Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,161

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom

Engle, Randi A., Conant, Faith R.·2002·Cognition and Instruction

Abstract

This article suggests that productive disciplinary engagement can be fostered by designing learning environments that support (a) problematizing subject matter, (b) giving students authority to address such problems, (c) holding students accountable to others and to shared disciplinary norms, and (d) providing students with relevant resources. To provide empirical support for this suggestion, we use these 4 guiding principles to explain a case of productive disciplinary engagement from a Fostering Communities of Learners classroom. We use the principles to understand 1 group of students' emergent and sustained controversy over a species' classification. The students became passionately engaged, used evidence in scholarly ways, developed several arguments, and generated questions regarding biological classification. We propose the controversy as an example of productive disciplinary engagement, and show how it was supported by: the treatment of the classification as a legitimate problem by the students and teacher; the students having the authority to resolve the issue for themselves while being held accountable to relevant contributions from peers and outside sources as well as to classroom disciplinary norms for using evidence; and students having access to multiple sources of information, models of argumentation, and other relevant resources. The article closes by reflecting on the generality of the principles, showing how they can be used to understand 2 other cases of productive disciplinary engagement from the literature on reform programs in science and mathematics. By specifying differences as well as similarities in the ways the principles were embodied in these cases, the article may provide learning designers with a landscape of possibilities for promoting the specific kinds of productive disciplinary engagement that they most value.

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/s1532690xci2004_1

Cites

51 of 51 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 51 references

Cited by

See all 1,161

Metadata

Authors
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R.
Venue
Cognition and Instruction
Published
2002-12
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
399-483
ISSN
  • 0737-0008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-690X
OpenAlex
W2033656793
Cited by
1,161
References
51
FWCI
36.55
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: Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s1532690xci2004_1
The paper
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2004_1

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.