NARST: a lived history

OP- ED ESSAY

NARST: a lived history

Paul Joslin Æ Karen S. Stiles Æ J. Stanley Marshall Æ O. Roger Anderson ÆJames J. Gallagher Æ Jane Butler Kahle Æ Peter Fensham ÆRuben Lazarowitz Æ Leonie J. Rennie Æ Barry Fraser Æ John R. Staver ÆAlejandro Gallard Æ Marıa Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre Æ Justin Dillon ÆHedy Moscovici Æ Hsiao-Lin Tuan Æ Christopher Emdin Æ Kenneth Tobin ÆWolff-Michael Roth

Received: 31 October 2007 / Accepted: 31 October 2007 / Published online: 4 December 2007� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract In this Forum, we construct a history of the National Association for Research inScience Education (NARST) through the analysis of documents and through the personal

perspectives of individuals. The history of NARST is inseparable from the biography of the

individuals through whose lives it was produced and reproduced. The history of NARST is a

living history that both shapes and was shaped by the biographies of its members.

Keywords Science education � History � Biography � Research � Professional associations

Introduction

Kenneth Tobin and Wolff-Michael Roth

As soon as we became aware of the history written by Paul Joslin and Karen Murphy (now

Stiles) we thought of it as a valuable contribution to the self-understanding of science

education and wanted our community to know some of the (hi-)stories of our past. To our

dismay, the gatekeepers at the time that regulated what could and could not be published

were adamant that the text was not ready for publication. However, we did not forget the

paper and when Cultural Studies of Science Education emerged as an international journal

we were determined to provide alternatives to the other journals that publish scholarly

works in science education. We regard history as integral to understanding the culture of a

discipline, what and how it is happening in the present, and what might and should happen

in the future. Accordingly, we quickly acted to initiate a genre of publication in CSSE in

which we acknowledged Key Contributors. The first of these was Oscar Kawagley, whose

contributions we honored in Issue 2 of 2007; it was followed by a review of Ernst von

Glasersfeld’s contributions to science education. In this first issue of the third year of our

P. Joslin � K. S. Stiles � J. S. Marshall � O. R. Anderson � J. J. Gallagher �J. B. Kahle � P. Fensham � RubenLazarowitz � L. J. Rennie � B. Fraser �J. R. StaverA. Gallard � M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre � J. Dillon � H. Moscovici �H.-L. Tuan � C. Emdin � K. Tobin (&) � W.-M. RothThe Graduate Center of City, University of New York, New York, NY 10016-4309, USAe-mail: [email protected]

123

Cult Stud of Sci Educ (2008) 3:157–207DOI 10.1007/s11422-007-9079-4

journal’s existence, we extend the series by featuring the Key Contributions of Mary

Atwater. Having addressed a need to feature the scholarly works of individuals we decided

to feature professional organizations, beginning with the oldest and largest research

organization in science education, the National Association for Research in Science

Teaching (NARST).

Through our network of colleagues we tracked down Paul Joslin, who had been in

retirement for more than a decade. Paul willingly agreed to submit the Joslin and Stiles

manuscript for publication. We then began to identify others who could contribute to a

Forum on the history of NARST. The text prepared by Joslin and Stiles suggested a certain

approach. First, we were intrigued with the high priority given to NARST having its own

journal and then the way in which Science Education became the journal and the sub-

sequent perturbations that led to the birth of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching(JRST). Accordingly, we approached two of the pioneers with JRST, Stanley Marshall and

O. Roger Anderson. Their perspectives were highly informative and from Anderson’s

writing we decided to follow-up with a further dimension to historical analyses, an analysis

of the contributions of great science education institutions. We were struck by the fact that

Anderson had been at Teachers College since 1964, where some of his predecessors were

highly influential. These influential individuals include Willard Jacobsen, the recipient of

NARST’s Distinguished Contributions Award in 1989. We are pleased to announce that

Anderson has agreed to pick up on Jacobsen’s earlier historical analysis of Teachers

College’s contributions to science education and bring it up to date. We anticipate this to

be the first of many rich histories that will document what has been accomplished inter-

nationally in the leading research centers for research in science education.

A history of an organization is created through the activities of participants. In this case,

the history of NARST can be represented in many ways, depending on whose lives are used

in the telling. In this forum we decided to include five senior science educators who have

been leaders within science education and yet are very different in their foci and ways of

contributing to science education and society through research in science education. James

Gallagher was one of the pioneers of using qualitative genres of research in science education

and prior to that he was a leader of a science education center at Michigan State University.

He has extensive links internationally and in a distinguished career in science education, he

served as editor of JRST and received NARST’s Distinguished Contributions Award in 1998.

Jane Butler Kahle was not the first woman to participate with success in NARST, but

she surely was among the first to be quite influential. Her work on gender research was

pioneering and she was a consistent voice for gender equity and a model for female

scholars to emulate. Many of the present day women in science education have been

mentored by Jane and her studies in gender and systemic reform have paved the way for

policymakers to pay attention to inclusion and to ensure that females are involved in ways

that lead to their success. Her inclusion in this forum was easily justified as a former

President of NARST, 2000 recipient of the Distinguished Contributions Award, and a

longtime leader of scholars in science education.

Peter Fensham was the first professor of science education in Australia. Even though he

retired from Monash University, he has continued his tireless leadership in science edu-

cation. Like Gallagher and Butler Kahle, Fensham was recipient of the Distinguished

Contributions Award (1999) and he was the founder of the Australian Science Education

Research Association (ASERA, now Australasian). In his contribution to this forum he

touches on some of the commonalities between NARST and ASERA and addresses

NARST’s efforts to be an international organization. In Volume 4 of CSSE, ASERA is the

next science education organization whose history we will feature.

158 P. Joslin et al.

123

Reuven Lazarowitz is a leading science educator from Israel. Like so many overseas

scholars in science education Lazarowitz came to the United States to seek his doctoral

degree (at the University of Texas) and to participate in some of the other critical initiatives

that were underway. In his case he was involved in the Biological Sciences Curriculum

Study and was inducted into NARST by famous science educators, including Addison Lee,

David Butts and James Barufaldi. Lazarowitz’s perspective on NARST is interesting

because it is clear in these contributions that the NARST annual meeting was not always

the most friendly place for new doctoral graduates and those for whom English is not a first

language. His is the first of several contributions from science educators from outside of

the United States. Also, the extent to which NARST provided a nurturing environment for

emerging scholars is explored throughout this Forum.

Finally, we asked Leonie Rennie to participate in the forum because she was inspired by

Butler Kahle’s scholarship and in some regards followed in her footsteps. However, after

some gender-equity studies her focus and leadership was in the fledgling field of informal

science education. As a woman from Australia, she published extensively and inducted

many of her doctoral students into NARST. Hence, she is uniquely placed to review her

life in NARST from several standpoints that provide interesting insights into the evolution

of NARST since the period reviewed in Joslin and Stiles’ initial contribution.

Having paved the way for different standpoints to be laid out, we selected eight NARST

members from across the career spectrum, some from within the United States and some

from overseas, to write shorter pieces to capture a theme or event that was salient to them

vis a vis their participation in NARST. Barry Fraser, a former NARST President and

Distinguished Contributions Award recipient in 2003 writes about the plan to conduct a

NARST annual meeting in Europe and the development of strands within NARST. The

themes of international influence and the presence of strands are important issues in the

history of NARST and are addressed later by other contributors to the forum.

John Staver, also a former President of NARST and Executive Secretary, relates how a

change to the contract with the publisher of JRST led to a sudden change in the revenue

flow into NARST and continues to this today to provide a cash flow that opens possibilities

for the mission and evolution of the organization.

Alejandro Gallard addresses language imperialism and a brief effort of NARST to allow

authors to present in their native languages. That this effort lasted only a short time is

discussed by Gallard and raises issues that are taken up by Hsiao-Lin Tuan in a later

contribution in which she addresses English imperialism and the problems of the domi-

nance of Western worldviews in shaping the agenda for research in science education.

First, Marıa Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre and then Justin Dillon address internationalization,

the potential for collaboration, and the emergence of the European Science EducationResearch Association (ESERA). With the advent of ESERA it seems clear now that plans

to hold NARST meetings outside of North America probably will never eventuate and

mature forms of collaboration are building among many of the research associations. We

plan to feature the history of ESERA in Volume 5 of CSSE.

Hedy Moscovici, an immigrant science educator from Israel, returns to an issue raised by

Gallagher in his contribution. She focuses on qualitative research and legitimacy, presenting

a vignette from the 1993 annual meeting of NARST and publication trends in JRST.

Last, but certainly not least, Christopher Emdin, a new assistant professor from

Teachers College, Columbia, describes his first NARST meeting and explains how NARST

is a place for him to learn and become a seasoned science educator. Just as several of the

other contributors has done, Emdin raises issues about the roles of others in structuring

experience and making NARST what it has been, is, and will become.

NARST: a lived history 159

123

Highlights of the history of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching(1928–1988)

Paul H. Joslin1 and Karen S. Stiles

This paper is a summary of the history of the National Association for Research in ScienceTeaching (NARST), a doctoral dissertation done by Karen S. Murphy, and completed at

Drake University, May 1992. It touches on four recurring themes in the association’s

history: its organization, membership, annual meetings and publications for the 60-year

period 1928–1988. Information in this paper is drawn directly from Murphy’s dissertation

and sources for what is reported here are credited there.

The rationale for this study included three main elements: (a) Science is more than an

evolving, organized body of knowledge; it is a community of practitioners. While objec-

tivity compels an attempt to separate the contribution from the contributor, this is not

possible. Thus, science is also the history of its organizations and their members. NARST

is an active member of the science community and its history should be recorded. (b) The

contributions of NARST members about science education are part of the body of

knowledge about science; these should be recorded in that larger body. (c) Knowledge of

the history of an organization is essential for it to maintain a functional identity.

Background

Karen was encouraged for writing this history by a number of people, three in particular:

NARST members, Rodger W. Bybee, Willard J. Jacobson, and Paul H. Joslin. In an article

published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (1982), Bybee expressed a

regretful lack of studies on the history of science education. Jacobson had written short

histories of both NARST and the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science,

now the Association for Science Teacher Education (AETS) and was concerned that the

influential and colorful history of NARST, and related science education organizations, not

be lost. Bybee and Jacobson both urged the writing of NARST’s history and were most

helpful in the subsequent work of doing so.

Upon his appointment in 1975 as the first executive secretary of NARST, Joslin was

dismayed that the association had no archive and that available records were unclassified

and disorganized. However, he recognized that these were among the reasons for the move

to appoint a university-supported executive secretary to replace a part-time secretary and

part-time treasurer. Using board-adopted guidelines he organized the several boxes of

records on hand, and at the completion of his term as executive secretary agreed to serve as

archivist.

The NARST organization

Founded in 1928

NARST is one of the oldest and most prestigious of education organizations in the United

States. NARST was formally founded on February 29, 1928 after 2 days of discussions by

1 e-mail: [email protected]


123

a group of science educators who met to discuss the formation of an organization focused

on science teaching. The founding group consisted of 17 of about 35 persons who had been

invited to meet while in Boston to attend meetings of the Department of Superintendence

of the National Education Association. The group met as guests of the Harvard School of

Education at the Colonial Club in nearby Cambridge.

Background to NARST’s founding

The formation of NARST appears to have been an outgrowth of the influence of studies on

science teaching done in the 1920s by a few active and talented individuals in centers of

interest in teachers colleges in East Stroudsburg, PA, Pittsburgh, KS, and Greeley, CO and

the universities of Columbia, Michigan, and Nebraska. These studies were published by

Frances D. Curtis in Digests of Investigations in the Teaching of Science (1926). Curtis had

searched the pedagogical literature of the previous 20 years for learning and curriculum

research studies in science that were supported by objective data. These summaries were

source materials used by a small group of university and college faculty to develop units,

courses and seminars devoted to the topic of science teaching.

These early science educators would meet at national and regional meetings and also for

special seminars in the summer. The seminars, where the works reported by Curtis were

discussed, resulted in an expressed need to define the field, and to set up criteria for research

in science teaching that would reflect the scientific movement in education. Paul Hurd, who,

as a graduate student, attended some of these seminars, reported that concerns would surface

that included: improvement of research critique methods, the importance of publishing

studies, the advisability of an organization of science teachers, the need for a professional

organization for research in science teaching, and a journal dedicated to this end.

Move to found a national organization of science teachers

Some movements had already been made in the direction of a national organization of

science teachers. In 1926 a special committee of the Central Association of Science and

Mathematics Teachers was appointed to explore the advisability of promoting the for-

mation of a national council of science teachers. In 1927 the committee recommended that

such a national council be formed. However, the association refused to act. Some members

of the group, (that subsequently met to form NARST), met in the corridors after the

meeting and expressed disappointment. One of them, W. L. Eikenberry, State Teachers

College, East Stroudsburg, PA, suggested that something would be done only if some one

person took matters into hand and called together an interested group. After returning home

he sent letters to about 35 persons inviting them to the Boston meeting that subsequently

resulted in the formation of NARST.

NARST gets off to a solid start

The organizational accomplishments of this first group are admirable. After only 2 days

this small group had a new national organization with 17 members, an executive com-

mittee, a name, and a purpose—to promote scientific study of problems of science teaching

and to disseminate the results of such study. Within a year the Association had a template


123

for future meetings, stated qualifications for membership, and a journal. (See later

sections.) A constitution and bylaws were approved at the third meeting in 1930.

The founders of NARST had not really set out to form an organization with a focus on

research. Rather, they wanted to form a national organization for science teachers which

would include teachers from all levels and with varying roles including their own as college

professors responsible for teacher training, curriculum development, and related research.

After forming NARST the original aspirations were subsequently fulfilled as follows:

1933 Under the aegis of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) NARSTmembers assist with formation of the American Science Teachers Association (ASTA).NARST member Harry A Carpenter is elected its first president. He later (1941–1942) servesas President of NARST.

1942 A subcommittee of the National Committee on Science Teaching of the National EducationAssociation (NEA), chaired by NARST member Ira Davis, after contacting other relatedorganizations, recommends forming a national council of science teachers. The result is thereorganization of NEA’s Department of Science Instruction into the American Council ofScience Teachers (ACST).

1942–1944

Because of World War II, membership in ASTA and ACST decline and scheduled meetings arecanceled. The need for one strong organization of, and for, science teachers continues.

1944 Under leadership of NARST members Philip Johnson and Morris Meister, ASTA and ACST aremerged to form the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).

A central unifying theme

Throughout records examined for this NARST history there runs a conceptual thread that

defines attempts to bind all those engaged in science education into one group for the

common purpose of enabling all persons to receive the highest quality science education

apart from specific contributions whether K-12 science teacher; university science teacher

and researcher; or university science educator with its several roles of methods instructor,

student teacher supervisor, developer of curricular and instructional materials and science

education researcher.

The history of NARST reveals a movement from this larger inclusive position in the 30s

and 40s, to one of isolation and aloofness in the late 50s and 60s, then back in the 70s to the

more egalitarian mode. While each period can lay claim to accomplishments, the present

growth in membership, the solid professional and organizational structure of the associ-

ation, the flowering of productivity of NARST’s members and the increasing influence of

the results of research in practice are, in the authors’ views, testament to the wisdom and

efficacy of the more inclusive view of the field of science education and of membership in

NARST.

NARST incorporated in 1961

NARST was incorporated on January 27, 1961, under the laws of the state of Minnesota.

The document is signed by eight members. Emeritus member and 1961 president, Clarence

(Harry) Boeck, is credited with the work of achieving this milestone. The articles of

incorporation were signed by Boeck and seven other members. For business and legal


123

reasons the process of incorporation was closely related to the process of founding the

Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

Executive board has responsibility for NARST’s business

Responsibility for the official business affairs of NARST has always rested with an

executive committee, or board, operating with some pragmatic mix of advice, acquies-

cence, and voted approval of the membership at regularly convened business meetings held

at the time of the annual meetings. In early years the annual business meeting was held in

conjunction with a dinner meeting, usually on an evening preceding other scheduled

events. Later, the business meeting was divorced from the dinner with special speakers

added to the latter event. In 1974, with the initiation of the JRST Award, the presentation

of awards and special recognitions were added to the dinner program.

Current bylaws call for annual business meetings but in recent years they have been

poorly attended. It is reasonable to infer that the members are quite satisfied to leave

business and organizational details to the elected executive board.

