470 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2014, 15, 470--487 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014 Cite this: Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2014, 15, 470 Chemistry education research trends: 2004–2013† Tang Wee Teo,* Mei Ting Goh and Leck Wee Yeo This paper presents findings from a content analysis of 650 empirical chemistry education research papers published in two top-tiered chemistry education journals Chemistry Education Research and Practice and Journal of Chemical Education, and four top-tiered science education journals International Journal of Science Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Research in Science Teaching and Science Education from 2004–2013. We found that empirical chemistry education research (CER) papers accounted for 7.7 percent of the publications in the four science education journals. The most highly published area of research was in conceptions and conceptual change and most studies adopted mixed methods. The majority of the studies were conducted in higher education contexts and in the United States. Researchers who publish prolifically in the field included Vicente Talanquer, Derek Cheung, Michael Sanger, Keith Taber, Melanie Cooper and Marcy Towns. Current research trends and gaps are illuminated and possible future work in CER is discussed in the paper. Introduction More than a decade ago, Gilbert et al. (2003) argued that for chemistry education to prosper in future, a suitable range of types of research must be carried out. We understand ‘‘range’’ to mean research topics, methods, methodologies, research partici- pants and so on. According to them, relatively few studies focused on interdisciplinary studies (e.g., math and chemistry), problems that learners confront when they transit across the grade levels (e.g., from high school to university), and the effectiveness of technology-based pedagogies and impact of technology-based environments on learning. In this paper, we reviewed recent publications in chemistry education research (CER) to illuminate some of the recent trends and gaps in this field. This paper reviews empirical chemistry education research papers published in the years 2004–2013. This review is a continuation and expansion of previous reviews completed by Kornhauser (1979), Gilbert et al. (2003), Mahaffy (2004), Towns and Kraft (2011), and Towns (2013) in five aspects. First, we extended the period under review to include papers published up to the end of 2013. The most recent paper (see Towns and Kraft, 2011) that systematically reviewed CER papers covered up to the year 2010. Second, we included in our review the journal Research in Science Education, which was not included in the above-mentioned review, as it was one of the top four SER journals in terms of impact factor. Third, more research topics (e.g., cultural, social, and gender issues, and informal learning) and sub-topics were identified showing the diversity and rich- ness of CER. Fourth, we included the analyses of the different groups of participants and locations of study to show which groups of people and contexts were more or less well represented and understood. Fifth, we included a systematic analysis of the key contributors to show recognition of their efforts in driving the field of CER. The findings of this most recent 10-year review will allow us to reflect on how the field has progressed and offer useful information for current and incoming chemistry educa- tion researchers who wish to join the CER fraternity, build on the existing work, or push new boundaries. Insights into the work done by colleagues in the field during this period may be gained. The information may also be valuable to researchers in charting their future research studies in CER. What defines chemistry education research (CER)? According to Kornhauser (1979), The scientific basis of the new [chemistry] discipline is this: the methods of chemical education are derived from the structure, logic and methods of chemistry itself. No other discipline can replace chemical science as the basis of the methodology of chemical education (p. 32). The above view about CER was articulated in the late 1970s. Yet, to date, there exist different viewpoints on what constitutes CER. For example, it can be broadly defined as a ‘‘scholarship focused on understanding and improving chemistry learning’’ (Herron and Nurrenbern, 1999). Bunce and Robinson (1997) referred to CER as the ‘‘third branch of our profession’’ covering topics such as ‘‘how and why students learn’’, ‘‘why is chemistry Natural Sciences and Science Education (academic group), National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, NIE7-03-83, Singapore, 637616, Singapore. E-mail: tangwee.teo@nie.edu.sg † Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: A list of CER papers that met the review criteria for analysis in this study. See DOI: 10.1039/c4rp00104d Received 13th May 2014, Accepted 13th June 2014 DOI: 10.1039/c4rp00104d www.rsc.org/cerp Chemistry Education Research and Practice REVIEW ARTICLE Published on 13 June 2014. Downloaded on 11/09/2017 23:40:06. View Article Online View Journal | View Issue presença de trabalhos análogos anteriores e diz onde os complem enta “análise dos principais contribuidor es e seus esforços para guiar o campo da CER” no que vai contribui r este estudo