The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 14 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction: Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning
Open accessAbstract
In a study with 112 third- and fourth-grade children, we measured the relative effectiveness of discovery learning and direct instruction at two points in the learning process: (a) during the initial acquisition of the basic cognitive objective (a procedure for designing and interpreting simple, unconfounded experiments) and (b) during the subsequent transfer and application of this basic skill to more diffuse and authentic reasoning associated with the evaluation of science-fair posters. We found not only that many more children learned from direct instruction than from discovery learning, but also that when asked to make broader, richer scientific judgments, the many children who learned about experimental design from direct instruction performed as well as those few children who discovered the method on their own. These results challenge predictions derived from the presumed superiority of discovery approaches in teaching young children basic procedures for early scientific investigations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
7 Own result · 6 No full text of the sources · 6 Own method · 2 Own interpretation · 1 Partly supported · 1 Sources not found · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“When the direct-instruction procedure was adapted from an experimental script to a lesson plan implemented in a classroom setting, mean CVS performance increased from 30% prior to instruction to 96% following instruction (Toth, Klahr, & Chen, 2000).”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Toth, Klahr, & Chen, 2000 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The CVS Performance section reports that mean performance in individual interviews increased from 30% before instruction to 97% after instruction, not 96%. The classroom-worksheet analysis also reports 97% after instruction, but its preinstruction figure is 58%. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results, shown in Table 2, replicated the pattern for the grand poster score: Experts and masters outperformed nonmasters, regardless of the learning paths.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Day 2: Poster Evaluations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 2 shows that experts, discovery masters, and direct-instruction masters had higher grand poster scores than discovery nonmasters and direct-instruction nonmasters, d 5 0.83.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Day 2: Poster Evaluations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Forty of the 52 direct-instruction children (77%) became masters, whereas only 12 of the 52 discovery children (23%) did so, w 2 (1, N 5 104) 5 28.0, p < .0001(with Yates correction).”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Day 1: CVS Exploration and Assessment
plaindirectn = 52- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, there were no statistical differences among the grand poster scores for experts, discovery masters, and direct-instruction masters.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Day 2: Poster Evaluations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found not only that many more children learned from direct instruction than from discovery learning, but also that when asked to make broader, richer scientific judgments, the many children who learned about experimental design from direct instruction performed as well as those few children who discovered the method on their own.”
- Also stated in: § Day 1: CVS Exploration and Assessment · plain
“direct instruction produced many more masters than did discovery learning.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · boosted
“these results replicate other studies in which direct instruction was clearly superior to discovery learning in facilitating children's acquisition of CVS”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Abstract
boosteddirectn = 112- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Day 1: CVS Exploration and Assessment · plain
In the paper
“Chen and Klahr (1999) demonstrated that direct instruction on CVS led to statistically and educationally significant improvement in children's ability to design simple, unconfounded experiments.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chen and Klahr (1999) source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children who became masters via direct instruction were as skilled at evaluating science-fair posters as were discovery-learning masters and experts.”
- Also stated in: § Day 2: Poster Evaluations · plain
“In other words, the grand poster scores of the three groups that achieved high levels of CVS performance via different paths were indistinguishable.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The two science-fair posters used in the transfer task are highly imperfect and thus afford wide-ranging evaluations.
- Also stated in: § Day 2: Poster Evaluations · plain
In the paper
“Moreover, students receiving direct instruction were superior to control students on a far-transfer test of experimental design administered 7 months later.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chen and Klahr (1999) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results challenge predictions derived from the presumed superiority of discovery approaches in teaching young children basic procedures for early scientific investigations.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Abstract
plainn = 112- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 6
- Probably not a substantial claim. 9
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CVS scores for direct-instruction children increased dramatically from exploration to assessment: from 1.0 to 3.1, t(51) 5 10.5, p < .0001,d 5 1.73 (see Fig. 3).Scores for children in the discovery condition also increased, but much less: from 0.6 to 1.5, t(51) 5 5.3, p < .0001,d 5 0.725.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Day 1: CVS Exploration and Assessment
plaindirectn = 104- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The grand poster scores of the two groups who failed to master CVS were also indis-tinguishable, but significantly lower than the scores of the three high-CVS-score groups.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Day 2: Poster Evaluations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, most developmental and cognitive theories predict that many of the phenomena associated with discovery learning would make it a relatively ineffective instructional method (Mayer, 2004).”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mayer, 2004 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Empirical challenges come from studies demonstrating that teacher-centered methods using direct instruction are highly effective (cf.Brophy & Good, 1986;Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986), particularly for teaching multistep procedures that students are unlikely to discover on their own, such as those involved in geometry, algebra, and computer programming (Anderson, Corbett, Koedinger, & Pelletier, 1995”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brophy & Good, 1986
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Anderson, Corbett, Koedinger, & Pelletier, 1995 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“CVS mastery is considered a central instructional objective from a wide variety of educational perspectives (DeBoer, 1991;Duschl, 1990;Murnane & Raizen, 1988;National Research Council, 1995).”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites DeBoer, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Duschl, 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Murnane & Raizen, 1988
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For children receiving direct instruction, mean performance on CVS increased in the psychology lab from 40% correct prior to instruction to 80% correct following instruction, whereas children in the discoverylearning condition showed no significant improvement.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chen and Klahr (1999) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, children in discovery situations are more likely than those receiving direct instruction to encounter inconsistent or misleading feedback, to make encoding errors and causal misattributions, and to experience inadequate practice and elaboration.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mayer, 2004 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children from both grades at each school were randomly assigned to either the direct-instruction condition or the discovery-learning condition.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > METHOD
plainn = 112- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the assessment phase, the experimenter did not provide any feedback in either condition.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > METHOD
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that in our operationalization, the difference between direct instruction and discovery learning does not involve a difference between ''active'' and ''passive'' learning.In both conditions, students were actively engaged in the design of their experiments and the physical manipulation of the apparatus.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > METHOD
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A different experimenter (blind to training condition) asked all children to evaluate two science-fair posters”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > METHOD
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children's responses were transcribed from audiotape and coded independently by two coders.(There was 83% agreement between coders on what constituted a valid critique.)”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > METHOD
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children were assessed individually, and the order of poster presentation was counterbalanced.”