Office of executive secretary

The period of the late 60s and early 70s were tumultuous for those in the profession of

science education. The major science education centers grew, new university science

education centers were established, new doctoral programs were initiated and, in general,

research and developmental activities were well supported by federal funds. The effect on

NARST was also tumultuous. Membership increased dramatically, and concomitantly the

communal views of members on the purposes and functions of NARST also changed. The

work of the elected secretary, and treasurer, increased well beyond what could be properly

and accurately done on a part-time basis.

In 1974, president-elect Robert Yager assessed the situation and proposed significant

changes in the bylaws and operating procedures. The recommended changes were

approved by the membership. One crucial recommendation was to establish an office of

executive secretary with appropriate institutional support for the appointee. Proposals were

solicited, and at the 1975 spring meeting in Los Angeles, the executive board approved a

proposal from Paul Joslin of Drake University for a 5-year term.

This proved to be a wise move. The condition of the association was stabilized as the

various business aspects such as finances, membership, board meetings and policies, and

annual meeting planning were handled in systematic and timely ways. The 5-year insti-

tutional agreement plan continued with improvements in kind and amount of institutional

support. Joslin’s successors Bill Holliday (University of Calgary), Glenn Markle (Uni-

versity of Cincinnati), and John Staver (University of Kansas) received a stable foundation

which made it possible for them to gradually bring NARST to its present exemplary

position as one of the best-managed of professional organizations in the nation.

NARST committees

In the early years, committees were organized around grade level or special interest

research. Examples of pre-WWII special interest research committees included education


123

of science teachers, scientific attitudes, guidance in science, curriculum, methods, evalu-

ation, and audiovisual materials. Postwar research committee report topics include atomic

energy, problem-solving, educational trends, research funding, needed research in tech-

nology, and reviews of research.

As the association changed in the 60s special sessions for committee meetings were no

longer in the program and the committee concerns shifted from research to organizational.

Samples from the period include: archives, amenities, Curtis Digests, recruitment of

women, NARST’s structure and function, publications, international relations, relations

with mathematics educators, and relations with other organizations. In 1993 there are 12

standing committees, five for awards, five for organizational duties, an international

committee, and a research committee.

Membership

Reasons for joining NARST

Why join NARST? Murphy (1992) asked this in a questionnaire to a random sample of

members. The most important reason appeared to be a professional interest in science

education research. Notes by respondents included the following ideas: an excellent journal

to be informed by, and to publish in; an annual meeting where work may be presented and

critiqued; and in general an efficacious vehicle for professional communication. Associated

reasons included: opportunities for career advancement, support for personal growth,

opportunities to participate in professional activities, and an avenue for meeting potential

research colleagues.

Early membership requirements

In the early years membership criteria were high and the application process was rigid.

The application was two pages in length, and in addition to information drawn from a

professional vita, included personal items such as spouse’s name; names, sexes and

ages of children; present activities and interests; and church membership or preference.

A photograph was also required. Prospective members had to be recommended by a

member, the application examined by the Board and then approved by a vote of the

members in a mailed ballot prior to the annual meeting. Membership in NARST

conveyed fellow status in AAAS. NARST membership was considered to be a privilege

and an honor.

Membership purposes evolve

Statements of membership in the bylaws changed over the years moving generally from

restrictive and exclusive to egalitarian and inclusive. A reading of some of these statements

reveals an evolving common thread from 1928 to 1993.

1928: …membership in the association be of those interested in the supervision of

science and in teacher training work for science teachers and all such others as may be

elected to membership by the association. It is quite interesting to note the lack of reference

to research in this statement in a new organization with research in its name.


123

This lack was apparently noted and resulted in a change in the membership statement in

the final draft of the constitution adopted at the third meeting in 1930. This statement

follows: The association shall have unlimited membership among those who by training

and work have shown their interest in the efficient teaching of science and who have

demonstrated ability in the field of educational research whether in elementary school, the

junior or senior high school, the college, or the teacher training school. Individuals who

have contributed outstanding service of any nature may, upon recommendation of the

executive committee and approval of members, be admitted to membership.

In 1948 the requirements were tightened to include a reference to having produced a

publishable report: This association shall have unlimited membership among those who by

training and work have shown their interest in the improvement of science teaching in any

field, and who have contributed philosophical or statistical studies or applications of

research, which contributions shall have been made accessible through a suitable publi-

cation or report. Individuals who have contributed outstanding service to the advancement

of science in education may, upon recommendation of the executive committee and

approval of the membership, be admitted to the association.

Changes were made in 1975 to make the description more general and to thereby widen

membership: This association shall consist of Members who have had the preparation,

demonstrated the competence, and evidenced the interest to make important research

contributions to the field of science education. The usual preparation for members is

advanced graduate work in science education or its equivalent. Competence is usually

demonstrated by a report of a research study or of an application of research in science

education.

In 1991 new bylaws simplified all previous membership statements to the following:

This association shall consist of members who are working toward improving science

education through research. The current application procedure is equally simple: Supply

name, address, phone and FAX numbers, E-mail identity, and a check to cover current

dues.

Present status

As authors of this paper we shall leave it to NARST members and others to decide whether

the quality of members has been affected by these liberalized changes in membership

criteria. From the authors’ viewpoint, in 1993, NARST appears strong and vibrant and is

fulfilling the founders’ visions for a viable association in the field of science education.

Membership categories

NARST has had several categories of membership: Charter, regular, associate, patron,

sustaining, life, honorary life, emeritus and student. Initially, the charter members were the

17 who attended the first meeting. At the third annual meeting in 1930 a resolution was

adopted granting charter membership status to all who had been invited to the founding

meeting and who had also responded and had paid dues in the first year, 32 in all.

Life memberships at $100 each were instituted with the adoption of the first constitution in

1930. Two honorary life members were elected at the 1935 meeting with the association

appropriating the membership fees. No more were elected until 1948 and no evidence for such

elections were found subsequent to 1955. This membership category was eliminated in 1969.


123

The patron category was created in 1963 at the time of birth of the new Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching. The idea apparently arose in discussions regarding the

potential increase in financial obligations associated with the new journal. Patrons were to

be heads of businesses and industries that would join for a $100 fee. Three hundred

companies in fields related to science education were solicited; sixteen memberships were

obtained.

In 1975 the patron member concept was changed to include individuals, presumably

persons who might otherwise be regular members, but who would pay the higher dues in

the form of a contribution. A patron’s award was established to honor the author of the

best research proposal presented at the annual meeting on a topic designated by the

Research Committee. The award was to be a wall plaque plus $1,000 to help the recipient

carry out the research. The award was never given because the money was not raised and

criteria for selecting the topic and the awardee proved too difficult to specify. The

Patron’s Award was changed to recognize that paper given at the annual meeting judged

to have the greatest significance and potential in the field of science education. In 1992

the title of the award was changed to the NARST Award. The associate category was

established in 1964 to make it possible for graduate students, interested lay persons, and

others, who did not qualify for regular memberships to join. Associate members would

not have voting rights, could not hold office, would not be recommended as fellows in

AAAS but otherwise could fully participate in the Association’s activities. This mem-

bership category continued for 11 years but was eliminated in 1975 along with significant

changes in the bylaws and operating policies. When the associate membership category

was eliminated in 1975 a new sustaining membership was created. The Policy Committee

recommended this for members who might wish to make a financial contribution by

paying double regular dues.

The emeritus membership category for retirees was created in 1977. Emeritus members

would be elected by the board and would receive full rights and privileges without cost,

except for the journal, which they could receive at the member contract rate.

Female, Black and international members

The first female member was Florence G. Billig, Supervisor of Science, Sacramento, CA,

who, at the 1930 annual meeting, gave the first presentation by a female. She was elected

to the Executive Committee in 1941 and served as president 1943–1945. Betty Lock-

wood served as President 1951–1952. Thirty years later, and from 1984 to 1991, four

women served as president: Ann Howe (1984), Linda DeTure (1988), Patricia Blosser

(1989), and Jane Butler Kahle (1991). Women as a percentage of the membership

increased gradually as indicated by the following checkpoints: Before WWII, there were

10%, in 1948, there were 16%, and in 1987 there were 28%. At present, females are very

active in committee and other leadership positions in the association. Later in this forum

Jane Butler Kahle addresses issues pertaining to females in science education and

NARST.

The first Black member of record was Thomas P. Fraser who joined in 1949 and who

stated that he joined, to assist in attaining national prestige [and] to demonstrate my

capacity for leadership. He was elected president in 1959. Subsequently, other Black

members have served on the Board and in many other leadership capacities.

The first international member to attend a meeting was a German who presented a paper

at the fourth annual meeting in 1931. International membership has included Canadians but


123

in spite of the organization’s title they probably have not been thought of as international.

Canadian members have served on the executive board and also for years on the editorial

board of JRST. The office of executive secretary was located in Canada 1980–1985.

While there have been members from many countries who joined briefly, three coun-

tries, other than Canada, have been more-or-less continuously represented since about

1953: Australia, Israel, and Nigeria. An International Committee was established in 1977

and in 1989 was made a standing committee.

International members currently serve on the executive board and on the editorial board

of JRST as well as on many committees. NARST members have been very active in

promoting international meetings of science educators in Mexico, Australia, and Israel.

International attendance at annual meetings has increased. The meeting at which this paper

was presented scheduled Spanish language sessions. Alejandro Gallard addresses the

emergence and subsequent disappearance of foreign language presentations later in this

Forum.

Membership growth

Membership grew from the original 17 in 1928 to nearly to nearly 70 in 1936. It remained

in the 70s until 1946. In 1947 it jumped to 111 and the next year to 160. From 1949

membership grew steadily to 363 in 1963. In 1965 it increased to over 500. It grew to 932

in 1972. This was the exact same number 20 years later in 1992!

Annual meetings

Since, its founding in 1928 NARST has held annual national meetings except for the war

years 1943–1946. Regional meetings were held in 1943 and 1944 but not in 1945 and

1946. These exceptions were in response to a governmental request to refrain from holding

national meetings. Early meetings were held mostly in the northeast quadrant of the US. In

Atlantic City (11), Chicago (7), Cleveland (6), and New York (4), all cities readily

accessible by train by the membership which was mostly concentrated in the same region.

As the membership grew in the 60s an attempt was apparently made to accommodate

members from all over the US by meeting in Chicago, a city easily accessible by either

train or airplane.

Societal effects on meeting location

The coming of jet planes made it possible to meet almost anywhere in the US without great

inconvenience to any member. The first west coast meeting was in 1969 in Pasadena. The

only western meeting outside of California was in Dallas in 1983. The first international

site for a NARST meeting was Toronto in 1978.

Societal issues directly affected the scheduling of two other meetings. The 1952 meeting

was scheduled to be held in St. Louis. However, the Executive Committee, meeting in 1951,

voted unanimously to reconsider the planned meeting site of St. Louis, because certain

members could not attend meetings in St. Louis. Chicago was then selected.

A similar situation arose regarding the 1982 meeting. NARST was scheduled to meet

with the American Education Research Association (AERA) but their meeting was moved


123

from St. Louis to New York City because of concerns about possible public demonstrations

regarding a proposed equal rights amendment. This would have resulted in two consecutive

meetings for NARST on the East coast and the meeting was therefore moved to Chicago.

Meetings scheduled with other national organizations

From the time of NARST’s founding its leaders made a conscientious effort to synchronize

NARST annual meeting dates and locations with those of various other education organi-

zations. Reasons given included improving attendance, increasing the Association’s

visibility, reducing time involvement, limiting travel and other costs, and providing con-

venience to attend sessions of the other organizations. Through the 1940s most of NARST’s

meetings, including the first, coincided with annual conferences of the Department of

Superintendence of the NEA. It appears that this may have continued into the 50s when the

administrators group became the American Association of School Administrators (AASA).

In addition to AASA, other education organizations were often mentioned in con-

junction with NARST annual meetings. Two of these, NSSE (National Society for the

Study of Education), and NCSES (National Council of Supervisors of Elementary Sci-

ence), later CESI (Council for Elementary Science International) met with NARST in

1932. NARST held at least fourteen meetings with CESI.

Next in frequency of joint meetings is AERA. Seven annual meeting programs recorded

joint sessions, the first in 1934. The membership liked meeting with AERA and asked the

executive committee to continue the relationship, which continued until the post-Sputnik

era of the 60s when NSTA gained significantly in prominence. An increase in overlap of

membership between NARST and NSTA prompted the NARST leadership to plan some

meetings to immediately precede or follow the NSTA national meeting.

Holding meetings just prior to, or just following, meetings of AERA and NSTA proved

popular but the membership remained divided on which organization they preferred to meet

with. In 1970 the Board approved a policy of meeting in alternate years with AERA and

NSTA. However, there ensued a running debate on this policy based on members’ pref-

erences of meeting with one group or the other. The alternate-year policy is still in effect.

In 1981, due to high hotel costs in New York City, NARST met at a resort hotel in New

York’s Catskill Mountains about 90 miles northwest of New York City. This venue proved

so popular that the practice of attempting to schedule annual meetings at a resort near the

city in which NSTA or AERA was meeting has been continued. (Members, especially from

Israel, Australia and Nigeria, who attended the 1982 meeting at a resort on Lake Geneva,

northwest of Chicago, recall and animatedly describe, the 7-hour bus ride from Chicago

through a spring blizzard. They also report the great camaraderie that developed while

isolated at the resort for 3 days after the storm.)

Reasons for attending NARST annual meetings

A 1972 questionnaire mailed to a random sample of 100 members, with 74 respondents,

asked for reasons for attending an annual meeting. Of eleven reasons cited the three most

important were intellectual stimulation, getting new ideas, and communication with other

researchers. The three least important were: job seeking, job recruiting, and affecting

public policy. Later questionnaires upheld these reasons. On a survey following the 1982

meeting, 100 percent of respondents either agreed, or agreed strongly, with the following


123

items: (a) The NARST annual meeting provides a suitable forum for presenting and

discussing research. (b) The annual meeting is a place to get and share ideas.

Members’ impressions of first meetings

Members’ impressions of their first meeting are quite revealing and paint a picture of

gradual change in the consistency, format and atmosphere of NARST annual meetings.

Members who joined in the 30s, 40s, and 50s frequently mentioned the business meetings

where there were intense discussions of such topics as purposes, membership criteria, how

to communicate research findings, proper funding, and meeting venues. Impressions from

the 40s, 50s, and 60s focused on the paper sessions and the discussions they generated.

Until 1966 all attendees met in one room. Research papers and dissertation results were

presented to the entire group and were followed by intense discussions and fervent debate.

This frequently produced high levels of stress in graduate students presenting reports of

their dissertations. This stress was aggravated by certain members noted for their intense

questioning. Frequently such debate was led on the one side by the adviser of the graduate

student and on the other side by a dominant and vocal challenger.

The following terms occur in reports of meetings of this period: combative, battle-

ground, waiting to pounce on recent PhDs. However, those reporting these incidents look

back on these encounters with good humor and also with some measure of reflective

appreciation for having been intellectually challenged in a type of professional initiation.

The following terms in members’ recollections seem to support this inference: exciting,

enthusiasm, great colleagueship, dedicated members, stature of the membership.

Program planning

For the first 7 years the executive committee planned the program. The 1935 meeting was

planned by a program committee. The size of the program committee has increased with

the size of the program but its basic duties have remained mostly unchanged: to establish a

theme, arrange for special speakers and symposia, to evaluate abstracts for contributed

papers, and to evaluate the annual meeting. The president-elect chairs the committee and

the executive secretary is an ex-officio member.

While all submitted papers are evaluated anonymously, there has never been a firm

policy on accepting or rejecting papers. In 1979, Program Chair John Renner recom-

mended liberalizing acceptance procedures and standards. He took the position that nearly

all papers should be accepted, and that members hearing the papers should be the ultimate

evaluators of quality. Accordingly, the program committee reduced the rejection rate from

about 40 percent to about 8 percent and also enlarged the program by offering more

concurrent sessions.

Program structure

As might be expected, the annual meeting program format, composition, and length have

changed over the years but an examination of the records reveals few consistent, direc-

tional patterns. The first programmed meeting in 1929 was 3 hours in length. It included a

report by a public school administrator, seven papers, and the distribution of ten


123

mimeographed progress reports of research by Association members. The following year’s

program was 2 days in length and provided more time for contributed papers. In 1932 the

program length was increased to 3 days and with only a few exceptions this has been the

typical program length since. The 1938 meeting was 5 days in length and was split

between two venues, 2 days in Philadelphia, followed by three in Atlantic City.

Program structure and types of sessions have varied considerably, changing and

evolving in no discernible pattern. In 1966 the number of contributed papers increased

from 35 to 70 and resulted in the first concurrent sessions. The number of concurrent

sessions per program time period increased and has remained at a fairly typical five.

