CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 108Science Education and PedagogyScience Education and PerceptionsCareer Development and Diversity

Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention

Open access
Lee, Okhee, Buxton, Cory, Lewis, Scott, LeRoy, Kathryn·2006·Journal of Research in Science Teaching
DOI 10.1002/tea.20141
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study examines elementary students' abilities to conduct science inquiry through their participation in an instructional intervention over a school year. The study involved 25 third and fourth grade students from six elementary schools representing diverse linguistic and cultural groups. Prior to and at the completion of the intervention, the students participated in elicitation sessions as they conducted a semistructured inquiry task on evaporation. The results indicate that students demonstrated enhanced abilities with some aspects of the inquiry task, but continued to have difficulties with other aspects of the task even after instruction. Although students from all demographic subgroups showed substantial gains, students from non‐mainstream and less privileged backgrounds in science showed greater gains in inquiry abilities than their more privileged counterparts. The results contribute to the emerging literature on designing learning environments that foster science inquiry of elementary students from diverse backgrounds. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 43: 607–636, 2006

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.20141

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lee et al. (2006) also found cumulative effects from continuing inquiry science instruction across grade levels on proximal curriculum-aligned assessments.

    “This supports work by Lee et al. (2006), who also found cumulative effects from continuing inquiry science instruction across grade levels on proximal curriculum-aligned assessments.”

    From Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry‐based science curricula in the context of urban reform (2008) · cites this paper as Lee et al. (2006)

    The Instrument and Discussion sections report gains on an evaporation inquiry task related to the instructional units. But Classroom Instruction says both third- and fourth-grade students were introduced to the inquiry framework for the first time that year. The paper therefore does not establish cumulative effects of continuing inquiry instruction across grade levels. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Lehrer, R., Carpenter, S., Schauble, L., & Putz, A. (2000). Designing classrooms that support inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Teaching science in the inquiry-based classroom (pp. 80-99). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  2. Merino, B. & Hammond, L. (2001). How do teachers facilitate writing for bilingual learners in ''sheltered constructivist'' science? Electronic Journal in Science and Literacy, 1.
  3. Roth, W.-M. & McGinn, M. (1998). undelete science education:/lives/work/voices. Journal of Research in Science Education, 35, 399-421.
  4. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Re-thinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529-552.
  5. Warren, B. & Rosebery, A.S. (1996). ''This question is just too, too easy!'' Students' perspectives on accountability in science. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning new environments for education (pp. 97-125).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., & LeRoy, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Miami-Dade County Public Schools (US)
Corresponding author
Lee, Okhee
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-08-23
Volume
43
Issue
7
Pages
607-636
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
DOI
10.1002/tea.20141
OpenAlex
W2033240743
Cited by
108
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
22.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Journal of Research in Science Teaching (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0089231)
  • U.S. Department of Education
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
Keywords
scientific inquiry, student diversity, educational intervention, elementary school students, linguistic diversity, cultural diversity, socioeconomic status, inquiry skills, evaporation, science education, learning environment

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