Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 256

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 107 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities

Open access
Rönnebeck, Silke, Bernholt, Sascha, Ropohl, Mathias·2016·Studies in Science Education

Abstract

Despite the importance of scientific inquiry in science education, researchers and educators disagree considerably regarding what features define this instructional approach. While a large body of literature addresses theoretical considerations, numerous empirical studies investigate scientific inquiry on quite different levels of detail and also on different theoretical grounds. Here, only little systematic research has analysed the different conceptualisations and usages of the overarching construct of scientific inquiry in detail. To close this gap, a review of the research literature on scientific inquiry was conducted based on a widespread approach to defining scientific inquiry as activities that students engage in. The main goal is to provide a systematic overview about the range and spectrum of definitions and operationalisations used with regard to single activities of the inquiry process in empirical studies. The findings from the review first and foremost illustrate the variability in the ways these activities have been operationalised and implemented. For each activity, studies differ significantly not only with respect to the focus, explicitness and comprehensiveness of their operationalisations but also with regard to the consistency of their implementation in the form of instructional or interventional components in the study and/or in the focus of the assessment of student performance. This has significant implications regarding the validity and comparability of results obtained in different studies, e.g. in the context of discussions concerning the effectiveness of inquiry-based instruction. In addition, the interrelation between scientific inquiry, scientific knowledge and the nature of science seems to be underexplored. The conclusions make the case for further theoretical work as well as empirical research.

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 · 10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351

Cites

107 of 107 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

Show all 107 references

Cited by

See all 256

Metadata

Authors
Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M.
Venue
Studies in Science Education
Published
2016-07-02
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
161-197
ISSN
  • 0305-7267 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-8412
OpenAlex
W2477053888
Cited by
256
References
107
FWCI
61.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351
The paper
Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351

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.