Program session types have been quite varied.

The 1974 program indicates the range of these: general sessions, special symposia,

contributed symposia, paper sets, discussion papers, research reports, panels, clinics,

center caucuses, contributed papers and informal discussions. Plus ‘‘hour with’’ ses-

sions—with the president, editor of the journal, or members conducting research having

special interest to others. The latter category was instituted to provide time in the program

for persons with similar research interests to meet for the purposes of open discussion of

research topics, but more importantly to plan cooperative, collaborative studies on

selected research topics. These session titles continue to appear in recent programs with

the addition of several others such as pre-session training workshops, clinics, and strand

meetings.

While an important effort, tracing research thrusts across the years as evidenced by

program presentation titles to discern changing patterns was beyond the scope of this paper

and the dissertation which served as its resource.

Annual meeting attendance

Prior to World War I1 attendance at the annual dinner and business meeting averaged

about 25 and ranged from 40 to 60% of the membership with the highest in the early years

and the lowest just before the war. For the 15 years following the war 11 to 29% of the

membership attended the meetings. During the 70s and 80s registration rarely fell below

200 and in 1971 (in Silver Spring, MD) attendance reached a high of 470. Data from the

years 1969–1980 indicate that attendance for AERA associated meetings was just under

30% and for NSTA associated meetings about 50%. In recent years member attendance at

annual meetings has averaged about 37%.

Publications

NARST’s two journals

A goal of the founders to publicize the results of studies in the field of science teaching was

realized immediately. From its inception NARST had a journal and throughout its history

has produced varied high-quality publications. In addition to the journals, these have

included a newsletter, yearbooks, abstracts of papers presented at the annual meeting, and

special publications such as single topic monographs. NARST has had two journals,

Science Education from 1929 to 1961 and the Journal of Research in Science Teachingfrom 1961 to the present. The first was a result of a convenient confluence of events. The

second was the result of an amalgam of an emerging need, tribulations with an obstinate


123

owner/editor of Science Education and immeasurable patience, diplomacy and extreme

diligence of a small number of dedicated members.

Science education, NARST’s first journal

Only 13 months after its founding meeting the first issue of a NARST-sponsored journal

was published. The cover read Science Education: The Science Magazine for All ScienceTeachers and Formerly General Science Quarterly. Since the journal had formerly been

the General Science Quarterly, the volume and issue numbers continued from where the

Quarterly ended. Thus, the first official NARST journal was Volume 13, Issue 4. Sub-

scription cost was $1.50 per year or $0.40 per copy.

In an editorial in this first issue, Walter G. Whitman, owner and editor, described the

need to move away from support of general science which had proved its worth, towards an

attack on the pressing problems of science education which should be done in a scientific

manner. He emphasized the need for a journal whose only purpose would be to report this

great work. He concluded by stating, ‘‘Such a journal has been started—you are now

reading from its first number. Its name is Science Education.’’

Background to the first journal

Shortly after the first meeting new president W. L. Eikenberry appointed the first NARST

committee, a committee on publications. This fact emphasizes the importance the founders

placed on establishing vehicles for dissemination of information relevant to their field.

While all members agreed on the need for a publication, the means for accomplishing this

were neither clear nor well shared. Charter member Walter Whitman, who had founded the

well-circulated General Science Quarterly, and was its owner and editor, was willing to sell

the journal to NARST. However, there were objections, mostly from a group of supporters

of Mature Study Review, a popular journal of both prestige and quality which had

been established by another NARST stalwart, E. Laurence Palmer of Cornell University.

A debate developed over whether the new organization should obligate itself for the funds

needed and also which of the two journals it might purchase.

The Committee on Publications reported to the second annual meeting in 1929. The

committee had canvassed the members and found there was interest in developing a

yearbook and in publishing in a journal. The committee proposed several options. In

addition to purchasing an extant journal these included: (a) utilizing 30 pages in General

Science Quarterly at no cost, (b) purchasing 30 pages in School Science and Mathematicsat $8.00 per page, (c) publishing in Nature and Science Education at minimum printing

costs, or (d) taking over the General Science Quarterly at a net cost of $1,600 for the first

year, with an option for a later purchase with payments over a four to 5-year period.

The committee also submitted nine recommendations. Some were about content criteria,

others about operational procedures. Most important was the recommendation to accept the

offer of W. G. Whitman to take over publication of General Science Quarterly and to

rename it Journal of Science Education. It was understood that this would require planning

and financing that would take up to a year or more.

After considerable discussion it was resolved to accept Whitman’s offer to use TheQuarterly for 1 year as the official journal and at the end of the year to exercise the option

to purchase the journal. It was further resolved to change its name to Journal of Science


123

Education and to have the publications committee represent the association on the editorial

board of the journal. The words ‘‘Journal of’’ were dropped before publication and its name

became simply Science Education.

In editorial comments introducing the first issue (November 1929) the editorial board

listed eight major fields they intended to cover. They were nature study and elementary

science; junior high school science or general science; senior high biology, chemistry and

physics; training science teachers; supervision of science instruction; and research in

science education.

A group of NARST members purchases science education

By the time of the third annual meeting three issues of Science Education, had been

published but the association had insufficient funds to purchase the journal. A group of loyal

members made a purchase offer and this move was approved by the members. Responsi-

bility for financial support of the journal was vested with the publications committee.

At the fourth annual meeting sufficient monetary pledges had been received to make

the purchase. The president appointed a holding member to represent the interests of the

members in the journal and to represent the association in the business affairs conducted

by the publications committee. The journal was transferred from owner Whitman to

Science Education, Incorporated. Office of the newly purchased journal was established

in New York City where it remained throughout NARST’s affiliation with Science

Education.

Clarence M. Pruitt

Clarence M. Pruitt was elected to membership of NARST in 1929 and immediately became

active in publication of the journal. He was appointed one of the abstract editors and was

also appointed to the editorial board. He was one of the original group of purchasers and by

1932 was associate editor and business manager. He became circulation manager in 1944

and editor in 1946. In that same year the membership approved a most unusual move to sell

all stock in Science Education, Inc. to Pruitt. The journal soon took on a personality of its

own created by the new owner. Business control shifted immediately and editorial control

gradually slipped from NARST control to sole control of Pruitt, who made all decisions

including types of articles to be published and their selection. This one-man operation,

without input from NARST officers or members, continued from 1944 to 1961, when the

relationship between NARST and Science Education was severed.

The transition

Science Education served as NARST’s official journal for 33 years. The last three were

marred by dissatisfaction among NARST members, an overwhelming workload for the

journal’s owner-editor, (who was also NARST Secretary-Treasurer) and by his outright

rejection of proposed solutions to the problems and concerns encountered. The ultimate

result of these frustrations was the severance of the NARST–Science Education relation-

ship and the birth of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

The frustrations centered on concerns of the NARST leadership that they had a jour-

nal that publicly represented the association but over which they had no editorial or


123

policy-making control. Two matters in particular caused the members to be dissatisfied,

even angry. First, was the perception that submitted manuscripts were inadequately

reviewed using vague, arbitrary and unstated criteria. Second, that published articles did

not represent what was happening in the field of science education. For example, published

articles included ‘‘Fourth of July Story,’’ and ‘‘Baseball for Young Champions.’’ There was

the additional concern that there was no legal agreement between NARST and Science

Education, or Pruitt, and that in the event of Pruitts’s untimely death, the association would

have a severe problem.

These concerns were raised with Pruitt over a period of several months and in several

different ways. Details of these negotiations are beyond the scope of this paper. However,

in the NARST archives there is a 137-page report of a June 1961 meeting of the executive

committee which recounts this logical, patient effort of a small group of dedicated pro-

fessionals to resolve issues and problems with the journal and in particular with the

adamant Pruitt. At this special meeting the executive committee recommended that the

relationship between NARST and Science Education be severed with the February 1962

annual business meeting. After considering several alternatives the committee also rec-

ommended that NARST launch a new journal.

Journal of research in science teaching

The executive committee now had two main problems to consider: business arrange-

ments and, editorial management and policies. President Herbert A. Smith, and newly

elected Secretary-Treasurer Herman R. Branson, accepted the responsibility of negoti-

ating with suitable publishers based on specifications decided upon by the Executive

Committee.

The journal would be called the Journal of Research in Science Teaching and physically

would be four issues per volume per year of approximately 600 seven-inch pages per

volume with the capability of quality graphs, charts and tables. Advertising would be the

responsibility of the publisher but would be approved by the editor. NARST would

guarantee minimum subscriptions of 300.

Regarding editorial operations it was decided that the new journal would be run by an

editorial board responsible to the executive committee. This board would formulate and

recommend to the executive committee operational policies and long range plans while an

appointed editor would be responsible for day-to-day operations. Terms on the board

would rotate and, if possible, the board would meet one or two times per year. A panel of

consultants from various fields might also be appointed to evaluate manuscripts and to

otherwise serve as determined by the board.

The executive committee recognized the time, energy and resources needed by a suc-

cessful editor and it sought to identify individuals with competence, leadership and

professional stature to launch a new journal and who also would have appropriate insti-

tutional support. Several individuals were identified whom met these criteria and all were

also mentioned as potential members of the editorial board. From the June meeting through

fall and winter work progressed on identifying an editor and a publisher.

Several prominent members could not accept the editorship and the search centered on

J. Stanley Marshall who was identified as a serious, devoted, dedicated guy and one of best

young men in science education. Marshall accepted the position in January but only after

giving serious thoughts to the crucial need for such a journal and the need for it to be of the

highest possible quality.


123

The executive committee then approved an appropriation of $500 to be advanced to the

editor. Editor Marshall then wrote, ‘‘Prospectus for a Publication Devoted to Research in

Science Education.’’ It included a description of NARST, a preliminary draft of journal

purposes and a summary of the Association’s role in the publication.

The new journal was born but was not yet named, nor given a home. A questionnaire

was mailed to a representative sample of 35 members offering five different journal names.

Thirty-one members responded. Their first choice was, Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching. Second choice was Journal of Science Education Research. Identification and

engagement of a publisher was more difficult and took longer. By September a tentative

agreement had been reached with Wiley-Interscience. Final negotiations took place

through the winter and on January 18, 1963 the document of agreement was signed in

Washington, DC, by NARST President Ellsworth S. Obourn, NARST Secretary Joseph D.

Novak, NARST Journal Editor J. Stanley Marshall, and John Wiley and Sons Vice-

President John S. Snyder. The contract was presented to the membership and approved at

the 1963 annual meeting.

JRST’s first issues

The first issue of JRST became a reality in May 1963. Most of the articles described various

aspects of activities within the field of science education but reports of research, as origi-

nally intended, were lacking. Editor Marshall apparently was receiving a sufficient number

of manuscripts but they were of low quality, a conclusion he conveyed to the editorial board.

However, he was pleased with a series of historical sketches written for the first issue, and

expressed the opinion that these would make the first issue a collector’s item.

Issue 2 included more research-related articles than Issue 1. However, the concern about

quality of submitted manuscripts continued. Marshall again conveyed his concern to the

Editorial Board with an analysis of problems he saw, stating: The founding of NARST

more than 30 years ago, when educational research was in its infancy, and the continuing

role of its members in providing leadership in science education are noteworthy. There

remain, however the questions of how standards of performance in educational research

can be raised and whether the Association should develop a plan to expedite some

breakthrough.

Issues 3 and 4 were published within a year but concerns continued about quality and

appropriateness of published articles. The editorial board charged the publications com-

mittee to draft some policy statements. They produced a statement of journal purposes that

began with Article II of the Articles of Incorporation:

The purpose of this corporation shall be to promote research in science education

and to disseminate the findings of this research in such ways as to improve science

teaching.

The association shall publish, or cause to be published, for the benefit of its members

and others, selected articles, reviews of reports of research which are in harmony with the

purposes of the Association.

Three purposes of the journal were then developed from Article II:

(1) To serve the broad professional objectives, needs, obligations and responsibilities of

NARST.

(2) To serve the internal needs of the Association for facilitation and coordination of

activities.


123

(3) To serve the professional publication and dissemination needs of members. The

document contained 12 purposes in all. These set the tone and direction of the journal

for the immediate and distant future.

Journal editors

The records show that over the years NARST has been well served with competent editors

most serving 5-year terms with institutional support that has gradually improved in extent

and quality. Marshall served as sole editor, and while this was acceptable, it was far too

much work and responsibility for one person who had to make decisions regarding pri-

orities with respect to other professorial duties. This plagued both Marshall and his

immediate successor H. Craig Sipe. When O. Roger Anderson succeeded James T. Rob-

inson, who followed Sipe, and edited two issues, he appointed five associate editors, all

from his home university, Columbia’s Teachers College. Subsequent editors have had at

least one associate editor on the same campus and, as needed, other associate editors to

produce special issues. As institutional support improved, and as the size of the editorial

board increased, the important responsibilities of the editor did not decrease but opera-

tional problems were reduced.

The authors of this history found nothing to contradict a conclusion that the Journal of

Research in Science Teaching is one of the best in the field of education. Clearly the

Association has been well-served by exemplary editors: Marshall, Florida State University;

Sipe, George Peabody College for Teachers; Robinson, Teachers College; and Anderson,

Teachers College; and their successors, David P. Butts, University of Georgia; James A.

Shymansky, University of Iowa; Russell H. Yeany, University of Georgia; and Ronald G.

Good, Louisiana State University.

Summary

NARST was founded in a period in the United States called the Roaring Twenties which

were exciting times for the country and also for science education. But these times suddenly

ended with the economic crash of 1929. The crash and the depression that followed were

unkind to science education because there was widespread belief that science was

responsible for new technologies which produced widespread unemployment. In spite of

this, a small group of competent, dedicated science educators, cooperating through NARST,

AETS, NSTA, and other organizations brought the profession of science education through

the Great Depression and World War II to a period of postwar renewal and vigor.

The period of the 50s and 60s were halcyon days in science education. State and federal

support for science education, particularly through the National Science Foundation (NSF),

increased dramatically. K-12 and university student enrollments increased and doctoral

level science education programs increased in number and size. The Cold War and the

launching of Sputnik was a stimulus to science and technology education. This was a

period of alphabet soup course curriculum projects also supported by the NSF. The

NARST membership increased, as did the number of concurrent sessions in programs of

the annual meetings.

The period of the 70s and early 80s was a time of stagnation in science education.

NARST membership reached a 1972 high of 972 and then declined concurrently with the

loss of federal government support especially for curriculum development projects.


123

As economic malaise affected the country science education entered a period of

retrenchment.

This lasted into the late 80s when the cyclical nature of socio-economic-political events,

and the need for the United States to compete more effectively with rising fortunes of

countries of Europe and the Pacific Rim, produced a need for the development of science-

based technologies. NARST entered the period of the 90s with increased membership,

renewed vigor, a solid, effective leadership/management system and, most importantly, a

new generation of well-educated, competent, energetic science educators—the third gen-

eration from the founders.

References

Murphy, K. S. (1992). History of the national association for research in science teaching. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA.

Paul H. Joslin is emeritus professor of science education, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA. He isa Fulbright Laureate, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Life Memberof the National Science Teachers Association. Paul holds academic degrees from Cornell University, TheUniversity of the South (Sewanee) and The University of Rochester. He was the first executive secretary ofthe National Association of Research in Science Teaching and received its Distinguished Service Citation.He has done research on lake effect storms, residual effects of continental glaciation and analogies inteaching science. He is author of a high school science textbook, a book on the UFO enigma, elementaryscience teaching guides, journal articles on science education, and science film and book reviews for theAAAS. Paul has served on the adjunct faculties of Iowa State University, The University of Iowa, and CurtinUniversity, Australia. He currently writes and speaks on the science/theology interface.

Karen S. Stiles (formerly Murphy) teaches marine biology at Central Academy of the public schools ofDes Moines, Iowa, USA. She holds national teacher certification and is designated as an Iowa MasterTeacher. She is a member of the National Biology Teachers Association, the National Teachers Associationand a Fellow of the Iowa Academy of Science from which she received its Distinguished Teaching Award.

Reflections on the early days of JRST

J. Stanley Marshall2

My message to the current members of NARST is to remind you that my term as founding

editor of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching was a long time ago and memory

fades over time. Nineteen sixty-three—that was the startup year for the Journal and my

fifth year as a science educator. I had come to Florida State University in 1958 to establish

a Department of Science Education to go with existing strong Departments of Math

Education, English Education and Social Studies Education, all this in a School of Edu-

cation that was fast becoming a first-rate place for turning out quality secondary school

teachers. Our mission was to attempt to turn out graduates at the baccalaureate level with

substantial coursework in the subject field along with relevant professional study and the

requisite experience as student teachers.

