Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition¶
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Inquiry-Based Learning
- The Ambitious Science Teaching framework at the University of Washington and its partners (2005-present). Developed by Mark Windschitl, Jessica Thompson, and Melissa Braaten at the University of Washington's College of Education, and elaborated in their 2018 book Ambitious Science Teaching and through the Ambitious Science Teaching website, the framework provides a rigorous operationalization of inquiry-based science instruction centered on four core practices: (1) planning instruction around big, phenomenon-anchored science ideas; (2) eliciting students' initial ideas and experiences to make them available for inquiry; (3) supporting ongoing changes in student thinking through rich discourse, scaffolded investigation, and modeling; and (4) pressing for evidence-based explanations grounded in the target science ideas — a configuration that extends the inquiry-modeling-metacognition design White and Frederiksen (1998) demonstrated in their ThinkerTools curriculum, and parallels the engineering-design pedagogies Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, and Rogers (2008) advance for P-12 classrooms.
This sourceThinkerTools curriculum demonstrating that scaffolded inquiry plus explicit metacognition yields equity-supporting science learning, complemented by parallel design-pedagogy frameworks for P-12 engineering inquiry that inform the Ambitious Science Teaching configuration.
- The Ambitious Science Teaching framework at the University of Washington and its partners (2005-present). Developed by Mark Windschitl, Jessica Thompson, and Melissa Braaten at the University of Washington's College of Education, and elaborated in their 2018 book Ambitious Science Teaching and through the Ambitious Science Teaching website, the framework provides a rigorous operationalization of inquiry-based science instruction centered on four core practices: (1) planning instruction around big, phenomenon-anchored science ideas; (2) eliciting students' initial ideas and experiences to make them available for inquiry; (3) supporting ongoing changes in student thinking through rich discourse, scaffolded investigation, and modeling; and (4) pressing for evidence-based explanations grounded in the target science ideas — a configuration that extends the inquiry-modeling-metacognition design White and Frederiksen (1998) demonstrated in their ThinkerTools curriculum, and parallels the engineering-design pedagogies Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, and Rogers (2008) advance for P-12 classrooms.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:f730b6f71fd2 · see in the full table