Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 353

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets

Wallace, Carolyn S., Kang, Nam‐Hwa·2004·Journal of Research in Science Teaching
DOI 10.1002/tea.20032
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the beliefs of six experienced high school science teachers about (1) what is successful science learning; (2) what are the purposes of laboratory in science teaching; and (3) how inquiry is implemented in the classroom. An interpretive multiple case study with an ethnographic orientation was used. The teachers' beliefs about successful science learning were substantively linked to their beliefs about laboratory and inquiry implementation. For example, two teachers who believed that successful science learning was deep conceptual understanding, used verification labs primarily to illustrate these concepts and used inquiry as a type of isolated problem‐solving experience. Another teacher who believed that successful science learning was enculturation into scientific practices used inquiry‐based labs extensively to teach the practices of science. Tension in competing beliefs sets and implications for reform are discussed. ? 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 41: 936‐960, 2004.

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.20032

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 353

Metadata

Authors
Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N.
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-10-07
Volume
41
Issue
9
Pages
936-960
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
DOI
10.1002/tea.20032
OpenAlex
W2089764242
Cited by
353
References
33
FWCI
32.62
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

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.