It’s stretching the point a bit to say that I was in my fifth year as a science educator. My

professional experience to this point was pretty much that of a classroom teacher and

curriculum developer/innovator. Upon my return from military service in WWII in 1946,



123

I secured my first job as a high school science teacher—mostly physics, my favorite

subject—in one of Upstate New York’s really good high schools. I taught and coached

athletics there for 6 years during which time I enrolled at nearby Syracuse University

where, over the next 10 years, I earned the MS and PhD degrees in science education.

After my high school teaching experience, I moved to the New York State University at

Cortland where I taught general physics to undergraduates, mostly prospective high school

teachers, and I remained there for 5 years. During that time I conducted a series of

statewide radio programs in science for elementary school teachers and produced some of

New York State’s early entries in educational TV programming. Kinescopes, we called

them. I had, of course, been engaged in research during my graduate studies at Syracuse

University and had worked diligently and enthusiastically in my own PhD dissertation

study, but my professional interests were mostly related to classroom instruction.

All of the foregoing is to let you know that my interests as the head of science education

at FSU were at first related more to teaching and curriculum than to research. But the place

of education research in a progressive science education department shortly demanded and

received my full attention. My efforts to attract students for graduate study resulted in the

enrollment of a group of very able young men and women—mostly experienced teach-

ers—who, as you would expect, intended to engage in research in science education. We

were recruiting more faculty members and were fortunate to attract men and women who

were committed to building a department with a strong research arm.

My invitation to serve as editor of the new journal was surprising, given the number of

able people more experienced than me in research, but to a relatively young man, energetic

and ambitious to provide leadership in his field, why wouldn’t I accept the appointment?

That appointment, by the way, had come from a group of the most respected leaders in

our field. I’ve heard that they had considered other people who for various reasons were not

available, but that did nothing to dampen my enthusiasm.

In her well-written history of NARST, Paul Joslin and Karen Stiles remind us that

attracting manuscripts of acceptable quality at first was a challenge. I remember leaning

heavily on members of the editorial board to do all they could to generate interest by

NARST members, and to help attract quality manuscripts for publication. I was certain that

the quality of articles would improve as the organization matured. I must add however,

upon reviewing those articles now from a historical perspective based on reading several

decades’ production of professional journals, that the first several volumes of JRST pro-

duced during my editorship contained some pretty good publications. I’m inclined to think

that in our zeal to produce an outstanding journal, we might have been too severe in our

self-criticism.

References have been made by Paul Joslin and Karen Stiles to the ‘‘alphabet soup

course’’ curriculum projects that were supported by grants from the National Science

Foundation. I participated in a couple of those, most heavily in PSSC physics. My col-

leagues at FSU were actively involved in BSCS biology and CHEM Study; so these

national curriculum projects occupied a lot of my time and attention for several years.

References to them appeared in the journal in several ways, first by full-length articles

written by project participants and also by references to spin-off activities that were

underway in many science education departments across the country.

An examination of those early volumes reveals an interesting development during the

‘‘alphabet soup’’—course development period—the active participation in science cur-

riculum development (and in the related education research) of several eminent scientists

from the disciplines. They included Jerold Zacharias from MIT, Phillip Morrison from

Cornell, and Robert Karplus from the University of California at Berkeley, among others.


123

Did the active participation of those outstanding scientists in secondary school curriculum

projects result in better science instruction in our schools—and in a higher level of edu-

cation research along with increased interest in the larger education issues of the time?

I believe it did.

In the matter of the quality of the articles that appeared in those early volumes, my

review now leaves me feeling that those who published in our journal were able men and

women whose research and writing served to advance our profession at a crucial time in

American education. It was, for me, a great pleasure to have served with them.

J. Stanley Marshall is emeritus president and professor at Florida State University. Marshall began hiscareer as a high school science teacher and went on to become a college professor, head of the DepartmentHead of Science Education, Dean, and President of Florida State University from 1969 to 1976. He isfounder and CEO of James Madison Institute.

A perspective on nearly 50 years as a NARST member

O. Roger Anderson3

When I attended the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science

Teaching for the first time in 1965, the field of educational research, in general, seemed

poised for a major advance. There was much discussion about intellectual depth in

research, the merits of theory-based inquiry and the need for more sophisticated and widely

accepted methodologies. I was impressed at that NARST meeting by the cohesiveness of

the members, who seemed to recognize the importance of our endeavors, and also by the

energy of the discussion and the intensity of the challenges to the presenters to justify their

conclusions. Paul Joslin and Karen Stiles provide a concise, yet incisive, account of some

of these events from their own perspective. In 1970, I was appointed to be Editor of the

Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST) with a mandate to take leadership in

making it the premier journal in the field. At my first meeting with the Vice President for

scientific publications at John Wiley and Sons (the journal publishers), he asked a poignant

question: ‘‘Why is it that science education research, as important as it is, seems to be

perceived as less prestigious than research in the natural sciences?’’ The best explanation I

could give was that science had a much longer history to guide it, more comprehensive and

widely accepted theories, and much more thorough and widely applied methodologies. We

both agreed on a goal of making JRST a leader in promoting theory-based, but practically

relevant, science education research using the most thorough methodologies; thus, to make

the Journal’s reputation akin to that of the best science journals published by Wiley. We

assembled a first-rate editorial board of science educators, who agreed with our goal and a

panel of expert reviewers who were willing to apply the highest standards in selecting

manuscripts for publication. Our science education colleagues rose to the challenge by

increasingly submitting first-rate articles that met the standards of the editorial board. I

believe during those early 5 years, we established a course that has led to the prestigious

status of the Journal today.

In 1975, when I was elected President of NARST, we established an international

committee that continues today in its own invigorated form. Our objective was to explore

ways of increasing the international scope of the association and to encourage strategies for

making NARST an international society. This initiative received a mixed greeting by our



123

membership. Although it was clear that the members were increasingly international, there

appeared to be a strong sentiment that the cohesiveness of the association was grounded

partially at least in our national identity. Nonetheless, the international committee provided

some far-sighted leadership in encouraging a broader perspective of the association.

During that time, it was a pleasure to witness some major advances in science education

research, based increasingly on theory borrowed from cognate fields, such as cognitive and

developmental psychology, learning theories, scientific epistemology, and theories of

assessment and evaluation, among others. We saw the dawn of the use of qualitative

research methodologies and ethnographic-based ‘‘naturalistic’’ studies in science educa-

tion. There was much discussion of what constituted the theoretical bases for qualitative

research and its merits relative to the more widely established quantitative and experi-

mental paradigms that held sway in science education. The membership grew markedly

and attendance at our meetings was much larger, eclipsing the hundred or so attendees at

earlier meetings. However, the cohesiveness of the society remains a major hallmark in my

mind, we manifestly understood the significance of science for society and the specific

importance of our goal to enhance science teaching and learning based on sound theory and

sophisticated methods of inquiry. One of the more important qualities of the meetings,

which I think is true today, was the tolerance for new ideas and the willingness to allow

some of us to present new and less than conventional theoretical stances. One elder

statesman at that time commented in defense of those who may be perceived as too

creative: ‘‘You have to be willing to take risks, if we are going to get anywhere!’’

Much of my research was increasingly grounded in learning theory, especially the role

of structure in science classroom narrative and its relationship to knowledge acquisition

and eventually scientific ways of thinking. Some of the innovative ways of graphically

representing sequential structure and content themes in narrative that I used, and the

applications some of my students made with it, was statistically highly significant in

predicting science learning, but the theoretical base was less general than the constructivist

principles of learning that were emerging. As the field moved more toward constructivist

paradigms of science learning, my interests focused on merging neurocognitive theory with

constructivist principles. This remains a promising, though nascent, field of inquiry that I

pursue and encourage some of my doctoral students to accept as a challenge to lead into the

future. The progress is slow, since much of the evolving, basic neuroscientific research has

yet to reach a level of sophistication that permits thorough applications to the higher levels

of thinking that are important in science teaching and learning. Currently, modest progress

can be made by a careful synthesis of basic neuroscientific findings with established

cognitive science theory to yield potentially insightful models of value to educators.

However, neurocognitive science is a rapidly developing field and we may see much more

useful findings forthcoming in the near future.

One of the spin-offs from my research on structure in science teaching and learning, was

to diverge more into investigations of the role of knowledge networks in memory, based on

constructivist theories and on emerging evidence of how information is organized and

stored in memory. Our research in this domain has added to the work of others in mapping

students’ knowledge organization by analyzing their recall narrative to detect the patterns

of cross-linkages of ideas that give structural coherence to their constructed representations

of experience and that guide their organization of knowledge during recall. One of the

earlier papers we published in this field, proposed the idea that construction of knowledge

occurs not only during knowledge encoding, but also during knowledge recall leading to a

fluid and more dynamic idea of knowledge reconstruction in memory than some our

colleagues were willing to accept at that time. This research, using flow maps as a proxy


123

for student knowledge organization, has been fairly successful in predicting the role of

organization of knowledge in memory, in the accuracy and extent of information recall,

and more importantly in predicting the quality of inquiry learning and higher order

thinking that science students exhibit. Several of my former doctoral students have

expanded this field of network analysis research, and improved the theoretical and practical

aspects of the flow mapping techniques.

The abiding ethic of our membership to tolerate and encourage diversity of approaches

to science education research, the commitment to novelty coupled with excellence in our

new paradigms, and the keen commitment to make a difference in improving the lives of

science students and teachers is one of the hallmarks that I believe continues to guide the

association today. The diversity of approaches we have adopted is increasing and the

number of sub-disciplines that have arisen is impressive. In all, I trust that we will continue

to maintain our sincere commitment to the one goal of importance; namely, through

innovative research, to make science more available and relevant to all of our citizens, and

in a way that is sound and productive for their roles as scientifically literate members of

modern society. As we explore new sources of intellectual guidance in our quest, I hope

that we will continue to keep the goal of enhancing science learning at the forefront of our

collective commitments. It is a profound pleasure to see how the early progress toward

increasing the strength and prestige of the association, as documented in the paper by Paul

Joslin and Karen Stiles, has given rise to the mature and sophisticated presence of NARST

today. My sincere congratulations to all of our colleagues for making our Association a

major leader, internationally, in the field of science education research.

O. Roger Anderson is professor of natural sciences and chair of the Department of Mathematics, Scienceand Technology at Teachers College, and a senior research scientist in biology at Columbia University,Earth Institute (Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory). He received his undergraduate and graduate educationat Washington University in St. Louis, graduating with a doctoral degree in Biology and Education in 1964.He taught at Washington University before joining the faculty at Columbia University in September 1964.His research in science education focuses on the application of cognitive theory to the analysis of teachingand learning in science. His biological research largely focuses on the physiological ecology and cellularbiology of eukaryotic microorganisms in aquatic and terrestrial environments. He has been the president ofNARST, the Columbia University Chapter of the Scientific Honorary Society, Sigma Xi, and the Interna-tional Society of Protistologists.

A paradigm shift in research methodology

James J. Gallagher4

Professional background and experience

During the early years in my career, I had multiple involvements in both science and

science education research. One study that had a substantial influence on my understanding

of the research process occurred as part of a Master’s degree project. It was a

small, original research study of reactions of copper with two similar, organic com-

pounds—thiuram monosulfide and thiuram disulfide. In designing the research, I was able

to conduct many short, exploratory investigations under altered conditions, that helped me

understand the results of combining either of these two compounds with copper and other

metals that were close ‘‘neighbors’’ on the periodic chart. These exploratory investigations



123

helped me to understand the phenomenon I was dealing with. Soon thereafter, I made my

first forays into educational research. In these studies, my opportunities to gain intuitive

understanding of the phenomena under investigation through exploration were far more

limited than in my chemical investigations.

This difference appeared to be a source of weakness in educational research. It seemed

that we should have means to develop deeper understanding of phenomena being inves-

tigated before engaging in the complex task of designing and enacting educational

research. But how does one develop understanding of phenomena that are important in our

field? Undoubtedly, there are several ways. Given my interests in science teaching and

learning in schools and classrooms, an appealing means entailed reflection on experience—

both my own experience as a secondary science teacher and that gained by observing and

interacting with other science teachers and their students. Therefore, I was drawn to

ethnographic research methods to better understand the interactions among students, and

between students and teachers, that mediate science learning. These methods provided

insights into the complex classroom milieu that must be understood by teacher educators

and curriculum designers if we are to be more effective in our work.

Initial experiences in the field

By the late 1960s, I had become a novice ethnographic researcher and was engaged in a

study of the enactment of a new science curriculum for low achieving students in a private

urban high school. With an invitation from Willard Jacobson and encouragement from a

close colleague, I reported my first attempt in this research genre during a plenary session

on novel approaches to classroom-based research at the 1969 NARST meeting in

Pasadena.

In this well attended session, co-presenters O. Roger Anderson and Arno Bellack gave

polished presentations of their observations of teachers, which were supported with strong

quantitative data and sound statistical analysis. In contrast, my report was based on one

teacher and one classroom, which obviously had no statistical backing. However, I did

have interesting, preliminary, descriptive information about how students in this classroom

were engaging in inquiry with support from this curriculum—data useful to the curriculum

designers and to teacher educators planning related staff development work. Data included

information on students’ discourse as they worked in small groups, where students

encountered roadblocks, and the teacher’s responses addressed students’ learning needs. It

also included information from the teacher about his thought processes on classroom

management and instructional pacing in this setting.

At the end of my presentation, after answering some clarification questions, I was

addressed by a mid-career member of NARST, standing in the back of the room. He

emphatically stated that my work was not research and should not be included in NARST.

I was unprepared for such a strong reaction. However, I did reply, undoubtedly in less than

an eloquent manner, that empirical data such as these were useful in understanding the

milieu in which this inquiry-based curriculum was being implemented and the character of

interactions that occur in such settings.

Holding high standards or resistance to a new research genre

This scenario may have been the first skirmish in a long battle between two opposing views

about the place of qualitative research in NARST. I recall frequent, very heated


123

discussions, when quantitative researchers repeated the claim about the inappropriateness

of qualitative research in NARST. Ten years later, one of my colleagues, working with

Frederick Erickson’s students, had an entire paper set proposal declined because it was

judged as inappropriate for NARST. In 1986, Ken Tobin and I gave a pre-session on

interpretive research techniques, which was oversubscribed. At that time, we also initiated

a NARST special interest group on qualitative research, and while more than 25 members

participated in an organizational meeting, we were looked at with suspicion, if not disdain,

by members who perceived of themselves as protectors of the integrity of the association.

By the end of the 1980s, papers based in qualitative methodologies appeared in NARST

programs and in JRST. To gather some sound data for this essay on shifting paradigms in

research, I conducted a small study of articles published in JRST during the time span in

which substantial changes had occurred. Data in Table 1 from JRST in 1980, 1990, and

2000 show changes in research methodology over this 20-year period, during which a

substantial transformation occurred.

In comparing articles published in JRST over this time frame, one striking observation

concerns the length of articles. Articles in 1980 were much shorter than in the latter two

periods as is evident in the fact that about twice as many articles were contained in the

three 1980 issues that were examined than in comparable issues in either 1990 or 2000

(Table 1). The 1980 articles were more like brief research reports, whereas the articles in

1990 and 2000 were far more detailed, especially in problem development, methodologies

used, and the analysis and interpretation of data.

Table 1 also shows changes in the median numbers of subjects, along with the range of

numbers of subjects over the time span. Range in numbers of subjects shows substantial

changes on both extremes. Additional analysis showed an increase in the number of small

samples. In 1980 and 1990, 17% and 15% of the studies sampled had 50 or fewer par-

ticipants; while in 2000, 50% of the studies in the sample had 50 or fewer, and three studies

had only two participants.

Examining the methodologies used in the three different years, the percentage of articles

employing quantitative methodologies declined from 1980 to 2000, while the percentage of

qualitative methodologies increased dramatically. Mixed methods fluctuated, as people

began to explore combinations of quantitative and qualitative methodologies in the 1990

sample, and moved toward more singular use of quantitative methodologies by 2000.

Lessons for association members

As I observed the transformation of research methodologies during these years, I was both

pleased to see the change and disappointed by the quality of the approaches employed.

