Tiberghien, A., & Clément, P. (Eds.). (2014). Topics and trends in current science education. 9th ESERA Conference Selected Contributions (pp.3–18). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caulley, D. (1996). Qualitative research workshops. Unpublished manuscript. Lismore: Southern Cross University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., Chang, C., & Tseng, Y. (2010). Trends of science education research: an automatic content analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 315–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2012). How can conceptual change contribute to theory and practice in science education? In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 107–118). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eilks, I. (2018). Action research in science education: a twenty-year personal history. Action research and innovation in science education., 1(1), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, P. (1994). Editorial Comments. Research in Science Education, 24, (vi)–(vii).

  • Geelan, D. (2019). Teacher explanation of concepts in science education: research published in RISE since 1983. Paper presented at the Australasian Science Education Research Conference, Queenstown.

  • Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Chittleborough, G. (2017). Representation construction: a guided inquiry approach for science education. In R. Jorgensen & K. Larki (Eds.), STEM education in the junior secondary: the state of play (pp. 57–89). Gateway east). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, A., Cooper, R., & Borowski, A. (Eds.). (2019). Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science. Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A. (2016). Comparison between Scopus & ISI Web of Science. Journal Global Values, VII(1), 1–11.

  • Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M., Wu, Y., & Tsai, C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: a content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999–2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, E. (2017). High school earth and space science should be taught by geoscientists. Unpublished manuscript. University of Nebraska- Lincoln https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1235&context=teachlearnfacpub Accessed May 15 2019.

  • Lin, T., Lin, T., & Tsai, C. (2014). Research trends in science education from 2008 to 2012: a systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346–1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, J., Freestone, M., McKoy, K., & Duckworth, B. (2018). Types, topics and trends: a ten-year review of research journals in science education. Education sciences, 8(73), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 579–599). Routledge.

  • Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skamp, K., & Preston, C. (2020). Teaching primary science constructively (7th edn.). Melbourne: Cengage. [in press].

  • Taber, K. (2018). The use of Cronbach alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. RISE, 48(6), 1273–1296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P., & Settlemaier, E. (2003). Critical autobiographical research for science educators. Journal of Science Education in Japan, 27, 233–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tippet, C., Gonzalez, R., & Milford, T. (2019). A thematic review of early childhood research published in RISE, 1971–2019. Paper presented at the Australasian Science Education Research Conference, Queenstown.

  • Treagust, D., Won, M., & Duit, R. (2014). Paradigms in science education research. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 3–15). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C., & Wen, M. (2005). Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: a content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, D., O’Connor, M., Smart, D., & Edwards. (2016). A critical review of the early childhood literature. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Early Childhood Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. (1997). Trends in research in science education. Research in Science education, 27(92), 215–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The ASERA board for providing the opportunity to undertake this review of RISE; it was a privilege and a pleasure. Reviewers: their critiques and insights improved the final version of this paper.

Former editors of RISE (Campbell McRobbie, Stephen Ritchie, and David Geelan) provided feedback on a draft version of this paper; their input was appreciated.

Marty Williams, Liaison Librarian, Southern Cross University, was extremely helpful in negotiating the use of Scopus and WoS databases.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, Australia

    Keith Skamp

Authors
  1. Keith Skamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith Skamp.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Typical topics in the NARST research themes (Lee et al. 2009, p.2003) and Chang et al.’s (2010, pp. 315–23) areas

  1. 1.

    Teacher education: Pre-service and continuing professional development of teachers; teacher education programs and policy; field experience; issues related to teacher education reform.

  2. 2.

    Teaching: Teacher cognition; pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge; forms of knowledge representation; exemplary teachers; teacher thinking; teaching behaviors and strategies.

  3. 3.

    Learning—students’ conceptions and conceptual change (Learning—conception): Methods for investigating student understanding; students’ alternative conceptions; instructional approaches for conceptual change; conceptual change in learners; conceptual development.

  4. 4.

    Learning—classroom contexts and learner characteristics (Learning—context): Student motivation; learning environment; individual differences; reasoning; learning approaches; exceptionality; teacher–student interactions; peer interactions; laboratory environments; affective dimensions of science learning; cooperative learning; language, writing, and discourse in learning; social, political, and economic factors.

  5. 5.

    Goals and policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment: Curriculum development, change, implementation, dissemination and evaluation; social analysis of curriculum; alternative forms of assessment; teacher evaluation; educational measurement; identifying effective schools; curriculum policy and reform.

  6. 6.

    Cultural, social and gender issues: Multicultural and bilingual issues; ethnic issues; gender issues; comparative studies; issues of diversity related to science teaching and learning.

  7. 7.

    History, philosophy, epistemology, and nature of science: Historical issues; philosophical issues; epistemological issues; ethical and moral issues; nature of science.

  8. 8.

    Educational technology: Computers; interactive multimedia; video; integration of technology into teaching; learning and assessment involving the use of technology.

  9. 9.

    Informal Learning: Science learning in informal contexts (e.g., museums, outdoor settings, etc.); public awareness of science.

Chang et al.’s areas: Scientific concept, Instructional practice, Conceptual change and concept mapping, Professional development; Conceptual change and analogy; Nature of science and socio-scientific issues; Reasoning skill and problem solving; Attitude and gender; and Design-based and urban education.

Appendix 2

Table 11 NARST research themes 7V analysis (1994–2018): Percentage (number of papers)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Skamp, K. Research in Science Education (RISE): A Review (and Story) of Research in RISE Articles (1994–2018). Res Sci Educ 52, 205–237 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09934-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09934-w

Key Words

Search

Navigation