The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Technology‐rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy?*
Open accessAbstract
What are the barriers to technology‐rich inquiry pedagogy in urban science classrooms, and what kinds of programs and support structures allow these barriers to be overcome? Research on the pedagogical practices within urban classrooms suggests that as a result of many constraints, many urban teachers' practices emphasize directive, controlling teaching, that is, the “pedagogy of poverty” (Haberman, 1991), rather than the facilitation of students' ownership and control over their learning, as advocated in inquiry science. On balance, research programs that advocate standards‐based or inquiry teaching pedagogies demonstrate strong learning outcomes by urban students. This study tracked classroom research on a technology‐rich inquiry weather program with six urban science teachers. The teachers implemented this program in coordination with a district‐wide middle school science reform. Results indicated that despite many challenges in the first year of implementation, students in all 19 classrooms of this program demonstrated significant content and inquiry gains. In addition, case study data comprised of twice‐weekly classroom observations and interviews with the six teachers suggest support structures that were both conducive and challenging to inquiry pedagogy. Our work has extended previous studies on urban science pedagogy and practices as it has begun to articulate what role the technological component plays either in contributing to the challenges we experienced or in helping urban science classrooms to realize inquiry science and other positive learning values. Although these data outline results after only the first year of systemic reform, we suggest that they begin to build evidence for the role of technology‐rich inquiry programs in combating the pedagogy of poverty in urban science classrooms. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 128‐150, 2002
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
Cited by
Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543072003387 · Cited by 1,908
WISE design for knowledge integration
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10086 · Cited by 417
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2005) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20027 · Cited by 295
Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543075003285 · Cited by 273
No Child Left Behind and Science Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and Risks
Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006) · The Elementary School Journal · doi:10.1086/505441 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Songer, N. B., Lee, H., & Kam, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-01-15
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 128-150
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2146786978
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 64.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Technology‐rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy?*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/tea.10013
- The paper
- Songer, N. B., Lee, H., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology‐rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy?*. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10013
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.