Table 1 Research methodologies employed in Journal of Research in Science Teaching (Issues 2, 4, and 6for Years 1980, 1990 & 2000)

Year No. ofarticles

No. of empiricalarticles

Median No.of subjects

Range in No.of subjects

Percentage of articles employingdifferent methodologies

Quantitative Qualitative Mixed

1980 34 30 120 15 –1635 100% 0% 7%

1990 17 13 153 10 –1740 69 15 31

2000 15 14 55 1– 3550 29 57 21


123

Many of the sharply focused quantitative studies reported in the 1980s and earlier, were

difficult to fit into practical applications in teaching, learning, and teacher education. In

addition, they did not contribute readily to development of useful theoretical structures to

advance the field. On the other hand, many of the new qualitative studies that appeared on

the scene in the 1980s and 1990s seemed to lack intellectual rigor, and generalizing from

such small samples was difficult. It also seemed that many researchers had ‘‘jumped on a

new bandwagon’’ in research that appeared ‘‘easy.’’ Many of the newcomers to qualitative

research, including both faculty members and graduate students, had not prepared them-

selves in ways that would allow for high quality work. As a result, while early qualitative

research was well intentioned, it was below an acceptable standard of quality. In contrast,

with the support of my dean, I accepted the opportunity to enroll in Erickson’s year long,

three-term, doctoral level course in school ethnography at Michigan State University. This

enabled me to develop the theoretical background and gain guided field experience with a

master researcher.

To foster improvements in knowledge and skills related to qualitative research among

members of the NARST community, Tobin, then chair of the NARST Publications

Committee, asked me to organize a monograph on Interpretive Research Methodologies.

This was published by NARST in 1988 and became a ‘‘best seller’’ among other NARST

monographs. In subsequent years, the number and quality of qualitative research presented

at NARST showed marked advancement, as more members developed backgrounds in

qualitative methodologies.

In conclusion, my suggestion to NARST members is that they nurture openness to new

ideas and research methodologies and that they encourage development of expertise in

them, instead of taking either of two extreme positions—rejection out of hand or ‘‘jumping

on a new bandwagon’’ without serious development of relevant knowledge and skills. Had

members of NARST approached this issue more appropriately in decades past, our field

may have advanced more rapidly.

James J. Gallagher is professor emeritus at Michigan State University. His work on embedded assessmentas a tool for teaching science for understanding and use was a major part of the last 15 years of his career.From 2002 to 2007, he served as co-director of the Center for Curriculum Materials in Science. He also hasbeen heavily involved in curriculum design and professional development with science teachers both in theUnited States and in developing nations in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

30 years of NARST: herstory

Jane Butler Kahle5

Introduction

I was asked to contribute to this publication explicitly to discuss the extent to which

NARST has or has not supported the scholarship of women across the years. I

have expanded on that request to include how our community has valued gender

research (a double-edged sword, because it is usually done by women) as well as the

leadership roles women have played in NARST. In other words, I have examined the place

of women as researchers and of research about women. This is a personal narrative and

cannot be generalized to all women or to their research agendas. Further, the time frame is



123

constrained by my own involvement in NARST. Although I have reviewed NARST

documents and journals from 1978 to now, I also have relied on my memory and expe-

riences. I must admit that my tabulations of presentations, papers, and committee members

have been rounded, so some figures are approximations.

My active involvement with NARST began at the 1978 Annual Meeting, Toronto,

Canada. Unlike today’s meetings where women attend and participate in about equal

numbers with their male colleagues, in 1978 only six women professors and a few

women graduate students were in Toronto. Those professorial women—Rita Peterson,

Marcia Linn, Jane Bowyer, Linda DeTure, Dorothy Gabel and myself—helped shape

NARST in many ways over the years—four of us have served as president and two of

us have received NARST’s highest honor, the Distinguished Contributions through

Research Award. My herstory of NARST differs from Joslin and Stiles’ history,

because I bring a female perspective to those 30 years—looking for evidence for the

representation, leadership and recognition of women’s scholarship as well as for evi-

dence of NARST membership’s interest, representation, and recognition of scholarship

by women as well as research about girls and women, or gender research, in science

education.

Representation

In our field, recognition of scholarship is through peer review that is represented by

papers published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST) and presented at

NARST’s annual meetings. In her 2002 editorial, Where is Gender and Equity in ScienceEducation, Dale Baker sought evidence for the inclusion of papers on gender research in

JRST. So, I began by comparing the number of articles about gender in JRST Volume 15,

1978, with the number in JRST Volume 43, 2006. Because few articles mentioned

gender, I also tabulated the number of women who were first authors; another way of

recognizing women’s scholarship. In 1978, four women, Marcia Linn, Jane Boyer, Ann

Howe, and I, were first authors of articles in Volume 15. However, none of us explicitly

examined gender issues. The only article on gender research was by Rodney Doran and

Burt Sellers (1978).

Dale’s editorial details the gradual increase in numbers of articles on gender research

across 30 years of JRST. She noted that in the 1970s and 80s, gender research was the

primary focus of only 12 studies. However, the numbers of articles gradually rose—20

articles on gender research appeared in the late 1980s, and during the 1990s 30 articles

addressed gender research. When Bill Holliday (2003) completed his compilation of the

ten most important JRST articles as part of the celebration of NARST’s 40th anniversary,

two of the ten, nominated by members, focused on gender issues and both had women

authors. Further, he noted that an examination of a citation index document indicated that

five of the ten most cited JRST articles were on gender research.

According to Baker’s analysis, the nominated papers, and one citation index, it would

seem that gender research had become mainstream by the 1990s. Yet, in reviewing JRST

Volume 43, I found only two papers with women in the title and one editorial on equity and

ethics. Gender seemed to have been fused (and some of us argue—lost) with a variety of

other equity issues in research (English Language Learners, Cultural, Urban, Minority,

etc.). On the other hand, the acceptance of the scholarship of women was evidenced in

Volume 43 where 22 papers had women as first authors. (This number does not include

authors whose names were not easily discernable as male or female).


123

Another way to assess the acceptance of the scholarship of women is the presentation of

papers at annual meetings. From the six 1978 pioneers to 2007, NARST membership had

diversified—more women, more international members, more members of cultural, racial,

or ethnic groups. With the change in membership demographics between 1978 and 2007,

we have seen an exponential growth in numbers of women presenting and in papers about

gender research (whether by men or women). In 2007, Strand 11 at the annual meeting

was devoted to Cultural, Social, and Gender Issues. However, in that strand, gender was

the focus of only one symposium, four papers, and two posters, not great progress for

30 years. Further, as my editorial in JRST explicated, the No Child Left Behind legislation

did not require disaggregation of data by gender—another blow to gender research (Kahle

2004). As Dale Baker ended her 2002 editorial, ‘‘For now, I leave it up to the reader to

answer the question, ‘Where are gender and equity in science education?’’’ (Baker 2002,

p. 662).

Interest

I also looked at interest in gender research across the 30 years. Fortuitously, a Delphi

study in 1978 queried the membership about research priorities (Butts et al. 1978).

Thirty-five research priorities were identified; however, gender was not among them.

Similarly, in 1993, Wandersee’s JRST editorial reported on Staver’s computer analysis of

NARST members’ declared research interests. Staver (1992) analyzed both the research

areas checked and the ones written in by members. Gender research was not found in

either compilation. At that time (the early 90s), Wandersee concluded that ‘‘[On] the

basis of declared interest, the membership appears to share a coalescing research

agenda.’’ (Wandersee 1993, p. 320). The effect of the expressed research interests of

reviewers, editors, and meeting planners on paper acceptance is unknown, but they may

have affected the quantity of gender research included in JRST and at the annual

meetings.

Leadership

Interestingly, the two women presidents during NARST’s formative years were both

elected during wartime. Florence G. Billing served three terms, 1943, 44, and 45 during

World War II, while Betty Lockwood held the office for two terms (1951 and 52) during

the Korean War. Then, there was a hiatus of women elected to the presidency for 32 years;

the drought was not broken until Ann Howe’s election in 1984. Just as the numbers of

papers authored by women and accepted by JRST increased during the late ‘80s and 90s,

women increasingly took on leadership roles. Linda DeTure’s presidency in 1988 was

followed by Pat Blosser in 89, Jane Kahle in 91, Dorothy Gabel in 95, Audrey Champagne

in 98, Sandra Abell in 01, and Cheryl Mason in 03. Today, we have a first: back-to-back

women presidencies with Penny Gilmer and Charlene Czerniak.

The contributions of women also have been recognized by Dale Baker and Angelo

Collins serving as editors of JRST and by the service of many women on the board of

directors and many committees. However, except for the equity and ethics committee,

women do not represent the majority of members on committees, although I suspect that

we are equal to men in membership numbers (at the time of writing, membership lists were

not available for 1978 nor for 2007).


123

Recognition

As mentioned, the Distinguished Contributions through Research (DCA) award is

NARST’s highest recognition of scholarship. The award began in 1986 and over the

intervening 20 years, the scholarship of only four women has been recognized. Is this

because more women, compared to men, choose to do research in areas outside the ones

valued by the majority of the membership? Or, is it because women’s scholarship is

undervalued? Or, is it a combination of both? Whatever the case, the result has been that

the scholarship of eminent some women has not been recognized. Mary Budd Rowe, for

example, the only NARST member whose research has been honored by a plaque at the

National Research Council, did not receive the DCA. Neither has Ann Howe, who pio-

neered early gender research in science education. Among the ‘brave’ six in Toronto in

1978, only Marcia Linn and I have received that honor along with Rosalind Driver and

Audrey Champagne. Perhaps, more important than honoring the scholarship of a woman,

my award recognized gender research as a legitimate and valued area of research.

Although some indicators of acceptance have improved, the DCA remains elusive for

women members of NARST. A possible hypothesis is that perhaps the scholarship of

women is not valued equally with that of men. Hopefully, the next 10 years will disprove

that hypothesis and women’s scholarship will be recognized and rewarded. There is evi-

dence of change: 9 of the 14 Outstanding Doctoral Dissertations Awards (since 1992) have

gone to women, who will be the scholars of tomorrow. In the next 30 years, I anticipate

that the herstory of NARST will more closely reflect its history.

References

Baker, D. (2002). Editorial: Where is gender and equity in science education? Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 39, 659–663.

Butts, D., Capie, W., Fuller, E., May, D., Okey, J., & Yeany, R. (1978). Priorities for research in science education:A Delphi study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 109–114.

Butts, D. P. (Ed). (1978). November. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(6).Doran, R., & Sellers, B. (1978). Relationships between students’ self concept in science and their science

achievement mental ability, and gender. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 527–533.Holliday, W. G. (2003). Influential research in science teaching: 1963-Present [Special Issue]. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 40(Supplement), v–x.Kahle, J. B. (2004). Will girls be left behind? Gender differences and accountability [Guest editorial].

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 961–969.McGinnis, R. J., & Collins, A. (Eds.). (2006). December. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(10).National Association for Research in Science Teaching (2007). Final Program: National Association for

Research in Science Teaching, NARST Annual International Conference 2007, Sheraton New OrleansHotel, April 15–18, 2007. Author.

Staver, J. R. (Ed.). (1992). NARST directory of members. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State Center for ScienceEducation, NARST Executive Secretary’s Office.

Wandersee J. H. (1993). The declared research interests of NARST members: An analysis of the 1992NARST Directory of Members [Guest Editorial]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30,319–320.

White, A. L. (Ed.). (1978). National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 51st Annual Meeting:Abstracts of presented papers. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics andEnvironmental Education.

Jane Butler Kahle is Condit Professor of Science Education Emerita, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, hasbeen a professor of biological sciences and education and associate dean of the Graduate School at PurdueUniversity and Director, Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education at the NationalScience Foundation (NSF). She has directed 45 research projects, receiving approximately $55,000,000 in


123

external funds. She was principal investigator of Ohio’s Systemic Initiative, funded by NSF and the State ofOhio. Currently, she serves as Director of Ohio’s Evaluation and Assessment Center for Mathematics andScience Education. Her research interests focus on gender issues in science and science education and thesystemic reform of science and mathematics education.

NARST through an Australian’s eyes

Peter Fensham6

Australian contact with or influence from NARST prior to the 1970s was limited to the

occasional Australian who went to the USA to study or to join a research group for a short

time. Almost certainly the first of these was Roy Stanhope, a remarkable chemistry teacher

in NSW, who won a fellowship to the USA in the early 1930s, but alas it was cut short

before his doctoral studies were complete. He maintained a long association with Greta

Oppe, a leading US science teacher, and published in Science Education in 1952. There

was then a gap until the 1960s when several science teachers traveled to the USA for

doctoral studies or research experience at university centres like Michigan State, Ohio,

Iowa and Stanford. The first of these was David Cohen (1964) who published The Sig-

nificance of Recent Research in Secondary-School Science education while at Michigan

State during the turbulence that led to the birth of JRST.

These Australians remember attending a NARST conference and their surprise at the

number of participants, the lively atmosphere and the range of research. These adventurers,

now experienced advocates, came home to join in the growing push in Australian science

teaching circles for establishing research as an integral adjunct of science education

(Tisher, Broadhurst, and Power in succession argued this case in the pages of the Aus-

tralian Science Teachers Journal (ASTJ) in 1965 and 1996; and Power, 1966. David Cohen

became editor of ASTJ in 1968 and immediately introduced a section for research-oriented

articles.

The knowledge these persons also gained of the 1960s fervent of NSF-supported science

curriculum activity was put to good use on their return to Australia, since several of these

curricula were already being used in adapted form in several Australian states. These

adaptations, along with those based on the Nuffield counterpart projects from England,

involved a number of outstanding science teachers in Australia who subsequently became

the first members in a number of universities of this novel academic area of science

education research.

An important step for science education research in Australia occurred when Monash

University appointed me in 1967 to the first full professorship in the area. By 1970, in

addition to Monash the only other active groups were at the University of Queensland,

Macquarie University and the University of NSW. Being very conscious of our rather

fragile existence as small dispersed communities, and aware of the supportive role that

NARST played in North America, I, with the help of three graduate students—Richard

White (full time student) and young staff members, Lindsay Mackay, and Paul Gardner

(staff), invited all the interested people we could identify to come to a meeting at Monash.

About 25 responded, and after sharing our interests and what we were doing, we decided to

meet again in a year for more formal presentations of our studies. In May 1971 the

inaugural conference of the Australian Association for Research in Science Education



123

(ASERA) occurred in Melbourne.7 The group at Macquarie agreed to host the next annual

conference and these meetings then became a regular annual event.

In 1981 ASERA became the Australasian Science Education Research Association after

New Zealand researchers became valued and regular participants.

More than 20 local groups in New Zealand and all the Australian states and territories

have acted as host. For a number of years the attendance has been more than 100 with up to

20 percent from outside Australia and New Zealand. The proceedings of the 1971 meeting

were published under the simple title of Research but this was changed to Research in

Science Education (RISE) in 1974.

From its earliest meetings the Association saw its primary role as fostering research in

science education in Australia—a goal very similar to that of the founders of NARST, as

quoted by Joslin and Stiles. The clarity with which we saw this role led to a very unusual

culture for the Association that has been largely maintained to the present time.

ASERA was to have a loose organizational structure and an open membership. Only the

journal editor was a formal appointment. Local groups in turn offered to host the next

conference and they provided its organization and a chairperson for that annual conference.

Records for communication were passed with varying degrees of efficiency from each host

group to the next one.

• There are no plenary or keynote speakers.

• All persons have equal time—40 min—for presenting their research. (As the

conference grew its organization simply created more parallel sessions to maintain

this substantial individual time allocation within the two and a half day program.)

• The only persons receiving financial support to attend are those giving their first

conference paper ever.

• Members are encouraged to set the level of their questions and critique to the level of

experience of the particular presenters.

For a number of years the association’s journal, Research in Science Education (RISE),

was restricted to refereed papers that had initially been presented at the ASERA conference

of that year or an earlier one. (In 1995 it became an internationally open, refereed journal

appearing four times a year.)

This culture seems to be similar to what prevailed in the early years of NARST before

its incorporation in 1961 (see Joslin and Stiles). However by the 1970s when ASERA

members began to attend the NARST conferences on a more regular basis, they experi-

enced them as more formally structured, more combative, and rather insular with respect to

researchers and research outside North America. There was a hierarchy of office bearers

and a number of committees for aspiring members to service. In-groups, based on struc-

tural power, learning theorists, and research style, acted like cabals against each other and

outsiders. A set of awards reinforced these characteristics, but they also reflected the

strongly competitive atmosphere that prevailed in U.S. academic circles (and U.S. society

generally), decades before it became a similar imperative in the Australian and New

Zealand academic scenes. There were awards for best paper in JRST, best paper at the

conference, distinguished researcher award, best dissertation, early career research, etc., as

if such discrimination is possible when comparing persons and things that are more a

variety of fruits than all apples.

7 Incidentally this was 6 months before the Australian Association for Research in Education, as a nationalbody for educational research, was established.


