Cited by 921Science Education and PedagogyLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionEducation Practices and Challenges

On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science

Duit, Reinders·1991·Science Education

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sce.3730750606

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duit, R.
Affiliations
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE)
Corresponding author
Duit, Reinders
Venue
Science Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1991-11
Volume
75
Issue
6
Pages
649-672
ISSN
  • 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-237X
OpenAlex
W2015090393
Cited by
921
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 41
FWCI
33.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Science Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Language, Metaphor, and Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Education Practices and Challenges
Keywords
analogy, metaphor, science learning, conceptual understanding, analogical reasoning

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