Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The relative effects and equity of inquiry‐based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation

Wilson, Christopher D., Taylor, Joseph A., Kowalski, Susan M., Carlson, Janet·2010·Journal of Research in Science Teaching
DOI 10.1002/tea.20329
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We conducted a laboratory‐based randomized control study to examine the effectiveness of inquiry‐based instruction. We also disaggregated the data by student demographic variables to examine if inquiry can provide equitable opportunities to learn. Fifty‐eight students aged 14–16 years old were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Both groups of students were taught toward the same learning goals by the same teacher, with one group being taught from inquiry‐based materials organized around the BSCS 5E Instructional Model, and the other from materials organized around commonplace teaching strategies as defined by national teacher survey data. Students in the inquiry‐based group reached significantly higher levels of achievement than students experiencing commonplace instruction. This effect was consistent across a range of learning goals (knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation) and time frames (immediately following the instruction and 4 weeks later). The commonplace science instruction resulted in a detectable achievement gap by race, whereas the inquiry‐based materials instruction did not. We discuss the implications of these findings for the body of evidence on the effectiveness of teaching science as inquiry; the role of instructional models and curriculum materials in science teaching; addressing achievement gaps; and the competing demands of reform and accountability. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47:276–301, 2010

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.20329

Cites

88 of 88 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 339

Metadata

Authors
Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J.
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-11-18
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
276-301
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
DOI
10.1002/tea.20329
OpenAlex
W2102136526
Cited by
339
References
88
FWCI
46.48
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.