123

Australian academics, perhaps because of our small size as a research community (or

because of our eagerness for traveling overseas), have always worked hard at keeping up with

what is going on elsewhere, at least among the English speaking countries. This openness

contrasted, until fairly recently, with a parochialism among North American scholars. (A similar

insularity existed in Britain where we also often visited.) Richard White (1995) quantified this

insularity by comparing the references cited by U.S. and overseas authors in a number of

research journals. I remember, as a guest observer, at a meeting in the 1970s at the NSF in

Washington looking around the room at the 20 or so leading U.S. science educators. I was able to

identify most of them by location and recently published research. Only a few of those present

would, I suspect, have been able to identify even five leading researchers beyond the USA. As

late as 1978 the library at the University of Illinois did not subscribe to the two international

research journals for science education—the European (now International) Journal of ScienceEducation and Studies in Science Education that by that time were well established.

Joslin and Stiles record the tumultuous period for NARST around 1960 when the

Association severed its link with Science Education and established JRST. ASERA has had

no such a reforming struggle, but its culture did not prevent some occasional tensions. The

most intense of these, in my memory, being feminist complaints about male dominance in

the 1980s, and between its constructivist orientation and the attacks on it from the scientific

idealism of Michael Matthews. ASERA’s intentions to have close associations with

practicing science teachers has been even less successful than the vagaries of success that

Joslin and Stiles record for NARST. Furthermore, these authors record little about educo-

political activity from NARST. ASERA’s nurturing and informal culture has prevented it,

I believe from taking political initiatives in Australia and New Zealand that could have

been useful when ideas like national curricula or assessment issues arose. It is interesting to

note Penny Gilmer (2007), the current president of NARST, sees such a heightened policy

role as an important goal for NARST to assume.

From the 1980s, international participation in NARST was steadily increasing, and a

much greater openness became evident (Treagust 2000). Australians like Ken Tobin who

stayed in USA, and others who regularly visited, like Barry Fraser and David Treagust,

were welcomed into various offices and soon into the president’s chair. The research of

Australian scholars has been recognized for most, if not all of the NARST awards.

Research emphases

Quantitative studies were common in RISE, as they were in JRST although fewer of the

former included an experimental design. There was a smoother acceptance in RISE of

qualitative studies than Roberts (2004) reported was the case in JRST.

Thanks to Roger Osborne from the University of Waikato, ASERA members in 1979

had a direct introduction to the issue of students’ conceptions of scientific phenomena and

scientific concepts and to the simple but powerful methodologies he and John Gilbert

devised to study them. Quickly these conceptions, and the consequent issue of conceptual

change, became popular strands in ASERA research. For learning theory reasons we were

more ready to describe these as ‘‘children’s science,’’ or as ‘‘alternative conceptions’’ when

‘‘misconceptions’’ was being used in NARST circles.8

8 I have often wonder if the presence of the word ‘‘Teaching’’ in the titles of NARST and JRST, rather than‘‘Education’’ as in ASERA and RISE, inhibited the relative reluctance in the former to credit the importanceof ‘‘learning’’ as distinct from ‘‘teaching’’ in our mutual search for improved science education.


123

Gunstone and White (1992) published a very useful book on the methodologies that

evolved for conceptual change studies, almost a decade before the similar and equally useful

book by Mintzes et al. 2000) appeared in North America. Apart from these two strands, the

changes in research focus and in methodology that have occurred over the last 30 years in the

publications from NARST and ASERA have been broadly parallel (White 2001), although

when the contextual settings of the respective studies are considered they are often quite

distinct. With the healthy cross-fertilisation that has now, so long, existed between our two

research cultures, such similarity and difference is, I would contend, as it should be.

References

Cohen, D. (1964). The significance of recent research in secondary school science education. ScienceEducation, 48, 157–167.

Gilmer, P. (2007). E-NARST NEWS, 50(2), 1–2.Roberts, D. (2004). Personal communication reported in P. J. Fensham (2004) Defining an Identity: The

evolution of science education as field of research (p. 119). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Stanhope, R. W. (1952). Preparation of physical science teachers. Science Education, 36, 3–19.Treagust, D. (2000). Our development as an international community. NARST NEWS, 43, 1–6.White, R. T. (1995). International scholarship and the AERA. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 19–21.White, R. T. (2001). The revolution in research on teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research

on teaching (4th ed., pp. 457–471). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.

Peter Fensham is emeritus professor of science education at Monash University in Victoria, Australia,where he had established in the late 1960s a research group which soon became well known in internationalfora in North America, Europe and Asia. He is now adjunct professor at Queensland University of Tech-nology. He has been interested in science as a source of power and authority, and hence with the idea ofScience for All as public empowerment. This interest continues through his membership of the ScienceExpert Group for the OECD’s PISA project, which emphasizes scientific literacy as being able to applyscientific knowledge in real world S&T situations. He has been heavily involved throughout his career in thepolitics of education in directions that attempt to reduce educational disadvantages.

Science education, BSCS, NARST, and JRST: from the University to the high schoolsa foreigner—Veteran memoire

Reuven Lazarowitz9

I received my MSc degree in biology (botany, zoology and biochemistry) and a certificate

for teaching biology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. My master’s thesis addressed

the subject of the dormancy process of photo-sensitive seeds of desert plants using the

gibberellin and kinetin hormones. My first paper published on this subject together with my

mentor, the late Alexandra Mayber Polyakov from the Hebrew University, led to my

acceptance to the PhD program.

However, I decided instead to teach biology in a developed area of the country where

most of the students were new immigrants who had just arrived in Israel and who spoke in

ten languages. I taught for 10 years in high school where, as a teacher acquainted with the

concept of Science Education, I was involved in the adaptation of the BSCS curriculum to

our schools. Upon receiving a UNESCO scholarship, I went to study the Nuffield project in

Biology in the UK and BSCS in the USA. In 1973, I was admitted to the PhD program at



123

the University of Texas in Austin, where I combined biology and science education under

the supervision of Addison Lee and David Butts, who led me through the dissertation

process. Mrs. West Lee diligently typed up my dissertation, translating it from ‘‘Hebrew-

English’’ to ‘‘English-English.’’ NARST played a clear role in my development as a

scholar too. At the University of Texas I met faculty and graduate students who were

members of NARST.

In 1974, I attended my first NARST conference in Chicago, where I presented a paper

on teacher education written by a colleague from Austin who was unable to attend. My

studies in Austin, my experience with the faculty and the graduate students there, my

first NARST conference, and my papers in JRST channeled my research interest to the

subjects of curriculum development and implementation in high schools and evaluation

of teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward teaching and learning new programs in the

inquiry method.

My research expanded to evaluate academic achievement and mastery of inquiry skills

in individuals, in cooperative small groups, and in computer-assisted learning settings. The

Science Education Center (SEC) in Austin was viewed in the 60s and 70s as the link

between the University and research in science and science education, as well as the link to

schools, teachers and students in the pre-service and in-service courses.

Addison Lee, chairman of the BSCS steering committee, showed us that science content

and science education are two sides of the same coin. David Butts, who was President of

NARST (1986) and became the editor of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching(JRST), encouraged me to publish my first two papers in JRST. James Barufaldi, who

joined the SEC, encouraged me to continue doing research as a post-doc Together, we

continued research on students’ attitudes toward the inquiry method and published three

papers. In 1987 Barufaldi became President of NARST.

Back in Israel, I continued my research in all the above subjects, having strong relations

with the science education group at Austin, NARST and JRST. I attended almost all of the

NARST conferences held from 1974 to 2005. These conferences enabled me to get a more

complete picture about the research being conducted by NARST members and to get

updated about new trends prior to their publication. In presenting my own research, the

conferences offered me the opportunity to receive positive and constructive criticism,

which helped me in composing the final papers. NARST provided an essential venue for

social and professional interactions with other researchers, for the exchange of ideas, and

for invitations to lecture at different science education centers in the USA.

I would like to mention in particular the NARST conferences held in the Catskill

Mountains in 1981; French Lick Springs in 1985; Lake Geneva (Wisconsin) in 1991; and

at Oak Brook in 1997. Each of these conferences was held at a retreat location and offered

us the opportunity for social and professional interactions almost 20 h a day. Of the more

than 200 conferences that I have attended in my career in the USA, the UK, Canada, Spain,

Sweden, Finland, Vietnam, Australia, and Israel, these retreats are the most vivid in my

memory.

The participation of Israelis in NARST has created professional links involving NARST

members from the USA, Canada, the UK, Portugal, Holland, Australia, and other countries

from Asia and Africa. For example, international participants helped to enrich the quality

of five international conferences on science education, held in Israel from the 1980s to

2000 at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the Weitzman Institute of Science in Rehovot,

and the Israel Institute of Technology, Technion, in Haifa. These conferences addressed

curriculum development, teacher education, student achievement, science education in

undeveloped countries, and teacher education from the 20th to the 21st century.


123

I conclude by noting some issues that are vital for NARST in order to continue its

international impact on scientific and technological education. First, is science education a

discipline? Several issues appearing in the literature in recent decades include: Science is

not taught in the way that science is done; there is no continuity between how we teach in

our methods courses and how our novice teachers teach once they get into the school

environment; and few students choose to study sciences. I find it a coincidence that similar

issues arose in 1974 during my first NARST conference in Chicago.

Finally, an ongoing concern has been the lack of communication between the research

products in science education and its application by science teachers in the classroom.

Studies show that teachers who serve as partners in new curricula development, new

teaching strategies, assessments, and new goals, can be effective agents of change in their

schools—action research models worked with the BSCS in the USA in the 60s and 70s,

and have been successfully applied in Israel from the 70s until today with high school

biology curricula by NARST colleagues from the two countries. This approach can be

expected to help us to use what we know from our research to improve schools and benefit

teachers and students.

Reuven Lazarowitz is professor emeritus of science education in biology, former head of the Departmentof Science Education and Technology and faculty member at the Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa. Hisresearch interests include cognitive and affective outcomes of high school students studying biology inInquiry methods within computer assisted learning, cooperative and individualized settings and teachereducation. He was a high school biology teacher and the head of the biology department. In 1968, hereceived a fellowship from UNESCO, to study the Nuffield project in England and the Biological SciencesCurriculum Studies (BSCS) in USA. Lazarowitz published over 150 scientific papers and chapters injournals and books.

NARST history and science learning in informal contexts

Leonie J. Rennie10

The National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), especially its

Annual Meetings, has been an important part of my educational life for two decades. Of

course, I had heard of NARST prior to this; already I was a member, having subscribed to

JRST from 1985. Living in Perth, Western Australia, with David Treagust, Ken Tobin and

Barry Fraser as colleagues in the local science education community, perhaps it was

inevitable that I would eventually become a regular NARST attendee. A significant

stimulus, probably a water-shed, in my career as a science educator came in 1986 when

Jane Butler Kahle and Floyd Nordland came to Perth to work with Ken and Barry. Jane

was awarded the prestigious Hayden Williams Fellowship for that year at Curtin University

of Technology. Although I was not then at Curtin, Ken and Barry invited me to participate

in a research project at a metropolitan high school, a project that resulted in a quite

remarkable book documenting the lives of teachers and students in two 10th grade

classrooms (Tobin et al. 1990). It was Jane who convinced me that I could and should

attend a NARST meeting and that first occurred in 1989, not long after I had relocated to

Curtin, taking up the position vacated by Ken Tobin when he accepted a professorial post

at Florida State University. I am very grateful to Jane for her continued mentorship and

support.



123

My chapter in the Tobin et al. book was entitled ‘‘Student participation and motivation

orientations: What students do in science.’’ I was very interested in what made students

want to learn science; why some grasped the learning opportunities with both hands, as it

were, yet others in the same classroom with the same enthusiastic teacher providing the

same opportunities, merely went through the motions of doing the work but not engaging

with it. Very soon I began researching the area then known in general terms as ‘‘informal

learning in science,’’ investigating how children (and later adults) learn when they are out

of the classroom, and have more choice about what they do.

Considerable research activity was already occurring in this area, particularly in museums

and similar places, and also relating to field trips. However, not many reports of such research

were making their way to the NARST meetings, nor to JRST. Over the last decade, this has

changed dramatically. A defining move occurred in 1999, when the Board of the NARST

established an Informal Science Education Ad Hoc committee, co-chaired by Lynn Dierking

and John Falk, both long time researchers and recognized leaders in the field. Over its life the

Committee included David Anderson, Angela Barton, Kirsten Ellenbogen, Eric Pyle, Leonie

Rennie, Anita Roychoudhury, Patricia Simmons, and Julie Thomas. The Board charged the

Committee to focus on NARST’s positioning in regard to informal science education.

In conjunction with the 2000 Annual Meeting, the ad hoc committee surveyed NARST

members, asking about their interests and perceptions of the organization’s profile in this

research area. A report of the findings and its implications and recommendations for

NARST was presented to the board in September 2000, which endorsed the findings and

recommendations and directed the committee to develop a plan for a strategic initiative in

the area of informal science education. The committee began work and developed goals for

their activities which were endorsed by the board as the 2001 Annual Meeting.

By April 2002, the ad hoc committee had an agreed definition for the research area,

embedded within a draft policy statement, that identified and described the variety of out-of-

school environments in which science learning occurs, examined issues related to conducting

research in the area and suggested a potential research agenda for the field. The statement also

included recommendations for building a community of researchers, and for collaborative

research initiatives with other research areas and groups within and outside of NARST. The

committee had also considered possible names for this area of research (e.g., out-of-school,

free-choice, life-long, public understanding of science, etc.) and agreed unanimously that it

should not be ‘‘Informal Science Education’’! The draft policy statement was presented to,

and accepted by, the NARST Board at the 2002 Annual Meeting.

The policy statement was made available to the broader NARST and science education

community in February, 2003 by including it in a special issue of JRST, subtitled

‘‘Informal Education’’ and edited by Elsa Feher and me. It was a great joy to work with

Elsa, an insightful and committed researcher into the learning of science. In a section

entitled ‘‘Defining the Domain,’’ the policy statement argued:

At the core of this effort to understand real world science learning is a firm belief that

learning rarely, if ever, occurs and develops from a single experience. Rather,

learning in general, and science learning in particular, is cumulative, emerging over

time through myriad human experiences, including but not limited to experiences in

museums, schools; while watching television, reading newspapers and books, con-

versing with friends and family; and increasingly frequently, through interactions

with the Internet. The experiences children and adults have in these various situations

dynamically interact to influence the ways individuals construct scientific knowl-

edge, attitudes, behaviors, and understanding. In this view, learning is an organic,


123

dynamic, never-ending, and holistic phenomenon of constructing personal meaning.

This broad view of learning recognizes that much of what people come to know

about the world, including the world of science content and process, derives from

real world experiences within a diversity of appropriate physical and social contexts,

motivated by an intrinsic desire to learn. (Dierking et al. 2003, p. 109)

Further, through the policy statement, the ad hoc committee encouraged an extension of the

research into science learning from museums and similar educational institutions by calling

for ‘‘comparable studies of learning from film, radio, community-based organizations like

scouts, and summer camps, home, friends, the work place, the Internet and a whole range of

other real-world situations’’ (p. 109). The committee noted ‘‘the need for an enhanced theory

of real world, lifelong learning… [and that t]he conceptual and methodological challenges

engendered by this type of research have only begun to be understood’’ (p. 109). Six sig-

nificant criteria for furthering the research agenda were outlined in the policy statement, and

these were expanded upon in an additional paper in the special issue of JRST (Rennie et al.

2003). Finally, the policy statement noted that NARST has a potential opportunity to take a

leadership role by supporting research in this area of out-of-school learning and raising its

profile. In this way, the committee feels that NARST would demonstrate its understanding of

the fundamental role that such learning has in the lives of children and adults. By promoting a

broader definition and framework for this type of learning and efforts to investigate its

relationship to learning from schooling and work place environments, NARST has an

opportunity to shape a larger vision for the 21st century learner that includes out-of-school

(free-choice) learning and reflects a holistic understanding of the entire science learning

process across the life span (Dierking et al. 2003).

The free-choice, informal, out-of-school research has increased in strength at the NARST

annual meetings. Originally clustered under Strand 9 (Informal Learning), now Strand 6

(Science Learning in Informal Contexts; we seem to have agreed upon a name!), the number

of papers that are presented means that one can spend an entire NARST meeting pretty much

in the same room with research colleagues immersed in papers from the strand. This is very

pleasant, but there is a potential drawback: It is easy to become out of touch with what other

research groups at NARST are doing. The growing representation of research in environ-

mental education, for example, has considerable overlap of focus and method with out-of-

school learning. Similarly, the advances in understanding learning itself which we make in

the out-of-school area are significant to other strands. Whereas once we searched out the very

few papers about learning science outside of school, we now are very well served. But the

methodological and theoretical boundaries have not been reached and there are opportunities

for increasing the collaboration with other research areas. The larger vision for the 21st

Century Learner is still a goal for the NARST community.

