The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry‐oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science
Abstract
This study investigated the influence of an explicit and reflective inquiry‐oriented compared with an implicit inquiry‐oriented instructional approach on sixth graders' understandings of nature of science (NOS). The study emphasized the tentative, empirical, inferential, and imaginative and creative NOS. Participants were 62 sixth‐grade students in two intact groups. The intervention or explicit group was engaged in inquiry activities followed by reflective discussions of the target NOS aspects. The comparison or implicit group was engaged in the same inquiry activities. However, these latter activities included no explicit references to or discussion of any NOS aspects. Engagement time was balanced for both groups. An open‐ended questionnaire in conjunction with semistructured interviews was used to assess participants' NOS views before and at the conclusion of the intervention, which spanned 2.5 months. Before the intervention, the majority of participants in both groups held naive views of the target NOS aspects. The views of the implicit group participants were not different at the conclusion of the study. By comparison, substantially more participants in the explicit group articulated more informed views of one or more of the target NOS aspects. Thus, an explicit and reflective inquiry‐oriented approach was more effective than an implicit inquiry‐oriented approach in promoting participants' NOS conceptions. These results do not support the intuitively appealing assumption that students would automatically learn about NOS through engagement in science‐based inquiry activities. Developing informed conceptions of NOS is a cognitive instructional outcome that requires an explicit and reflective instructional approach. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 551–578, 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
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207 · Cited by 5,187
Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/0950069890110504 · Cited by 425
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
Clough, M. P. (2006) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-005-4846-7 · Cited by 451
Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3‐year professional development program
Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20159 · Cited by 334
Elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science
Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20404 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Khishfe, R., & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-08-09
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 551-578
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2114182155
- Cited by
- 830
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 56.85
- 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: Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry‐oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/tea.10036
- The paper
- Khishfe, R., & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry‐oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10036
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.