Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 260

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Participant Structures, Scientific Discourse, and Student Engagement in Fourth Grade

Herrenkohl, Leslie Rupert, Guerra, Marion R.·1998·Cognition and Instruction

Abstract

The overall aim of this study was to examine the complex interrelations among stu- dent engagement, scientific thinking practices, and student role taking and social interaction in the context of school-based science lessons. Typically, elementary hands-on science classes are organized with 3 main parts to every lesson: (a) teacher introduction, (b) small group investigation time, and (c) whole class reporting time in which students report about their small group investigations to the class. In this study, 2 classroom interventions, based in part on this standard format, were designed to guide students in constructing scientific understanding. Both interventions involved instruction in the same set of intellectual roles that could be applied during small group investigation time. These roles included (a) predicting and theorizing; (b) summarizing results; and (c) relating predictions, theories, and results. The difference between the intervention classes was that 1 class received specific audience role assignments during reporting that corresponded to the intellectual roles and required students to check other students' work (ROLES + AUD ROLES). The other intervention class did not receive audience role assignments during reporting, although the students were still using the intellectual roles during the small group investigation time (ROLES). The purpose of such a design was to examine if the intellectual roles and corresponding audience roles would encourage student engagement more effectively than the use of the intellectual roles alone. Transcripts of whole class reporting time were coded using 4 engagement categories based on the work of Hatano and Inagaki (1991): (a) negotiating understanding of classroom procedures and standards, (b) monitoring comprehension of content, (c) challenging, and (d) coordinating theories and evidence. Students in the ROLES + AUD ROLES class were more active in initiating engagement episodes of every type than students in the ROLES class. Teacher-initiated engagement episodes demonstrated a different pattern, with the teacher initiating more negotiating and monitoring comprehension episodes in the ROLES + AUD ROLES class and more coordinating theories and evidence episodes in the ROLES class. Findings are discussed in terms of the importance of combining guidance in the social as well as intellectual norms associated with scientific thinking and discourse.

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 · 10.1207/s1532690xci1604_3

Cites

64 of 64 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 64 references

Cited by

See all 260

Metadata

Authors
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R.
Venue
Cognition and Instruction
Published
1998-12
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
431-473
ISSN
  • 0737-0008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-690X
OpenAlex
W2006880807
Cited by
260
References
64
FWCI
21.39
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: Participant Structures, Scientific Discourse, and Student Engagement in Fourth Grade. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_3
The paper
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant Structures, Scientific Discourse, and Student Engagement in Fourth Grade. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_3

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.