The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers' use of inquiry teaching practices
Open accessAbstract
This article investigates three teachers' conceptions and use of inquiry‐based instructional strategies throughout a professional development program. The professional development program consisted of a 2‐week summer inquiry institute and research experience in university scientists' laboratories, as well as three academic year workshops. Insights gained from an in‐depth study of these three secondary teachers resulted in a model of teacher conceptions that can be used to direct future inquiry professional development. Teachers' conceptions of inquiry teaching were established through intensive case–study research that incorporated extensive classroom observations and interviews. Through their participation in the professional development experience, the teachers gained a deeper understanding of how to implement inquiry practices in their classrooms. The teachers gained confidence and practice with inquiry methods through developing and presenting their institute‐developed inquiry lessons, through observing other teachers' lessons, and participating as students in the workshop inquiry activities. Data analysis revealed that a set of four core conceptions guided the teachers' use of inquiry‐based practices in their classrooms. The teachers' conceptions of science, their students, effective teaching practices, and the purpose of education influenced the type and amount of inquiry instruction performed in the high school classrooms. The research findings suggest that to be successful inquiry professional development must not only teach inquiry knowledge, but it must also assess and address teachers' core teaching conceptions. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 44: 1318–1347, 2007
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
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform
Shulman, L. (1987) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 · Cited by 16,787
Cited by
Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012) · Journal of Science Teacher Education · doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9275-2 · Cited by 342
Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20329 · Cited by 339
Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice
Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21037 · Cited by 275
Research education of new scientists: Implications for science teacher education
Feldman, A., Divoll, K., & Rogan‐Klyve, A. (2009) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20285 · Cited by 88
Metadata
- Authors
- Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-10-25
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1318-1347
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2109129681
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 39.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.