§ The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning > METHOD
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The operationalized direct-instruction and discovery-learning conditions adequately represent the two instructional approaches despite the lack of a consistent definition of discovery learning.
“However, at the outset, we faced a difficult definitional problem because nearly 100 years of research (cf.Winch, 1913) had yet to produce a consistent definition of discovery learning.foot_0Therefore, we intentionally magnified the difference between the two instructional treatments in order to provide a strong test of the pathindependent transfer hypothesis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The two science-fair posters used in the transfer task are highly imperfect and thus afford wide-ranging evaluations.
“An important feature of these posters is that they described highly imperfect experiments, thus affording opportunities for wide-ranging evaluations.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Discovery learning approaches typically do not have positive academic outcomes when compared with more traditional direct instruction (Klahr, 2004; Mayer, 2004).”
From Montessori education's impact on academic and nonacademic outcomes: A systematic review (2023) · cites this paper as Klahr, 2004
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The work of Klahr and Nigam (2004), discussed earlier, unambiguously demonstrated the advantages of direct instruction in science.”
From Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching (2006) · cites this paper as Klahr & Nigam, 2004
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Direct instruction involving considerable guidance, including examples, resulted in vastly more learning than discovery.”
From Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching (2006) · cites this paper as Klahr & Nigam, 2004
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Those relatively few students who learned via discovery showed no signs of superior quality of learning.”
From Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching (2006) · cites this paper as Klahr & Nigam, 2004
Citations
Cites
Handbook of research on teaching
Wittrock, M. C. (1986) · Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (Québec government) · Cited by 10,630
National Science Education Standards
Shea, J. H. (1995) · Journal of Geological Education · doi:10.5408/0022-1368-43.2.102 · Cited by 7,888
Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning?
Mayer, R. E. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14 · Cited by 2,527
Piaget, J. (1976) · Piaget and His School · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-46323-5_2 · Cited by 2,167
Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology
Sigel, I. E., & Mussen, P. H. (1972) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1161696 · Cited by 2,053
Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0402_2 · Cited by 1,982
Emerging minds: the process of change in children's thinking
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-5984 · Cited by 1,132
Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures with Unequal N’s and/or Variances: A Monte Carlo Study
Games, P. A., & Howell, J. F. (1976) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986001002113 · Cited by 926
All Other Things Being Equal: Acquisition and Transfer of the Control of Variables Strategy
Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00081 · Cited by 736
Self-citationA history of ideas in science education: implications for practice
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-0433 · Cited by 520
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Duschl R.A., 1990, Restructuring science education
- Klahr D., 2001, Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings, 209
- Korpan C.A., 1994, Assessing scientific literacy: A taxonomy for classifying questions and knowledge about scientific research
- Loveless T., 1998, Education policy, 285
- 1995, National Research Council
- Rosenshine B., 1986, Handbook of research on teaching, 376
- 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1<101::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-Z · DOI
- Winch W.A., 1913, Inductive versus deductive methods of teaching
- Zimmerman C., 1998, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44, 188
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 · Cited by 7,776
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_446 · Cited by 6,172
Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012) · Cited by 2,038
Active‐Constructive‐Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities
Michelene, T. H. (2009) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x · Cited by 1,799
“…(Trafton & Trickett, 2001) Mapping with explanation > Mapping only (Kastens & Liben, 2007) Direct instruction + reflection > Discovery learning (Klahr & Nigam, 2004) Peer tutoring > Filling out guided notes (Mastropieri et al., 2003) Jigsaw group > Individuals gathering information (Doymus,…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDoes discovery-based instruction enhance learning?
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0021017 · Cited by 1,338
Metadata
- Authors
- Klahr, D., & Nigam, M.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-10
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 661-667
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2139559367
- Cited by
- 977
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 69
- FWCI
- 115.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- KiltHub Repository
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD025211)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- discovery learning, direct instruction, early childhood science education, elementary school students, experimental design, transfer of learning, scientific reasoning, learning trajectories, teaching effectiveness
- MeSH terms
- Achievement, Child, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Science, Teaching
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
