Award Announcements & Information for E-News Letter

1) Distinguished Contributions Award

NARST Distinguished Contribution to Science Education through Research Award Nominees

The National Association for Research in Science Teaching seeks to improve science education through research. To this end, the Association desires to recognize and reward individuals who have made significant contributions to science education through research. Contributions may be of several types-including, but not limited to empirical, philosophical or historical research, evaluative studies, policy-related research, and studies reflecting new techniques to be applied in research.

The recipient of the Award should have contributed over a period of at least 20 years since the award of his or her doctorate. This award is the highest recognition NARST can bestow for contributions to science education through exemplary, high quality research.

Nominations are due not later than 30 August 2008 to the address below.

All members are encouraged to consider nominating a leading figure in science education research for this award. Self nominations are not permitted.

Please note that the award will be made to an individual who over a period of at least 20 years has:

a) made a continuing contribution to science education through research;
b) provided notable leadership in science education through research; and
c) had substantial impact on science education through research.

All that is necessary to start the nomination process is for a NARST member to send a name or names with no more than a one-page letter supporting the nomination of the person.

Please send the names of nominees to Kenneth Tobin (co-chair with David Treagust) at ktobin@gc.cuny.edu.

2) Doctoral Research Award

2008 NARST Outstanding Doctoral Research Award

The NARST Outstanding Doctoral Research Award Selection Committee invites all current NARST members who completed a dissertation within the 15 months prior to September 15, 2008 to submit an expanded ten-page abstract (in PDF format) to the committee for consideration for the 2009 NARST Outstanding Doctoral Research Award. Submissions are sought from as wide a field of candidates as possible, inclusive of gender, age, and ethnicity.

Judging will occur in two rounds. The first round of judging will be based on the ten-page abstract. From these, a small group of applicants will be asked to submit one copy (in PDF format) of the complete dissertation. The final decision of the committee will be based on the complete dissertation. All applicants will be notified of their status after the first round of judging is completed in early November. The recipient will be announced at the awards luncheon at the 2009 annual meeting in Garden Grove, California.

The committee welcomes doctoral dissertations from all research perspectives. The ten-page abstract should be structured to describe clearly the following: (1) purpose or objectives of the study; (2) conceptual/theoretical framework; (3) research approach/methods; (4) data sources and methods of analysis; (5) findings or results; (6) conclusions and implications; and (7) significance of the study. It is suggested that nominees model their abstracts after conference proposals submitted for NARST: Abstracts should foreground rationale, methods, and results.

Judging in both rounds (for abstracts and dissertations) will be based on the following three central questions: (1) Is the research question(s) being asked of importance to the community of science educators? (2) Is the research approach and its implementation thorough and appropriate for the research question(s) asked? And (3) Are the results and conclusions appropriate for the context of the study? Specific criteria considered in relation to these questions include: The significance of the research problem/area; conceptual/theoretical background; thoroughness of the research approach and methods; identification of conclusions/outcomes and their implications for science education; clarity and coherence of communication; and overall originality or creativity. In the past successful applicants have been those who were able to make a case for the significance of their study to the science education community as a whole and/or who convinced the reviewers of the originality of the questions asked or methods employed.

Submission Procedure: An all-electronic submission process will be used. Persons wishing to be considered for the award should submit an e-mail with the following three attachments (in PDF format): (1) one file containing a ten-page, double-spaced abstract (margins limited to one inch all around using 12 cpi font); (2) one file containing a five-page abbreviated bibliography; (3) one file containing a cover sheet which includes the author's name, address where they can be reached through December 2008, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers, title of the study, the name and address of the institution where the dissertation was completed, a list of the members of the dissertation committee, and the date the dissertation was passed. This cover sheet should be signed by the major advisor/professor/supervisor or chair of the dissertation committee. An electronic signature is acceptable. Alternatively, the dissertation supervisor/director can send an e-mail to the Chair of the Outstanding Doctoral Research Award Selection Committee endorsing the application and attesting to the accuracy of the information provided in the application. (Note: The title of the study should appear on the first page of the abstract, but the author's name and other identifying information should appear ONLY on the cover sheet.)

An email with all three attachments must be received by Deborah J. Tippins at dtippins@uga.edu no later than September 15, 2008. We regret that the committee will be unable to consider incomplete or late applications. Questions regarding this award should be e-mailed to the Chair of the Committee: Deborah J. Tippins at dtippins@uga.edu

3) Narst Early Career Award

NARST Early Career Research Award: Submission Invitation

The NARST Early Career Research Award acknowledges contributions to science education through research by individuals during the five years immediately following receipt of the doctoral degree. To qualify for the award this year, the nominee must have received the doctoral degree on or after January 1, 2002. All NARST members are encouraged to consider nominating an eligible and deserving early career member. Nominations for the award must be accompanied by nine (9) copies of supporting material including:

a. a letter of nomination which discusses the nominee's impact on the field;
b. the nominee's vita;
c. a two-page summary of the nominee's research interests, prepared by the nominee;
d. three of the nominee's best papers; and
e. two additional letters of support to be sent separately.

Nomination materials should be received by the Committee Committee Co-chair Larry Flick at FlickL@science.oregonstate.edu no later than October 15, 2008.

