The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry
Abstract
It has long been a goal of science education in the United States that students leave school with a robust understanding of the nature of science. Decades of research show that this does not happen. Inquiry-based instruction is advocated as a means for developing such understanding, although there is scant direct evidence that it does. There is a gap between what is known about students' inquiry practices and their epistemological beliefs about science. Studies of students' ideas about epistemological aspects of formal science are unlikely to shed any light on how they perceive their own inquiry efforts. Conversely, inquiry-based instruction that does not account for the epistemological beliefs that guide students' inquiry stands very little chance of helping students to understand professional science. This paper reviews largely independent lines of research into students' beliefs about the nature of science and their practices of inquiry to argue that students' inquiry is guided by practical epistemologies that are in need of study. An approach to studying practical epistemologies is proposed that has the potential to produce a better psychological theory of epistemological development, as well as to realize goals of a science education that develops scientifically informed citizens. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed, 89:634–656, 2005
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Toulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101
Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2 · Cited by 1,394 · cited 3×
“…by generating data, analyzing and interpreting those data, drawing conclusions from them, communicating those conclusions, applying conclusions back to the original question, and perhaps following up on new questions that arise (e.g., Krajcik et al., 1998; NRC, 1996; White & Frederiksen, 1998).”
BackgroundMethodCarey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/0950069890110504 · Cited by 425
Cited by
Exploring students' perspectives on generative AI-assisted academic writing
Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R., & Li, N. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7 · Cited by 438
Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view
Dean Jr., D., & Kuhn, D. (2007) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20194 · Cited by 325
Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21006 · Cited by 294
Self-citationMcNeill, K. L. (2011) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20430 · Cited by 254
Elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science
Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20404 · Cited by 194
Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.863265 · Cited by 169
A meta-analytic review of the relationship between epistemic cognition and academic achievement.
Greene, J. A., Cartiff, B. M., & Duke, R. F. (2018) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000263 · Cited by 150
Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I. (2016) · Review of Research in Education · doi:10.3102/0091732x16669319 · Cited by 143
Self-citationQuality Talk: Developing Students’ Discourse to Promote High-level Comprehension
Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Hendrick, B. D., Li, M., Montalbano, C., & Wei, L. (2018) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831218771303 · Cited by 130
Invention Versus Direct Instruction: For Some Content, It’s a Tie
Chase, C. C., & Klahr, D. (2017) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-017-9700-6 · Cited by 52
From Theory of Mind to Epistemic Cognition. A Lifespan perspective
Iordanou, K. (2016) · Frontline Learning Research · doi:10.14786/flr.v4i5.252 · Cited by 38
What Makes Everyday Scientific Reasoning So Challenging?
(2017) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2016.11.006 · Cited by 29
Diversifying high school students' views about computing with electronic textiles
Searle, K. A., Fields, D. A., Lui, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2014) · Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research · doi:10.1145/2632320.2632352 · Cited by 25
Lang, F., Kammerer, Y., Stürmer, K., & Gerjets, P. (2021) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s10212-020-00471-8 · Cited by 12
The Connections Between STEM Learning Outcomes in a STEM Hackathon
Chen, Y., & Teo, T. W. (2026) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-026-10369-y
Metadata
- Authors
- Sandoval, W. A.
- Venue
- Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 634-656
- ISSN
- 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-237X
- OpenAlex
- W2162095833
- Cited by
- 769
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 85.86
- 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.
