THE DESIGN AND VALIDATION OF EQUIP: AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

  • Jeff C. Marshall
  • Julie Smart
  • Robert M. Horton
Article

Abstract

To monitor and evaluate program success and to provide teachers with a tool that could support their transformation in teaching practice, we needed an effective and valid protocol to measure the quantity and quality of inquiry-based instruction being led. Existing protocols, though helpful, were either too generic or too program specific. Consequently, we developed the Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol (EQUIP). This manuscript examines the 2-year development cycle for the creation and validation of EQUIP. The protocol evolved over several iterations and was supported by validity checks and confirmatory factor analysis. The protocol’s strength is further supported by high internal consistency and solid interrater agreement. The resulting protocol assesses 19 indicators aligned with four constructs: instruction, curriculum, assessment, and discourse. For teachers, EQUIP provides a framework to make their instructional practice more intentional as they strive to increase the quantity and quality of inquiry instruction. For researchers, EQUIP provides an instrument to analyze the quantity and quality of inquiry being implemented, which can be beneficial in evaluating professional development projects.

Key words

EQUIP inquiry inquiry-based instruction inquiry protocol mathematics education observational protocol professional development professional development protocol science education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Atkin, J., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery of invention? Science Teacher, 29(5), 45.Google Scholar
  5. Banilower, E. R. (2005). A study of the predictive validity of the LSC Classroom Observation Protocol [electronic version]. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://www.horizon-research.com/reports/2005/COP_validity.phprl.
  6. Beerer, K., & Bodzin, A. (2003). Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR). Retrieved April 25, 2007, from http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/stir/stir.pdf.
  7. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85, 536–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 9–21.Google Scholar
  11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
  12. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. 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: BSCSo. Document Number.Google Scholar
  14. Chambers, S. K., & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. J. (2006). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools: Developing fundamental knowledge and skills for teaching (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Perrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). Theories of knowledge acquisition. In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 97–113). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1990). Classrooms as learning environments for teachers and researchers. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views of the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 125–146). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  19. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
  20. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Henry, M., Murray, K. S., & Phillips, K. A. (2007). Meeting the challenge of STEM classroom observation in evaluating teacher development projects: A comparison of two widely used instruments. St. Louis: Henry Consulting. Document Number.Google Scholar
  23. Horizon Research. (2002). Inside the classroom interview protocol [electronic version]. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.php.
  24. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria in fix indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing and development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council for Chief State School Officers. Retrieved December 13, 2002.Google Scholar
  26. Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  29. Knowles, T., & Brown, D. F. (2000). What every middle school teacher should know. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  30. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63.Google Scholar
  32. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  34. Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  35. Llewellyn, D. (2005). Teaching high school science through inquiry: a case study approach. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  36. Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades 3–8 (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  37. Luft, J., Bell, R. L., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2008). Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. Arlington: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  38. Marshall, J. C. (2009). The creation, validation, and reliability associated with the EQUIP (Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol): A measure of inquiry-based instruction. Paper presented at the National Association of Researchers of Science Teaching Conference.Google Scholar
  39. Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., Igo, B. L., & Switzer, D. M. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers' beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., & Smart, J. (2009). 4E × 2 Instructional Model: Uniting three learning constructs to improve praxis in science and mathematics classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education (in press).Google Scholar
  41. Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., Smart, J., & Llewellyn, D. (2008). EQUIP: Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol [electronic version]. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from www.clemson.edu/iim.
  42. Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., & White, C. (2009). EQUIPping teachers: A protocol to guide and improve inquiry-based instruction. The Science Teacher, 76(4), 46–53.Google Scholar
  43. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  44. Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Moje, E. B. (1995). Talking about science: An interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high school classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morge, L. (2005). Teacher–pupil interaction: A study of hidden beliefs in conclusion phases. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 935–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Moscovici, H., & Holdlund-Nelson, T. (1998). Shifting from activity mania to inquiry. Science and Children, 35(4), 14–17.Google Scholar
  49. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2000). A distinction that matters: Why national teacher certification makes a difference. Greensboro: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation. Document Number.Google Scholar
  50. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2006). Making a difference in quality teaching and student achievement. Retrieved October 23, 2006, from http://www.nbpts.org/resources/research.
  51. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  52. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  53. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
  54. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
  55. Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2001). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP): Reference manual [electronic version]. ACEPT Technical Report No. IN00-3. Retrieved Oct. 17, 2008, from http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/AZTEC/RTOP/RTOP_full/PDF/.
  56. Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher's science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saam, J., Boone, W. J., & Chase, V. (2000). A snapshot of upper elementary and middle school science teachers’ self-efficacy and outcome expectancy [Electronic Version]. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from www.eric.ed.gov.
  58. Sampson, V. (2004). The Science Management Observation Protocol. The Science Teacher, 71(10), 30–33.Google Scholar
  59. Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Technical Report No. IN00-01): Arizona State University. Document Number.Google Scholar
  60. Schmidt, W. H., McNight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (2002). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. from http://imc.lisd.k12.mi.us/MSC1/Timms.html.
  61. 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.Google Scholar
  62. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free.Google Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeff C. Marshall
    • 1
  • Julie Smart
    • 1
  • Robert M. Horton
    • 1
  1. 1.Eugene T. Moore School of EducationClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations