The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A case study of high school teachers' decision making models for planning and teaching science
Abstract
The focus of this study was to investigate the manner and the degree to which science teachers consider the nature of the subject matter in their decision making addressing the planning and the delivery of instructional tasks. An assumption of the study is that considerations for the nature of the subject matter should be a factor in a teacher's decision making about what to teach and how to teach. Relevant research literature reviewed includes (1) human decision making and the development of cognitive models of reality, (2) modern philosophies of science, and (3) philosophy of science and science education. Methods of data collection and of data analysis followed Spradley's Developmental Research Sequence guidelines for conducting ethnographic research. Validity of research findings was established from the triangulation of observations, interviews, and documents and surveys. The goal of the research was the development of grounded hypotheses about science TEACHERS' pedagogical decision making. Based on the results of this study it is hypothesized that science TEACHERS' decision‐making models of reality for the selection, implementation, and development of instructional tasks are dominated by considerations for (a) student development, (b) curriculum guide objectives, and (c) pressures of accountability. Little, if any, consideration is given to the nature of the subject matter by the science teachers in decision making. Implications exist for the disenfranchisement of teachers from the task of making decisions concerning what to teach.
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., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching
SHULMAN, L. S. (1986) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x015002004 · Cited by 18,546
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Kahle, J. B. (1984) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173469 · Cited by 5,199
Fraassen, B. C. V. (1980) · doi:10.1093/0198244274.001.0001 · Cited by 4,682
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
Lakatos, I. (1970) · Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171434.009 · Cited by 4,649
Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543052001031 · Cited by 1,740
Research on Teachers' Pedagogical Thoughts, Judgments, Decisions, and Behavior
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543051004455 · Cited by 1,113
Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970.
Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1971) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0030806 · Cited by 635
Cited by
Co‐constructing inquiry‐based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.1023 · Cited by 555
Clough, M. P. (2006) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-005-4846-7 · Cited by 451
Pomeroy, D. (1993) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.3730770302 · Cited by 323
Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for educational practice
Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1991) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.3660280909 · Cited by 275
Self-citationZhang, B., Krajcik, J. S., Sutherland, L. M., Wang, L., Wu, J., & Qian, Y. (2005) · International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education · doi:10.1007/s10763-005-1517-8 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1989-09
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 467-501
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2142799268
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 15.09
- 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: A case study of high school teachers' decision making models for planning and teaching science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/tea.3660260602
- The paper
- Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers' decision making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260602
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.