The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction
Abstract
In this quantitative study, we compare the efficacy of Level 2, guided inquiry–based instruction to more traditional, verification laboratory instruction in supporting student performance on a standardized measure of knowledge of content, procedure, and nature of science. Our sample included 1,700 students placed in the classrooms of 12 middle school and 12 high school science teachers. The instruction for both groups included a week long, laboratory‐based, forensics unit. Students were given pre‐, post‐, and delayed posttests, the results of which were analyzed through a Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) using students' scores, teacher, level of school, Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) scores, and school socioeconomic status. Overall, compared to students in traditional sections, students who participated in an inquiry‐based laboratory unit showed significantly higher posttest scores; had the higher scores, more growth, and long‐term retention at both the high school and middle school levels, if their teacher had stronger implementation of inquiry methods (as measured by RTOP scores); and tended to have better outcomes than those who learned through traditional methods, regardless of level of poverty in the school. Our findings suggest that Level 2 inquiry can be an effective teaching approach to support student learning as measured through standardized assessments. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Sci Ed94:577–616, 2010
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
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 · Cited by 7,776
Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010) · Phi Delta Kappan · doi:10.1177/003172171009200119 · Cited by 4,231
Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain
Borko, H. (2004) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x033008003 · Cited by 4,208
HMELO-SILVER, C. E., DUNCAN, R. G., & CHINN, C. A. (2007) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520701263368 · Cited by 2,641
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
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x · Cited by 977
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay‐Chambers, J. (2008) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20248 · Cited by 423
Inquiry‐based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. T. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20039 · Cited by 385
Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view
Dean Jr., D., & Kuhn, D. (2007) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20194 · Cited by 325
Exploring Science: The Cognition and Development of Discovery Processes
Klahr, D. (2000) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2939.001.0001 · Cited by 325
Cited by
What We Say Is Not What We Do: Effective Evaluation of Faculty Professional Development Programs
Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011) · BioScience · doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9 · Cited by 420
Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice
Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21037 · Cited by 275
Self-citationDifferentiated Overt Learning Activities for Effective Instruction in Engineering Classrooms
Menekse, M., Stump, G. S., Krause, S., & Chi, M. T. H. (2013) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20021 · Cited by 264
Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351 · Cited by 256
Literature review: the role of the teacher in inquiry-based education
Dobber, M., Zwart, R., Tanis, M., & van Oers, B. (2017) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.002 · Cited by 222
Metadata
- Authors
- Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M.
- Venue
- Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-03-11
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 577-616
- ISSN
- 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-237X
- OpenAlex
- W2006462526
- Cited by
- 424
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 62.54
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sce.20390
- The paper
- Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20390
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.
