Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
While there is evidence to support the existence of identity-based disparities, inequities, and biases in the academic journal peer-review process, little research supports the presence of this bias in the peer-review process for academic journals in science education. Through an analysis of six leading journals in science education, we aimed to investigate the extent to which diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as the presence of bias in the peer-review process, are addressed by these journals. We analyzed trends in the gender/sex, geographical affiliation, race/ethnicity, and the presence of equity-centered research focus for members of these journals' editors and editorial boards. We found that although gender/sex is well-balanced in these journals' editors and editorial boards, they are typically North American centric, and White individuals are overwhelmingly represented. Four journals had a quarter or more of individuals who pursue equity-centered research. Only two journals provided detailed information on how manuscripts are reviewed in their author submission guidelines. All used a double-blind approach to peer-review. One of the journals includes an explicit position on DEI. Based on the analyses and reflections on our own experiences, we recommend science education journals consider ways to probe whether bias does exist in their peer-review process, diversify their board to be more inclusive of scholars from communities historically marginalized, and move to a triple-blind approach to their peer-review process as mechanisms to mitigate bias in the journal peer review.more » « less
The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of different instruments, independently developed and traditionally used for measuring science teachers’ beliefs in short‐term interventions, to longitudinally measure teachers’ changing beliefs. We compared the ability of three self‐report instruments (Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument Form A [STEBI], Teaching of Science as Inquiry instrument [TSI], Inquiry Teaching Beliefs instrument [ITB]) and one observational instrument (Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol [RTOP]) to appropriately measure high school chemistry teachers’ beliefs as they engaged in a two and a half year professional development program. Collectively our findings from these four instruments, across three separate cohort of teachers (
N= 16), indicated conflicting changes in teacher beliefs. For example, the STEBI indicated teachers’ self‐efficacy remained unchanged or increased while the TSI indicated a concurrent decrease in self‐efficacy throughout the PD program. Additionally, the ITB seemed to indicate a decrease in teachers’ knowledge of inquiry while their interview data and RTOP scores indicated a concurrent increase in their knowledge of and ability to enact inquiry‐based practices. We reconcile these conflicting results and discuss the implications these findings have for validly and reliably measuring science teacher belief changes within longer duration PD. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 53:1055–1081, 2016