Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Aug 20;110 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):14075-80. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212738110. Epub 2013 Aug 12.
Although the "science of science communication" usually refers to the flow of scientific knowledge from scientists to the public, scientists direct most of their communications not to the public, but instead to other scientists in their field. This paper presents a case study on this understudied type of communication: within a discipline, among its practitioners. I argue that many of the contentious disagreements that exist today in the field in which I conduct my research--early science education--derive from a lack of operational definitions, such that when competing claims are made for the efficacy of one type of science instruction vs. another, the arguments are hopelessly disjointed. The aim of the paper is not to resolve the current claims and counterclaims about the most effective pedagogies in science education, but rather to note that the assessment of one approach vs. the other is all too often defended on the basis of strongly held beliefs, rather than on the results of replicable experiments, designed around operational definitions of the teaching methods being investigated. A detailed example of operational definitions from my own research on elementary school science instruction is provided. In addition, the paper addresses the issue of how casual use of labels-both within the discipline and when communicating with the public-may inadvertently "undo" the benefits of operational definitions.
尽管“科学传播的科学”通常是指科学知识从科学家流向公众，但科学家们将大部分沟通都不是针对公众，而是针对他们所在领域的其他科学家。本文对这种研究较少的沟通类型进行了案例研究：在一个学科内，在其从业者之间。我认为，在我进行研究的早期科学教育领域中，目前存在许多有争议的分歧，其根源在于缺乏操作性定义，以至于当有人对一种科学教学方法的效果提出相互竞争的主张时，这些争论就变得完全脱节了。本文的目的不是要解决当前关于科学教育中最有效教学法的主张和反驳，而是要指出，对一种方法与另一种方法的评估往往是基于强烈的信念，而不是基于围绕所研究的教学方法进行的可复制实验的结果。本文提供了一个来自本人对小学科学教学研究的操作性定义的详细示例。此外，本文还讨论了在学科内以及与公众沟通时随意使用标签的问题，这可能会无意中“消除”操作性定义的好处。
