The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Examining Classroom Science Practice Communities: How Teachers and Students Negotiate Epistemic Agency and Learn Science‐as‐Practice
Abstract
The Next Generation Science Standards and other reforms call for students to learn science‐as‐practice, which I argue requires students to become epistemic agents—shaping the knowledge and practice of a science community. I examined a framework for teaching—ambitious instruction—that scaffolds students’ learning of science‐as‐practice as they act as epistemic agents. Using a situative theoretical framework and analytical tools from science studies literature, I conducted a multicase study of five beginning teachers. I found that (a) teachers and students negotiated their roles as they decided on “what counted” as science ideas. Participants positioned some ideas as important by making discursive moves, signaling students to either work on the ideas as epistemic agents or, alternatively, to judge the information as “right” or “wrong”; (b) the participants worked to make science a “public” or “private” enterprise. The framing of science then influenced how teachers and students participated in their science practice community; (c) the negotiation of “what counted” as science ideas and the framing of science as “public” or “private” influenced (i) the percentage of students sharing ideas on the public plane, and (ii) the number of science ideas initiated and kept in play on the public plane.
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
Qualitative research and evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (1980) · Cited by 35,626
(2009) · Cited by 21,330
Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective
Haraway, D. (1988) · Feminist Studies · doi:10.2307/3178066 · Cited by 18,364
Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society
Bijker, W. E., & Latour, B. (1988) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3105094 · Cited by 10,767
Handbook of research on teaching
Wittrock, M. C. (1986) · Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (Québec government) · Cited by 10,626
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Hall, M. B., & Kuhn, T. S. (1963) · The American Historical Review · doi:10.2307/1847040 · Cited by 7,479
Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective
Haraway, D. (1988) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 6,992
Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature.
Green, P. A., & Haraway, D. J. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2076334 · Cited by 5,455
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
(2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816833 · Cited by 4,601
Handbook of Research on Science Education
Abell, S. K. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203824696 · Cited by 4,447
Cited by
Schmidt, J. A., Rosenberg, J. M., & Beymer, P. N. (2018) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21409 · Cited by 173
Metadata
- Authors
- STROUPE, D.
- Venue
- Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-04-17
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 487-516
- ISSN
- 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-237X
- OpenAlex
- W2149756758
- Cited by
- 396
- References
- 68
- FWCI
- 52.96
- 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: Examining Classroom Science Practice Communities: How Teachers and Students Negotiate Epistemic Agency and Learn Science‐as‐Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sce.21112
- The paper
- STROUPE, D. (2014). Examining Classroom Science Practice Communities: How Teachers and Students Negotiate Epistemic Agency and Learn Science‐as‐Practice. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112
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.