The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Framework for Articulating and Measuring Individual Learning Outcomes from Participation in Citizen Science
Open accessAbstract
Since first being introduced in the mid 1990s, the term “citizen science”—the intentional engagement of the public in scientific research—has seen phenomenal growth as measured by the number of projects developed, people involved, and articles published. In addition to contributing to scientific knowledge, many citizen science projects attempt to achieve learning outcomes among their participants, however, little guidance is available for practitioners regarding the types of learning that can be supported through citizen science or the measuring of learning outcomes. This study provides empirical data to understand how intended learning outcomes first described by the informal science education field have been employed and measured within the citizen science field. We also present a framework for describing learning outcomes that should help citizen science practitioners, researchers, and evaluators in designing projects and in studying and evaluating their impacts. This is a first step in building evaluation capacity across the field of citizen science.
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
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666 · cited 1×
“…Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which treats motivation as an explanatory variable for meeting basic psychological needs (i.e., competency, relatedness, and autonomy) and describes different types of motivations as falling on a continuum from intrinsic to extrinsic (Ryan and Deci 2000a, 2000b).”
BackgroundSelf-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002) · Environmental Education Research · doi:10.1080/13504620220145401 · Cited by 8,866
New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior
Stern, P. C. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175 · Cited by 8,682
The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework
Kaplan, S. (1995) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2 · Cited by 6,923
(2013) · Cited by 6,708
The four-phase model of interest development
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4 · Cited by 4,702
Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation
Schunk, D. H. (1991) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133 · Cited by 4,292
Cited by
Allf, B. C., Cooper, C. B., Larson, L. R., Dunn, R. R., Futch, S. E., Sharova, M., & CAVALIER, D. (2022) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biac035 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Phillips, T., Porticella, N., Constas, M., & Bonney, R.
- Venue
- Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
- Publisher
- Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
- Published
- 2018-08-28
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 3
- ISSN
- 2057-4991 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2889496369
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 90
- FWCI
- 263.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: A Framework for Articulating and Measuring Individual Learning Outcomes from Participation in Citizen Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5334/cstp.126
- The paper
- Phillips, T., Porticella, N., Constas, M., & Bonney, R. (2018). A Framework for Articulating and Measuring Individual Learning Outcomes from Participation in Citizen Science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.126
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.