I have wonderful colleagues at NARST, in the out of school strand, but also beyond it,

from my time on the NARST Board and from the general camaraderie of the annual

meetings. NARST has made a significant contribution to recognizing and endorsing a

broad range of research areas and I look forward to continuing to learn and grow from my

participation with NARST, and hopefully contribute to its growth as well.

References

Dierking, L. D., Falk, J. H., Rennie, L., Anderson, D., & Ellenbogen, K. (2003). Policy statement ofthe ‘‘Informal Science Education’’ Ad Hoc Committee. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40,108–111.


123

Rennie, L. J., & Feher, E. (Eds.). (2003). Informal education. [Special Issue]. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 40(2), 105–256.

Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing research onscience learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 112–120.

Tobin, K., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (Eds.). (1990). Windows into science classrooms. Problems asso-ciated with higher-level cognitive learning. London: Falmer.

Leonie Rennie is professor of science and technology education at the Science and Mathematics EducationCentre and Dean, Graduate Studies at Curtin University of Technology, Perth Western Australia. She has abackground in science teaching and curriculum, and is particularly interested in how people learn, and wantto learn, in a variety of settings. Currently, she is working on research projects relating to integratedcurriculum in science, mathematics and technology, and a state-wide program to enhance scientific literacyin schools and in the community. Her scholarly publications include are based on her research relating togender, learning and assessment in science and technology, both in school and out. She has also co-authoredtwo reports for the Australian government to assist in determining directions for science education inAustralian schools.

NARST’s expansion and internationalisation in the 1990s

Barry J. Fraser11

For over a quarter of a century, NARST has been a central part of my professional life in

different ways, and I have attended most annual meetings during that time. In the 1990s, I

was fortunate to be part of a NARST leadership team that witnessed and steered an

unprecedented period of expansion and internationalisation.

The first half of the 1990s was a special time in NARST’s history. Content analysis of

NARST annual meeting programs reveals that, during 1990–1995, the number of NARST

conference presentations by authors with an American affiliation increased two-and-a-half

times, while the number of papers presented by people with non-American addresses

increased by a factor of five. At the NARST annual meeting which I organised in San

Francisco in 1995, the number of papers presented by international members reached 30%,

with overseas presenters coming especially from (in order) Australia, Israel, the UK,

Taiwan, and Germany. As the number of international presenters at AERA conferences

was around 11% at this time (White 1995), NARST was performing two or three times

better than AERA in terms of international participation.

For the first time in its 70-year history, NARST members elected a person (i.e., me)

from outside North America as a Board Member (1991–1994) and then president (and

president-elect and past-president, 1994–1997). Also I was the first board member to chair

the International Committee (1991–1994) and the last president-elect to undertake the

daunting responsibility in 1999 of organising an annual meeting without the assistance of

annual meeting coordinators (and this was undertaken from the opposite side of the world).

Some of my most vivid memories of NARST annual meetings are the highly successful

and overwhelmingly appreciated receptions for international members in the early 1990s

that were hosted by the International Committee. The board debated a name change for

NARST to reflect its international character (Treagust 2000), and NARST annual meetings

over several years accommodated the presentation of many papers in the Spanish language

(see Gallard’s piece in this issue). The 1995 annual meeting involved the first appearance

of overseas publishers/exhibitors (Kluwer/Springer and Falmer/Taylor & Francis), as well

as special provisions for an enthusiastic group of graduate students and new researchers



123

(which I renamed the Next Generation of Researchers in the conference program). In order

to accommodate the increased number and diversity of presentations at annual meetings,

the ‘‘strand structure’’ which continues today was fully implemented for the first time for

the 1995 conference.

A bold initiative that was hotly debated when I was chair of the International Committee

involved riding on the crest of the wave of internationalization by holding NARST’s first-

ever annual meeting outside North America in 1999 in Europe (possibly Amsterdam). As

ESERA was in its formative stages around the mid-1990s, NARST explored a joint

NARST-ESERA conference rather than a NARST-only conference. When ESERA decided

against such a joint conference so early in its own history, momentum on this idea was lost

and we are left to speculate about how different NARST might be today had the idea of

‘‘offshore’’ annual meetings come to fruition.

References

Treagust, D. (2000). President’s column: Our development as an international community. NARST News,43(2), 1–6.

White, R. (1995). International scholarship and the AERA. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 19–21.

A significant event in the history of NARST

John R. Staver12

When I think of significant events in the life of NARST, I am immediately drawn to

presentations of the Distinguished Contributions Award at the NARST annual meetings.

This award represents a long-term expression of the NARST mission: Improving science

teaching through research. Once in a great while, however, a significant event centers on

another matter.

The year was 1992. Russell Yeany, then NARST President, Kenneth Tobin, then

NARST President-Elect, and I, then NARST Executive Secretary, met Janice Tully of

Wiley & Sons at the 1992 NARST annual meeting at the Hyatt Regency in Cambridge,

MA. The single item of business was the soon-to-expire contract with Wiley & Sons to

publish the Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Russ, Ken, and I had been charged by

the NARST Board to negotiate a new contract with Wiley & Sons to publish JRST. The

NARST annual royalties had never been more than about $6K. We had studied the contract

in great detail, attempting to identify language in the contract that would substantially

increase the royalties that Wiley and Sons pay to NARST for publishing JRST. Because

none of us was a lawyer, no one felt comfortable that we had successfully identified critical

language in the contract that, if changed, would substantially increase the revenue stream

from JRST. I likened our conversations prior to the meeting to ‘‘stumbling around in the

dark,’’ the ‘‘the three blind mice,’’ and ‘‘the blind leading the blind.’’ The meeting took

place in Russ’ hotel suite. It was a very pleasant, cordial meeting. Janice was willing to

accept our proposed changes in exchange for a 10-year contract. The previous contract had

been for 5 years. We agreed and shook hands. The legal staff at Wiley & Sons prepared a



123

completely new 10-year contract based on our discussion. The new contract was signed in

November of 1992.

The royalty checks are sent each year to the NARST executive secretary. When I

opened the royalty check after the first year of the new contract, I was certainly glad that I

was already sitting. If my memory serves me correctly (unfortunately the records are

missing), the amount was approximately $30,000. I called Russ and Ken immediately to

share the great financial news. The JRST individual and library subscription base continued

to grow over the next few years, and the amount of the last check was in the $50,000 range

when I exited the Executive Secretary’s role in 1996.

A final note focuses on subsequent publishing agreements between NARST and Wiley

& Sons. Bill Kyle, the current NARST Executive Director, spent considerable time

examining available NARST records. He notes that succeeding publishing agreements—

there have been two—have been treated as modifications to the original 1992 contract by

the Wiley & Sons legal staff. I interpret that and the larger royalty checks as evidence that

Russ, Ken, and I succeeded.

English imperialism and the internationalization of NARST

Alejandro Gallard13

The most appropriate starting point is with the first Latino/Hispanic member of NARST:

Louıs Martınez Perez of Florida International University. He is the lead in this story for

two reasons: his experiences at NARST and his advice to me when I indicated that I was

contemplating being involved in more than as a dues paying member. His comment was to

‘‘Be careful, they were not ready for me and I doubt that they are for you.’’ Perez’s

experiences were outright negative and included racism and isolation. As the second

Latino, my experiences were different to the extent that they were mostly sweet but some

moments were somewhat sour.

I believe the difference between our experiences can be attributed to timing and context.

Timing because when I first became active in NARST it was a period of broadening the

notion of what constitutes scholarship (qualitative–quantitative) and learning (behaviorism–

constructivism). But, something else occurred for me that defined context: the arrival of

Australian intellectual visionaries14 such as Barry Fraser, Cam McRobbie, Steve Ritchie,

Ken Tobin, and David Treagust. It was this group of individuals who defined what I argue

was, and still remains, the effort that led to the ‘‘real’’ internalization of NARST, which for

the time it lasted pushed for the inclusion of scholarship in a language other then English.

One of the members of this group was a fellow named Ken Tobin who charged me with a task

by asking the following question: ‘‘Can you get presenters from Latin America to present

their scholarship in Spanish?’’ Being the ‘‘Tigger’ that I am, I said, ‘‘yes.’’ and gulped.

It is my great pleasure to report that during a 3-year period, over 100 Latin American

scholars presented their work in the Spanish language.15 They came from Mexico, Central

and South America, and the Caribbean Spanish-speaking nations. No, it was not easy, but

when the door was opened, they entered. The participation of scholars in Spanish or any other

13 e-mail: [email protected] Others, such as James Gallagher, and Emmet Wright were also supportive and can be included in the listof visionaries.15 Subsequent to the Spanish-speaking-era, NARST had sessions in other languages.


123

language, in my view, created a potential for members of NARST to deepen our knowledge

base by raising new questions and providing deeper insights into existing research efforts.

However, not everyone felt the same. Many members, and to my astonishment some of

them were from other non-English speaking countries, were very resistant to the use of a

language other then English. To put it mildly, there was outright hostility, anger, and

resentment towards me, the board and other leaders of NARST. The reactions were, and

remain, the sourest aspect of my experiences with this organization, which all seemed to be

based on the idea that English is the de facto official language of the academy. Wow, that

certainly nullifies any scholarship that is not immediately reported in English. This is very

akin to Freire’s notion of the banking system by making English fluency and dominance as

the point of authority. It also brings home to me the difference between equal and equi-

table: all scholars are welcome as long as they communicate in English.

Knowledge should not be bound or delimited by the English language. Consequently, it

is sad that NARST has given up on the opportunity of helping its membership to continue

learning from others simply because they do not communicate in English. As sad or sadder,

is the hegemonic defined arrogance attributed to English that is part of the worldwide

academy.

Connecting scholars in an international community

Marıa Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre16

I first heard about NARST journal and conferences, through Jose Otero, in the middle 80s

when I was beginning my doctoral research about the learning of natural selection, in the

context of an emerging Spanish science education community. In 1992, after completing

my dissertation, I went to Madison for a post-doc with Peter Hewson who suggested

attending the NARST conference in Boston. The official mentor scheme had not begun, but

Peter and the colleagues from the University of Wisconsin (Michael Beeth, Sister Gertrude

Hennessey, and others) supported me as a newcomer in an unfamiliar context, a tradition of

sharing sessions and dinners that has been preserved to this day. I became a NARST

member in this year and have since regularly participated in the conferences. From the

1992 NARST meeting, I recall a paper that has been influential in my own research about

argumentation learning environments and intellectual ecology: Richard Thorley’s

‘‘Classroom conceptual ecologies: contrasting discourse in conceptual change instruction.’’

I also met Sherry Southerland and other people interested in evolution learning that led to

the production in 1994 of a JRST special issue on this topic.

From these first encounters with NARST meetings and journal I have contrasting

recollections: the conference environment was warm (despite a snow storm that I was

watching for the first time) and I perceived interest in research from other regions of the

world. On the other hand, research quoted in the papers published in JRST surprised me as

being quite narrow in scope. In a comment published in Science Education in 1995, I

examined the reference sources in three issues of IJSE, Science Education and JRST, and

found in this last venue a predominance of quotations from the same JRST, while only 3

out of 90 (journal references) were from European or Australian based journals, while the

proportion of references from abroad was higher in the other two journals.



123

In 1996 I was again in the US, as a visiting scholar working with Richard Duschl about my

first project on argumentation. In the NARST meeting in Saint Louis I attended a session

where Gregory Kelly presented a paper (with Druker and Chen, later published in the IJSE)

about argumentation analysis. By this time the European Science Education Research

Association had been launched and I was part of its first executive, which informally had

commissioned me with a proposal about holding a joint NARST/ESERA conference

(unfortunately this has not been possible until this date). The work of Kelly and colleagues

has been a major influence on our own research in these 10 years and, as a consequence of our

meeting, a symposium about argumentation was organised (I think that for the first time) at

the 1997 NARST meeting in Chicago, with papers from Kelly and colleagues and from our

group (Jimenez-Aleixandre, Bugallo and Duschl, later published in Science Education). It

was during this Chicago meeting that Rosalind Driver told me that she had recently applied

for funding for an argumentation project. I believe that this illustrates the role of NARST

conferences in building connections among research groups from different continents.

Although a joint ESERA/NARST (or ASERA) conference has not yet occurred, it is my

impression that in the past decade the exchanges among different research communities

have increased. All my subsequent participations in NARST symposia belong to joint

proposals from a mixed group of European and U.S. scholars. As I have always believed in

the virtues of cross-fertilization, I think that these exchanges are good news. We have

much to learn from each other.

NARST: a european perspective

Justin Dillon17

ESERA, the European Science Education Research Association, was born in the UK

during a conference on ‘Science Education in Europe’ held from April 8 to 11, 1995, in

Leeds. Rick Duschl, one of the very few U.S. researchers present, and I counted the votes

for the first ever ESERA elections. Earlier, Rick had told me how he had arrived in

Heathrow airport early one morning to be greeted by a stern-faced immigration official.

‘‘What’s your occupation?,’’ the official asked. ‘‘Professor of Science Education,’’ replied

Rick. A lengthy pause ensued. ‘‘Well,’’ said the official, ‘‘I guess someone has to do it.’’

Three days after the Leeds conference, I flew to NARST in San Francisco. I’d been to

AERA in New Orleans the year before but this was my first NARST. NARST was, and still

is, a larger conference than ESERA although the distance is closing. At the time, NFL

matches were popular in the UK and my first NARST paper was entitled ‘‘Fourth Down

and Fifty’’ and it described work that we had been doing inservice training in Indonesia. At

one extreme, NARST felt like a (not-so-very) grown up fraternity house—traditional,

male-dominated and insular. San Fran’s was the first and only FARSE that I attended, and

that was one too many. The awards luncheon also seemed quite bizarre with its ‘‘out-

standing’’ this and its ‘‘best’’ that. At the other extreme, NARST can be welcoming, laid

back and a rich form of professional development. The mentor system for first-time

NARST attendees can work well though 1 year my mentee turned out to be a female

academic who was a NARST regular but who just wanted to meet people!

Although dominated by U.S. faculty and doctoral students, NARST has always attracted

a number of overseas participants especially those from Australia, Canada, Germany, and



123

the UK. ESERA, in contrast, feels more homogeneous, although the number of Germans

and Brits tends to outweigh the other countries. Although NARST ventures above the 49th

parallel now and again, ESERA shuttles across Europe, every 2 years, from Italy (1997) to

Germany (1999), Greece (2001), Netherlands (2003), Spain (2005) and Sweden (2007).

Alternating with the conference is a summer school for 50 or more doctoral students mid-

way through their studies: next year’s will be in York, UK. The summer schools are hugely

popular and the 2-year conference cycle ensures that people make an effort to attend.

Plans to hold a NARST meeting in Europe (Amsterdam was mooted as being easy to get

to from the US) failed to materialise. ESERA needed time to get going and the idea of a

joint NARST/ESERA conference, though appealing at one level, proved challenging to

implement. What has been successfully implemented is a trilateral agreement between

NARST, ESERA and ASERA which means that each of the three organisations invites the

other two to organise a symposium at their conference. A small step for each organisation

rather than a giant leap for science education.

When N=1: addressing the quantitative/qualitative dilemma in science teachereducation

Hedy Moscovici18

NARST 1993—the crisis

NARST Annual Meeting 1993. Due to a number of conflicts during session presentations,

an ad-hoc meeting was initiated to solve the animosities resulting from approaching sci-

ence education research using different methodologies. The meeting was in a relatively

large room with a large oval table in the middle. Around the table, representatives of the

two different streams of research—the quantitative and the qualitative groups sat sepa-

rately, almost dividing the table into two sections. A few chairs with no access to the table

accommodated a few late arrivals. On numerous occasions dialogues like the one below

portrayed the deep lack of understanding for the new kid on the block of science education

research: the qualitative research methodology.

Dr. Quanti: Who heard of doing research on teaching and learning using N=1? Or 2?

How does such research inform us as to the intervention? Where is the generalizability

here?

Dr. Quali: Maybe we should look into viability of the research and leave the credibility

to the reader?

Dr. Quanti: I don’t agree. It is our responsibility as the researchers to inform the

public—we need to tell teachers if a program using an interactive videodisk is effective.

We cannot leave it to them to decide.

Looking back at the—what did you call it?

Dr. Quali: Qualitative research.

