Date: 03 Nov 2009
Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
This study describes the development of two instruments to investigate the extent to which students are engaged in scientific inquiry. As a result of the instrument development process employed, each finalized instrument consisted of 20-items separated into five categories. Both instruments were found to be internally consistent, with high reliability estimates. Factor analysis showed two factors for each instrument that, while not clustering the items into the five categories, did show item clustering that is consistent with research literature about students’ engagement in inquiry experiences. Based on the analyses completed, the instruments appear to be useful instruments for use in comprehensive assessment packages for assessing the extent to which students are experiencing inquiry in science classrooms.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Campbell, T., & Bohn, C. (2008). Science laboratory experiences of high school students across one state in the U.S.: Descriptive research from the classroom. Science Educator, 17(1), 36–48.
Cavallo, A., & Laubach, T. (2001). Students’ science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1029–1062.CrossRef
Chang, C., & Mao, S. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan science students’ outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 340–346.CrossRef
Ertepinar, H., & Geban, O. (1996). Effect of instruction supplied with the investigative-oriented laboratory approach on achievement in a science course. Educational Research, 38, 333–341.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow, England: Longman Group.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gorsuch, R. L. (2003). Factor analysis. In I. B. Weiner, D. K. Freedheim, & J. A. Schinka (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 143–164). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1072–1088.CrossRef
Johnston, A. (2008). Demythologizing or dehumanizing? A response to Settlage and the ideals of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 11–13.CrossRef
Lawson, A., Benford, R., Bloom, I., Carlson, M., Falconer, K., Hestenes, D., et al. (2002). Evaluating college science and mathematics instruction: A reform effort that improves teaching skills. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31, 388–393.
Leong, F., & Austin, J. (2006). The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and research assistants (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Maclsaac, D., & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics instruction via RTOP. The Physics Teacher, 40, 479–485.CrossRef
Madaus, G. F. (1999). The influence of testing on the curriculum. In M. J. Early & K. J. Rehage (Eds.), Issues in curriculum: A selection of chapters from past NSSE yearbooks. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Marek, E. A., Laubach, T. A., & Pedersen, J. (2003). Preservice elementary school teachers’ understanding of theory-based science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 147–159.CrossRef
Marek, E. A., Maier, S. J., & McCann, F. (2008). Assessing understanding of the learning cycle: The ULC. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 375–389.CrossRef
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17, 13–17.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2005). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2007). NSTA position statement. The Integral Role of Laboratory Investigations in Science Instruction. Retrieved on October 23, 2009, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/laboratory.aspx.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Sullivan, C. Y., & Weiss, A. R. (1999). Student work and teacher practices in science. United States Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 1999-455).
Paris, S., Yambor, K., & Packard, B. (1998). Hands-on biology: A museum-school-university partnership for enhancing students’ interest and learning in science. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 267–289.CrossRef
Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., & Judson, E. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP): Reference manual (ACEPT Technical Report No. INOO-3). Tempe, AZ: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (Eric Document Reproduction Service, ED 447 205).
Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., et al. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 245–253.CrossRef
Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.CrossRef
Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 461–467.CrossRef
Smith, K. (1993). Development of the primary teacher questionnaire. Journal of Educational Research, 87(1), 23–29.
Smolleck, L., & Yoder, E. (2008). Further development and validation of the teaching science as inquiry (TSI) instrument. School Science & Mathematics, 108, 291–297.CrossRef
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows (SPSS). (2007). Chicago: SPSS Inc. (Rel. 16.0.1. 2007).
Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B., & Fisher, D. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302.CrossRef
Taylor, P., & Maor, D. (2000). Assessing the efficacy of online teaching with the constructivist online learning environment survey. In A. Herrmann & M. M. Kulski (Eds.), Flexible futures in tertiary teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved on October 23, 2009, from http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/taylor.html.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112–143.CrossRef
- Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms
Journal of Science Teacher Education
Volume 21, Issue 1 , pp 13-30
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Scientific inquiry
- Research instrument