Data-driven education research.

I approached the recent special section on undergraduate science education (“The World of Undergraduate Education,” 6 July, pp. 63-81) with great anticipation. Clearly, this is a vitally important topic for everyone—not just those interested in science education, since the connection between effective, inclusive undergraduate science education and national competitiveness is well documented ([1][1]). However, I was dismayed by the way Science chose to report on the worldwide state of science education. There is a growing body of data-driven research on “what works” to improve outcomes related to teaching, learning, and student retention [some of which has been published in Science ([2][2])], yet this was ignored in favor of reports containing mainly opinion and hearsay. Private empiricism—where we believe something because of our own personal experience—is not appropriate for scientists, yet when it comes to education, personal experience seems to be an acceptable substitute for evidence. Unfortunately, most scientists' beliefs about education are rarely based on objective evidence, but rather on what they imagine to be true. Although personal experience in the classroom can give valuable insights, it is not data. We now have many effective research-based ways to improve the outcomes for undergraduate science education and to assess student learning and achievement ([3][3]). There is a great deal of research on what works, so why is higher education in the sciences so resistant to change? Why does the faculty in your roundtable discussion not know about this research? Why do people who would never accept scientific information without data and theoretic underpinnings, embrace conventional wisdom and personal beliefs when it comes to education? Could it be the perceived relative unimportance of education efficacy, compared with traditional research productivity? Or is it that faculty are simply unaware of the advances that have been made in science education? Even in departments where the primary focus is undergraduate education, often little attention is paid to research on teaching and learning. Whatever the reason, it is simply unacceptable that the flagship journal of AAAS reports opinion as fact and personal belief systems as evidence. Editor's Note: Science publishes a monthly feature, the Education Forum, which focuses on data-driven education research. 1. 1.[↵][4] Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007) (available at [www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html][5]; accessed 14 July 2007). 2. 2.[↵][6] 1. J. Handelsman 2. et al. , Science 304, 521 (2004). [OpenUrl][7][Abstract/FREE Full Text][8] 3. 3.[↵][9] Much of this work has been funded by the National Science Foundation under a number of programs, yet I see no mention of any of this work in any of the articles. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1. in text" [5]: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2. in text" [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.issn%253D0036-8075%26rft.aulast%253DHandelsman%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%26rft.volume%253D304%26rft.issue%253D5670%26rft.spage%253D521%26rft.epage%253D522%26rft.atitle%253DEDUCATION%253A%2BScientific%2BTeaching%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1096022%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15105480%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMDQvNTY3MC81MjEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMzoiL3NjaS8zMTcvNTg0Mi8xMTcxLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ== [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3. in text"