All-electronic packages (including PDF files of all the above mentioned documents) can be e-mailed to the Committee Chair Larry Flick at: FlickL@science.oregonstate.edu. Hard copy packages can also be mailed to the Committee Chair Larry Flick at the following address:

Lawrence B. Flick, Professor and Chair, Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Oregon State University, 263 Weniger Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Note: Eight committee members review each candidate independently. The rating sheet that is used in this process follows below:

Assessor __________________________________________

Nominee ___________________________________________

I. Submitted Papers

Paper 1 Title: Intellectual Quality of Scholarship Quality of Theoretical Foundations Methodological Rigor Creativity/Innovation

Low 1    2    3   4

High 5

Paper 2 Title: Intellectual Quality of Scholarship Quality of Theoretical Foundations Methodological Rigor Creativity/Innovation

Low 1    2    3   4

High 5

Paper 3 Title: Intellectual Quality of Scholarship Quality of Theoretical Foundations Methodological Rigor Creativity/Innovation

Low 1    2    3   4

High 5

Comments on Quality of the Papers:

II. Other Indicators (Vita Review)

Paper 1 Title: Prominence of Journals in Which Published Quantity of Publications Research Conference Presentations Research Grant Awards

Low 1    2    3   4

High 5

Comments on Other Indicators:

III. Nomination Letters

Paper 1 Title: Candidate's Statement Quantity of Publications Support Letter 1 Support Letter 2

Low 0.5    1.0    1.5   2.0

High 2.5

Comments on the Nomination Letters:

IV. Summary

Total Numeric Rating: __________________

Overall Rank
Among Nominees
(1st, 2nd, etc.) _______________________

4) JRST Award

Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST) Award Information

The Journal of Research in Science Teaching Award Committee is charged with selecting the outstanding research article from the journal each year. This award allows NARST to recognize excellence in scholarship within our research community. Every article that is published in JRST is automatically considered for the award. There are two phases in the review process.

Phase 1: In the first phase, each committee member reads 2-3 issues, reviews each article, and then ranks the articles within each issue (from most outstanding to least outstanding). Committee members may contact other members reviewing the same issues to discuss the relative merits of the articles and to utilize the diversity of expertise of our members. The article receiving the lowest ranking from each issue is selected to continue on to a second phase of review. If two or more articles are very close in ranking in a given issue, both articles enter the second phase of review.

Phase 2: The articles that received the lowest ranking from each issue are reviewed a second time and ranked. During this round, all committee members read, evaluate and rank the top articles from each issue. Again, communication with other members of the committee is encouraged. At the end of this review, if two or more articles are close in ranking, a third round of reading assignments is made. These articles are evaluated and each committee member assigns a rank order. The article receiving the lowest rank is declared the outstanding article. The recipients of the JRST Award are announced and recognized at the annual meeting each year.

For more information about the JRST Award, please contact Hsiao-Ching She, Chair of the JRST Award Committee, at hcshe@mail.nctu.edu.tw

5) NARST Outstanding Paper Award

Award Description
The NARST Outstanding Paper Award is given each year to the best paper presented at the NARST annual conference. Eligible papers should be of publishable quality and should be submitted in a version identical to the one distributed at the time of the conference presentation. In particular, the title of the paper, names of the contributing authors, and order of authorship should be identical to the way this information appeared in the NARST annual conference program. When preparing the paper for submission, the authors should adopt the Journal of Research in Science Teaching criteria for blinding the paper for the review process.

Deadline for Nominations
The deadline for submitting nominations for the 2009 Award is May 20, 2008. Send nominations containing the author name(s) and title of paper to Anil C. Banerjee, Committee Co-Chair, via e-mail at banerjee_anil@colstate.edu.

Procedure
Selection of the NARST Outstanding Paper is conducted in three rounds. In the First Round, each paper is rated and ranked by three committee members. Papers are assigned to raters to avoid obvious conflicts of interest even though author names and affiliations remain anonymous. The criteria for evaluation focus equally on significance, conceptual/theoretical background, research approach, conclusions craftsmanship/communication, and creativity. Five top ranked papers from first round are selected for second round. In the Second Round, each of the five papers are rated by three committee members. Assignment to reviewers is such that no paper is reviewed in the second round by a committee member who reviewed it in the first round. In Round Three those papers rated in round two in the top three are rated by all committee members to identify those papers ranked in the first, second, and third places.

Criteria
Reviewers use the following scoring sheet to score the nominated papers.

CRITERION	RATING 10 points/criterion
1. Conceptual/Theoretical: Is the study embedded in theoretical constructs? Does the study fit or reinforce the belief system that underlies the paradigm, which research follows? 2. Research Approach: Empirical studies: Is the methodology suitable to the question(s) asked (i.e., empirical or theoretical)? Is the description of method sufficient to allow the reader to understand what was done? Non-empirical studies (e.g., conceptual or position papers, reviews of literature): Are the ideological/philosophical positions of the author and sources used made clear and are they appropriate to the topic(s) under discussion? Is the range and scope of literature and opinions presented and referenced appropriate? 3. Presentation and interpretation of research Empirical studies: Are the research findings presented coherently and clearly? Are the interpretations of the research supported by the data and evidence, or could other interpretations be valid? Does the author temper her/his interpretations and claims with consideration of their reliability and validity? Non-empirical studies (e.g. Conceptual or position papers, reviews of literature): Does the author discuss the arguments and present argument and counter-argument? Are the arguments systematically presented and well reasoned? Is there a logical/rational flow? 4. Conclusions: Do the conclusions add to, refine, or refute the theoretical constructs? Are the conclusions valid and/or viable? Are they presented in a way that is meaningful to science educators? 5. Craftsmanship/Communication: Does the paper demonstrate clarity, coherence, insightfulness, and incisiveness in communication? Does the paper advance a central idea(s) or theme(s)? 6. Significance of the Study: How important is the study to the science education community and/or the education community at large? 7. Creativity: Does the study break new ground? Does it involve risk-taking? Does it invite criticism? COMMENTS:
TOTAL:	70 points