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
Advances in automated scoring technologies have the potential to support student learning during inquiry instruction by providing timely and adaptive guidance on individual students’ responses. To identify which forms of automated guidance can be beneficial for inquiry learning, we compared reflective guidance to directive guidance for student‐generated concept diagrams in web‐based inquiry instruction. Eleven intact classes were randomly assigned to either a reflective guidance or a directive guidance condition. After creating a concept diagram showing energy flow in life science during the inquiry instruction, the directive group was told specific ways to improve their diagram, while the reflective group was told to revisit a relevant visualization step to locate useful information. The results from the concept diagrams, as well as individual tests, show that both forms of automated guidance helped students add target energy concepts, but reflective guidance was significantly more effective than directive guidance in improving students’ coherent understanding of how energy flows in life science. Analyses of log data revealed that the reflective group was more likely to revisit the visualization step as suggested in the guidance, which significantly enhanced student learning. Detailed analyses suggest that revisiting relevant materials to find useful information challenged students to identify gaps in their understanding and distinguish among multiple ideas. This study shows the value of designing reflective automated guidance for helping students engage in evidence‐gathering practices and enhance their understanding of scientific concepts. The findings suggest promising directions for the design of automated adaptive guidance to support complex science learning. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 53:1003–1035, 2016