Dr. Quanti: Oh, yes. Qualitative. It is more like Reader’s Digest… Someone’s

impressions and feelings, presented as research? I don’t think so. We cannot allow such

reporting to be part of science education research. All the educational research

community will laugh at us.



123

This meeting took place immediately after one of my colleagues, a graduate student

who was ready to defend her dissertation, got attacked by a very vocal supporter of the

quantitative stream. My colleague restated her research question and methodology with

remarkable self-composure despite the tone and attitude of the science educator who

pushed for involving large numbers in science education research studies. While I felt that

the attack was focusing on my colleague, she responded using professional literature in the

area that supported the methodology employed to answer her research question.

From past to present and looking into the future

JRST has slowly embraced qualitative studies. The first three issues of JRST articles in

2007 showed an almost equal percentage of mainly qualitative and mainly quantitative

studies. The reason I added ‘‘mainly’’ was that in most cases we see mixed methodologies

used in order to provide a balance between generalizability and individuality, between

common to a group and special to the individual.

It is interesting to point out that in the last decade, JRST advanced in its acceptance of

good research and published a few studies using what I would consider the extreme in

qualitative research: the self-study. Such studies not only look at N=1, but the 1 is the

author of the study.

While we solved over the years the question of research methodology, or at least we

decided as a community to act professionally during NARST presentations, we should be

looking at studies that have the potential to move science education one step further

nationally, and internationally. We know a lot and published a lot, however, we did not

establish yet an avenue to keep record of all that is known in a specific area. We are unable

to retrieve all that we, as a community of practice know and have published in, for

example, the area of conceptual change in middle school physics, or the effect of the

elementary teacher beliefs and students’ understanding of and attitudes toward science.

Maybe time has come for another ‘‘oval table’’ discussion on how to organize what we

know and how to make it readily available to the membership to inform future research.

My NARST experience—from US to international perspective

Hsiao-Lin Tuan19

I have been attending NARST meetings since 1986. Among the international students

attending NARST that year were Zoubeider Dagher from Lebanon and my classmates at

the University of Georgia, Chao-Ti Hsiung (Taiwan), Mariona Espinet (Spain), Antonio

Bettencourt (Portugal), and me. We were graduate students and most of us reported on

research related to our professor’s projects, encompassing U.S. science education interests.

For example, I was from Taiwan and presented a quantitative study involving the Chau-

tauqua program evaluation sponsored by NSF. At that time quantitative research with

experimental design was very popular at NARST, however, I also saw Ken Tobin who very

enthusiastically introduced interpretive research findings of exemplary science teachers at

NARST. His presentations attracted many graduate students and junior professors’



123

attention, because we all realized that it was the time period for qualitative research to

emerge in science education.

In 1991, I returned to the NARST meeting as a representative of international members

from Taiwan. About a dozen international members attended the NARST meeting. But

most of the papers presented at NARST were still based from an American point of view.

Since 1991, I encouraged my colleagues in Taiwan to attend NARST; fortunately our

government also encouraged and supported us to attend and present papers at international

conferences. Now, there are groups of Taiwanese science educators (probably more than

15 groups) attending each NARST meeting. At first the attendees were all professors, but

lately many doctoral students have been involved in attending and presenting at NARST as

well.

Around 1993 I was invited to attend an international committee, chaired by Peter

Hewson. He started a mentor program, which aimed to help international members to

present their papers in English, both orally or written. I also remembered when Ken Tobin

was elected NARST president; he organized the NARST program, and arranged a Spanish

session. In this session, Spanish was the official language. I was thinking how lucky these

Spanish researchers were, they could use their own language; though I could not under-

stand their presentation. This session only lasted for 1 year. However, this session

reminded me that in 2001 when I attended the Taiwanese and Japanese science education

conference, where all speakers and audiences were invited, the conference organizer

invited two translators, one translated Chinese into Japanese, and the other vice versa. I do

wish in the near future that we international members could have such privilege too to

present our papers using our own language. Otherwise, we will have to keep on struggling

to find appropriate English terms to express our thoughts.

I remember when William Cobern talked about worldview at NARST. I was very

excited about this viewpoint, and expected many papers that embraced an understanding of

worldview, culture and a need to accommodate international perspectives. However, most

of the papers presented at NARST are still oriented toward U.S. and other Western

(English language) worldviews. Few studies at NARST include an Asian worldview.

Time passes faster than expected. During last 10 years, I am glad to see that many

international science educators became NARST presidents: including Ken Tobin, Barry

Fraser, David Treagust, and Jonathan Osborne. NARST also changed its regulations so that

the executive board must include at least one international member. International attendees

now participate in NARST meetings to an increasing extent and there are more interna-

tional members from Taiwan, Korea, Australia, Britain, and Germany. This suggests that

NARST has become an international organization that is highly regarded by its interna-

tional members.

As I become more senior in my teaching as well as being a NARST international

member, I realize that science-education is culture bound. What is considered important in

Taiwan may not be a priority in other countries. Therefore, I expect our future NARST

paper presentations, as well as journal writing, to provide more culture-bound research

topics from English- and non-English-speaking countries.

I anticipate that NARST can address this subtle issue and address issues that are the

important to science education in all the countries of the world. NARST needs to accept

and learn from the differences embodied in the diverse sociocultural perspectives of its

members. The imperialism of the use of English and Western worldviews are just two

manifestations of the problems of successfully embracing difference as a resource for

improving NARST. Let us work hand in hand to help our science teachers and science

educators to promote students’ and citizens’ scientific literacy globally.


123

NARST: more than just an event

Christopher Emdin20

I attended the NARST conference for the first time in 2006, and prepared for it like I would

for any other academic conference. I looked up the names of scholars that I wanted to hear,

prepared for the opportunity to share my research, and looked forward to possibly leaving

with some new information. I viewed the conference the same way as I view others, as an

event that would occur and then pass.

I’ve always felt that at their best, many of these types of events (educational conferences

and symposiums) are a collection of moments that either have happened or are yet to come.

We (attendees and organizers) spend a tremendous amount of time preparing for them and

once they have happened, they are forgotten as we prepare for the next event. When they

have passed, these events become moments in space and time that were, and no longer are.

The only portals to them are often artifacts like flyers, business cards, and ticket stubs that

jog our memories and temporarily bring us back to the event. Once we put these artifacts

down, we put our memories behind us and move to the present as if nothing ever happened.

Because of my experiences in other academic conferences and the consequent feelings

about conferences that I had developed, I looked to the NARST conference with a lack of

great expectation. I anticipated that there would be people with different perspectives on

science education and perhaps a small group of people who shared my passion for issues

on the intersections of race, class, diversity and science education. I had prepared myself

for meeting scholars who I considered to be mentors in this field. People who I had never

met but whose work inspired me to enter the field of science education. I believed that a

few exchanges of words with these few people would be enough to make the conference

worthwhile.

On my first day attending the conference, I sat in a meeting of the Ethics and Equity

Committee, had the opportunity to hear Mary Atwater speak to the room of scholars of

color and listened to a panel of discussants that entered into discussions about their work.

Rather quickly, my expectations about the conference were quickly surpassed by the

energized, passionate, yet deeply scholarly discussions surrounding both my areas of

interest and realms of science education that I was not familiar with. Both during and right

after that session, I was able to sit and talk with colleagues from all over the world and was

informally welcomed to a conference that proved to be much more than just an event. By

this, I mean that my experiences at the conference never became locked in space and time.

The first session I attended, the welcoming words of Mary Atwater, and the insightful work

of my colleagues during my first session was a wormhole of sorts that transferred me to a

world where all that I was learning during the conference exists in a continuum.

Today, I need no artifacts to bring me back to the NARST conference in 2006. The

connections to peers, thought provoking conversations, and lessons about research I

received at the conference are part of my present identity as a science education researcher.

My introduction to the science education community at the first session I attended prepared

me for conversations with brilliant scholars throughout the conference. These individuals

took the time to speak with me about their work and shared their thoughts on my work. I

was also able to see that the passion for equity in science education that is at the core of my

identity as a researcher was shared by scholars at just about all of the presentations that I

attended. My experiences and conversations during the conference challenged me to



123

become an active member of the science education community and continue to inspire me

today.

When I was invited to provide a piece to add to this collection of essays, I called a

colleague that I met at the conference to say hello and share a laugh about our experiences

during our few years attending education conferences. During the conversation, we both

vividly remember the presenters at NARST, the scholars whose work we read before the

conference who took the time to speak with us, and the informal dinners we attended where

we discussed everything from theory to research. Neither of us could remember much

about the other conferences we attended that year because they all seemed like a blur.

Those conferences remain simply as events that may possibly be revisited by accessing

artifacts like an exchanged business card. They were, they passed, and no longer are. My

first experience at NARST has proven to be more than an event because it was, and through

my invitation to the science education by scholars of color like Mary Atwater at the first

session I attended, still is.

Possible pathways

Kenneth Tobin and Wolff-Michael Roth21

As NARST enters its 80th year there are signs that it has evolved into a mature organi-

zation and has flourished in size and the scope of its activities. The participants in this

Forum largely have focused on the positive sides of our community’s history, and in so

doing, they also have produced a sense of optimism. And yet within many of the contri-

butions there are signs that the organization might identify and build alternative pathways.

In this concluding section we explore some of these possible pathways, taking up the

kernels provided by contributors to the Forum and weaving in some of our own experi-

ences with the organization.

Scholarly debate and critique

From the very first meetings it seems as if presenters of papers at the annual meeting are

fair game for others who may find something to critique in their work. In our experiences

with NARST we have witnessed quite aggressive attacks from senior scholars on the work

of junior scholars, some of whom were doctoral students or in their first year since

graduation. Especially in the 1980s there was evidence of junior scholars having to earn

their stripes and to a large extent this dissipated into what we consider to be sniping from

senior scholars at the work of others whose work they happen to disagree with. Numerous

examples exist of heavy and often unjustified critique from scholars, especially on the parts

of those who tend to embrace elements of positivism against the kind of research that we

publish in this journal. We raise as a challenge the issue of how an organization addresses

difference in all of its forms and creates structures so that there is collective learning and

improvement of science education globally.

We are concerned at the continued parochialism of NARST, which is manifested in the

exclusive use of English and in the dominance of Western worldviews and Western science

in shaping the research agenda. More so, even though science educators generally avow to



123

build on children’s strengths, the latter’s views on and understandings of the world are to

be eradicated or eliminated through more or less radical ‘‘conceptual change.’’ Given the

rapid expansion of NARST into the international science education community, it makes

sense to at least raise the question about issues of presenting and publishing in more

languages than English—at least the abstracts ought to be available in multiple languages,

as these will be in our journal—and how to become aware of the critical issues as they are

perceived, for example, by scholars in other countries. Tuan raises a good point about the

potential hegemony of the Western worldview and we wonder if the solution to our

ongoing and pervasive problems in science education might be partially attributable to a

lack of receptivity to learn from difference rather than subjecting our entire enterprise to an

ideology of the same. We believe, to use some everyday expressions, that driving every

square peg through the same round hole will more likely produce a regression to the mean

rather than to excellence (e.g., in journal articles, papers), which we see as the very

outcome of accepting difference. (In the biological world, too, suppressing gene variation

leads to trouble for a population, and genetic variability not only to adaptation but also to

the creation of new possibilities [niches].)

Changing course may be necessary

The most recent annual meeting of NARST was attended by a record number of partici-

pants from numerous countries. The number of papers also was large and the final program

was like a large city’s telephone book. Basically the program had reached a size that

prohibited attending all of the sessions that any one of us would like to attend and the time

for presentation was relatively short. Hence, what presenters do is to gloss the research and

substantive engagement with the research is unlikely. As Fensham points out in relation to

ASERA, more time is made available there for presenters to present substantively and then

there is equal time for discussion. Having said that, some of the same problems were

becoming apparent at ASERA in the past year as the program grew, parallel sessions made

difficult choices inevitable, and for some speakers people crammed into inadequate spaces.

Perhaps it is time for a new approach to presenting what has been learned from research.

With the advent of videoconferencing protocols perhaps there is now a case to be made for

re-inventing annual meetings such that different goals are pursued. The presentation of

papers seems to us to be an old technology and many alternatives can be imagined. For

example, researchers could present electronic papers to strand coordinators who could

arrange for peer review and then send the papers to Forum—much as we do in the pages of

CSSE. Then scholars from the same strand could sign on for videoconferencing sessions

with authors, perhaps in groups of 3–4 at a time. The advantage of such an approach is that

the paper could be read first and then discussions could use all of the time scheduled for the

conference.

Peer review

Within NARST peer review occurs in relation to papers submitted to a science education

journal and in relation to papers to be presented at the annual meeting. NARST members

also review each other’s research proposals within and across nations. A critical decision

that may not get the attention it deserves is what constitutes a peer. With the increasing

number of proposals submitted to the annual meeting there is often a press to reject a


123

certain number to restrict the size of the program. For the past 5 years, we have been

writing about the nature of the peer review process and the many problems it comes with,

including the damages it does to beginning scholars (e.g., Roth 2002; Roth and Tobin

2002). In the light of what we have argued above, perhaps more debate on peer review is

long overdue. Is the peer review educative or does it serve to legitimize the science

education knowledge base? We imagine most readers would argue it is partially both.

Perhaps some research is needed on issues associated with peer review within NARST. We

need to ask, ‘‘What is a peer and how are peers selected for their reviews?’’ ‘‘When a peer

reviews some work what happens if he or she realizes she is not a peer in respect to that

proposal or work?’’

We begin this final section with a discussion of scholarly debate and critique. Perhaps

this is the essence of peer review and more senior scholars within NARST should be

involved regularly in reviewing the scholarly products of peers. This is a particularly

important role when approached in the way we have in this journal, where we work with

authors and foster their growth until a piece is ready for publication. In this regard a strand

organization for conferences makes sense and within the strands and across NARST the

time is long due for a conversation over the ways in which differences are included and

treated.

Globalization and accepting difference

International members raised questions about language and worldview; we suggest that

epistemological, ontological and axiological differences are pervasive and occur within as

well as across nations. How has NARST sought to identify differences and how can it

collectively incorporate them into an organization in which members exhibit solidarity and

seek to collaborate to make a difference through research?

We hope that the road ahead for science education will not stay within national or

Western boundaries. There is much to be said and think about science and science edu-

cation in terms of the everyday mundane life that forever has preceded anything now

accepted as being ‘‘scientific.’’ They are global in extent and multifarious. There is no

longer a need for NARST to ask whether or not it is an international organization. The

numbers speak for themselves. NARST is international. Similarly, other science education

research organizations are international and provide for scholars fields in which to do

research in science education, learn from other science educators, and receive the benefits

of peer review. Rather than one global organization it seems like an imperative for the

trends toward collaboration to expand to embrace science education as polysemic and

create structures to afford learning from the differences that are manifest in global science

education. When NARST turns 100 we anticipate that profound differences will have

occurred as advanced technologies obviate the need for so many organizational resources

to be diverted toward activities that are not aligned with research and may in many

instances reduce the quality and quantity of research in science education. Our crystal ball

does not show what changes have occurred or where these changes have led science

education. It is now time to catalyze changes in direction. We hope NARST will work

towards including cosmopolitanism as a value to afford an accommodation of the inherent

differences that exist whenever two individuals come together. We need to create a place

of safe haven where everyone can prosper while pursuing the motive of improving science

education.


123

History and difference

In telling the history of NARST we selected authors who have experienced the organi-

zation in ways that reflect the historical and temporal constitution of the organization. Each

author was selected as an individual, because of her or his identity as a science education

researcher. Within the limits of the space we could devote to this piece the authors wrote

about their lived experiences in NARST in ways that project their standpoints and the

associated luminaries and blind spots. The living history of NARST and the lived biog-

raphies of its members cannot be separated—they are but two sides of the same coin. As

the editors of Cultural Studies of Science Education (CSSE), we allow the history to unfold

through the texts of the authors and our editing has not sought to achieve either greater

coherence or to highlight contradictions. Instead we let the authors’ texts portray NARST

as they have experienced it as past, present and future. Our introductory and closing texts

do not seek to privilege our perspectives above others, simply to express our own stand-

point and sense of the game. In making a call for change, we present CSSE as an

embodiment of some alternative trajectories that we anticipate will have prominence in the

future.

References

Roth, W.-M. (2002). Evaluation and adjudication of research proposals: Vagaries and politics of funding(92 paragraphs). Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(4).http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02roth-e.htm

Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (Eds.). (2002). Peer review. (Special issue of Research in Science Education,32[2]).


123

http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02roth-e.htm

NARST: a lived history

Documents

Transcript of NARST: a lived history