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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
From dissertation abstracts international
(1974) · ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics · doi:10.1145/988616.988619 · Cited by 12,099
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(1979) · The Mathematics Teacher · doi:10.5951/mt.72.8.0637 · Cited by 8,499
An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method
Gee, J. P. (1999) · Cited by 6,037
Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1 · Cited by 5,186
Brown, A. L. (1992) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2 · Cited by 4,000
Talking science: language, learning, and values
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5211 · Cited by 3,996
Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning
Cazden, C. B. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,045
Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom
Mehan, H. (1979) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 · Cited by 2,872
Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse
Macaulay, R. K. S., & Tannen, D. (1991) · Language · doi:10.2307/415111 · Cited by 2,437
Accounting for the effects of accountability.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 · Cited by 2,383
Cited by
Barron, B. (2003) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1203_1 · Cited by 1,446
Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008) · Mathematical Thinking and Learning · doi:10.1080/10986060802229675 · Cited by 1,222
Self-citationScaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work
Reiser, B. J. (2004) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2 · Cited by 1,054
The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Student Engagement in Science
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924 · Cited by 1,044
Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction
(2011) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203839089 · Cited by 916
Metadata
- Authors
- Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R.
- Venue
- Cognition and Instruction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.