The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Model of Educational Reconstruction – a Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning Science1
Abstract
To improve instructional practices – in schools, universities and in out of school settings has been a major concern of science education research and development. The intensive international debate on scientific literacy in the 1990s and the series of international monitoring studies like TIMSS and PISA in the 1990s and in the 2000s have fuelled this debate substantially. Various strands of science education research contribute to the stock of knowledge on more efficient means of teaching and learning science. The Model of Educational Reconstruction (MER) presented in this chapter provides a conception of science education research that is relevant for improving instructional practice and teacher professional development programs. The model is based on European Didaktik and Bildung (formation) traditions – with a particular emphasis on the German tradition. A key concern of the model is that science subject matter issues as well as student learning needs and capabilities have to be given equal attention in attempts to improve the quality of teaching and learning These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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
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
Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things
Lakoff, G. (1987) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 · Cited by 12,386
Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind
Odlin, T., & Lakoff, G. P. (1988) · The Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.2307/1982238 · Cited by 7,367
The New production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-4463 · Cited by 7,046
Handbook of Research on Science Education
Abell, S. K. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203824696 · Cited by 4,447
Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain
Borko, H. (2004) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x033008003 · Cited by 4,208
Brown, A. L. (1992) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2 · Cited by 4,000
Design Experiments in Educational Research
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x032001009 · Cited by 3,548
The New Production of Knowledge
Gibbons, M. (1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,405
Saeverot, H. (2022) · Indirect Education · doi:10.4324/9781003193463-8 · Cited by 3,059
Metadata
- Authors
- Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., & Parchmann, I.
- Venue
- Science Education Research and Practice in Europe
- Publisher
- SensePublishers
- Published
- 2012
- Pages
- 13-37
- OpenAlex
- W36823211
- Cited by
- 362
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 63.50
- Type
- book chapter
- 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: The Model of Educational Reconstruction – a Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning Science1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-94-6091-900-8_2
- The paper
- Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., & Parchmann, I. (2012). The Model of Educational Reconstruction – a Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning Science1. Science Education Research and Practice in Europe. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-900-8_2
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.
