The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision
Abstract
The objective of this study was to explore the ideas and reasoning students use to make a collaborative environmental management decision. Eight groups of 8th‐grade students (n = 24) considered ecological and economic information about an invasive aquatic species to make a management recommendation. In addition to discussing the exact information they were given, the groups made a variety of interpretations, elaborations, and inferences concerning ecological structure and dynamics and practical aspects of the management scenario. Value judgments and concerns with uncertainty also appeared in students' discussions, to differing degrees. The students' discussions were compared with scientists' guidelines for making environmental management decisions, and with one expert's analysis of the particular management scenario the students considered. A major finding was that whereas across groups students touched on all of the themes that scientists consider to be important for making environmental management decisions, within most groups students focused more narrowly on particular themes, giving cursory treatment to other dimensions of the problem. The results point to a need to foster students' ecological background knowledge and integrative, systems thinking skills for making principled decisions about complex environmental issues. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 341–368, 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
Cites
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry
Longino, H. E. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9780691209753 · Cited by 3,092
Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind
Wegner, D. M. (1987) · Theories of Group Behavior · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_9 · Cited by 2,700
Christensen, N. L., Bartuska, A. M., Brown, J. H., Carpenter, S., D'Antonio, C., Francis, R., Franklin, J. F., MacMahon, J. A., Noss, R. F., Parsons, D. J., et al. (1996) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.2307/2269460 · Cited by 1,516
Whitesides, G. M., & Ismagilov, R. F. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5411.89 · Cited by 423
Cited by
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8 · Cited by 1,529
Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research
Sadler, T. D. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20009 · Cited by 1,440
The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10101 · Cited by 502
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20023 · Cited by 466
Metadata
- Authors
- Hogan, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-03-13
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 341-368
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2028738914
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 30.46
- 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: Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/tea.10025
- The paper
- Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10025
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.