Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 223

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bridging Reading Comprehension and Conceptual Change in Science Education: The Promise of Refutation Text

Sinatra, Gale M., Broughton, Suzanne H.·2011·Reading Research Quarterly

Abstract

The use of texts in science classrooms has waned significantly over the past two decades. However, recently, researchers have shown renewed interest in the use of refutation texts as a tool for promoting conceptual change and science learning. In this article, we examine the intersection of conceptual change and reading comprehension research in science education. We begin by explaining how researchers in conceptual change have turned their interests toward text comprehension. We then examine models of reading comprehension that contribute to our understanding of how text can promote science learning in general and conceptual change in particular. Next, we examine recent empirical research concerning the effect of refutation text in promoting conceptual change in science. We close with suggestions for future research that seeks to integrate these two areas for the advancement of both scientific literacy and literacy skill development.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/rrq.005

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H.
Venue
Reading Research Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-10
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
374-393
ISSN
  • 0034-0553 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-2722
OpenAlex
W2110733351
Cited by
223
References
6
FWCI
44.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.