「理科離れ」を対象とした研究の方法論に関する批判的考察―過去50年のJ-STAGE登録論文を対象に―

抄録

To evaluate the quality of “Swing away from Science” research methodology, we reviewed the related literature through a systematic search of an electric journal platform, J-STAGE. Through this survey, we located 1,058 articles published between 1973 and 2019, as of November 2019. Among these articles, we reviewed 149 empirical studies. Three types of research are identified: descriptive studies, analytical studies, and interventional studies. Descriptive studies collect data on students’ interest in science status. Analytical studies search determinants which influence students’ interest in science. On another hand, interventional studies examine effects of implemented intervention on students’ interest in science. The results of our critical review suggest seven methodological deficiencies: (a) a clear definition of “Swing away from Science” mostly lacked; (b) few researches used validated instruments; (c) no descriptive study followed through one group’s change in interest; (d) analytical studies failed to reveal complex interactions among determinants; (e) most interventional studies lacked pre-investigation and a control group; (f) some concepts of interest measured were not theoretically aligned to the span of intervention; and (g) almost all of the measures relied only on psychometric variables. The future direction of “Swing away from Science” research is discussed based on these seven findings.