CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Science Education and PedagogyEducation, Philosophy, and SocietyEducational Theory and Curriculum Studies

The Dubious Place of Practical Arguments and Scientific Knowledge in the Thinking of Teachers

Munby, Hugh·1987·Educational Theory
DOI 10.1111/j.1741-5446.1987.00361.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1741-5446.1987.00361.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Munby, H.
Corresponding author
Munby, Hugh
Venue
Educational Theory
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1987-12
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
361-368
ISSN
  • 0013-2004 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-5446
DOI
10.1111/j.1741-5446.1987.00361.x
OpenAlex
W2105601179
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 6596 d)
Locations
Educational Theory (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Education, Philosophy, and Society
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Educational Theory and Curriculum Studies
Keywords
practical arguments, scientific knowledge, teacher knowledge, epistemology of teaching, argumentation in education

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