Abstract
After decades of research endorsing inquiry-based learning, at best only moderate success has been noted in creating effective systemic implementation in K-12 classrooms. Thus, teachers need to be better equipped in how to bring this transformation to their own classrooms. Changing beliefs and overcoming external obstacles encourages the use of inquiry, but a clear, yet dynamic, instructional model is also needed for teachers to see the potential of inquiry-based instruction. The proposed 4E × 2 (read “4E by 2”) Instructional Model provides such a model for learning that links strong conceptual understanding of content with inquiry learning experiences. The 4E × 2 Model integrates what we know and understand about inquiry-based teaching and learning with effective assessment and metacognitive reflection. These three constructs, formative assessment, inquiry instructional models, and metacognitive reflection, are foundational to the Model. A synthesis of research tied to these three constructs provides the justification of both the need for and the value of such a model. An argument for the formation of the 4E × 2 Instructional Model is made based on the coherence and the resulting synergy that occurs when these three learning constructs are united.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of science literacy: Project 2061. Washington, DC: AAAS & NSTA.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Aschbacher, P., & Alonzo, A. C. (2004). Using science notebooks to assess students’ conceptual understanding. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
Atkin, J., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery of invention? Science Teacher, 29(5), 45–47.
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85, 536–553.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2002). BSCS 5E instructional model. BSCS.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Scotter, P. V., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Colorado Springs: BSCS.
Carin, A. A., Bass, J. E., & Contant, T. L. (2005). Methods for teaching science as inquiry (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Cavalluzzo, L. (2004). Is National Board Certification an effective signal of teacher quality?. Alexandria, VA: The CNA Corporation.
Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000). Discovering and exploring habits of mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438–481.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Derry, S. J., & DuRussel, L. A. (1999). Assessing knowledge construction in on-line learning communities. In S. Lajoie & M. Vivet (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Donovan, S. M., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model: A proposed 7E model emphasizes “transfer of learning” and the importance of eliciting prior understanding. The Science Teacher, 70(6), 56–59.
Enger, S., & Yager, R. E. (2001). Assessing student understanding in science: A standards-based K-12 handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fried, R. L. (2001). The passionate teacher: A practical guide. Boston: Beacon.
Goldhaber, D. (2004). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed?. Seattle, WA: The Urban Institute.
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.
Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 169–175.
Keeley, P., Eberle, F., & Farrin, L. (2005). Uncovering student ideas in science: 25 formative assessment probes. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performances: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–25.
Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lyman, F. T. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students. In A. S. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming digest (pp. 109–113). College Park: University of Maryland Press.
Marshall, J. C. (2007). 4E × 2 Instructional Model: Promoting stronger teaching and deeper conceptual understanding. Paper presented at the School Science and Mathematics Association, Indianapolis, IN.
Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., & Edmondson, E. (2007). 4E × 2 Instructional Model [Electronic Version]. Retrieved August 15, 2007 from http://www.clemson.edu/iim.
Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L., & Switzer, D. M. (in press). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9122-7.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1994). What teachers should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: Author.
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching. (2000). Before its too late: A report to the nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1998). Technology conference: NCTM Standards 2000. Arlington, VA.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2000a). How people learn. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000b). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational Psychologist, 22(2), 155–175.
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (pp. 703–732). New York: Wiley.
Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2001). The role of children’s journals in elementary school science activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 43–69.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student? Instructional Science, 26, 127–140.
Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment FOR learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324–328.
Tobias, S., & Everson, H. (2000). Assessing metacognitive knowledge monitoring. In G. Schraw (Ed.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute, The University of Nebraska.
Tobias, S., & Everson, H. (2002). Knowing what you know and what you don’t: Further research on metacognitive knowledge monitoring. New York: College Board.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved March 14, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.pdf
van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.
Vandevoort, L. G., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D. C. (2004). National Board Certification Teachers and their students’ achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(46), 1–117.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from http://2000survey.horizon-research.com/reports/status.php
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211–223.
White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. Great Britain: Falmer Press.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wilson, J., & Clarke, D. (2004). Towards the modelling of mathematical metacognition. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(2), 25–48.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Marshall, J.C., Horton, B. & Smart, J. 4E × 2 Instructional Model: Uniting Three Learning Constructs to Improve Praxis in Science and Mathematics Classrooms. J Sci Teacher Educ 20, 501–516 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9114-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9114-7