Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 214

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Technology‐rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy?*

Open access
Songer, Nancy Butler, Lee, Hee‐Sun, Kam, Rosalind·2002·Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tea.10013

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 214

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.