THE DESIGN AND VALIDATION OF EQUIP: AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION
- 1.3k Downloads
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 wordsEQUIP inquiry inquiry-based instruction inquiry protocol mathematics education observational protocol professional development professional development protocol science education
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Atkin, J., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery of invention? Science Teacher, 29(5), 45.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Beerer, K., & Bodzin, A. (2003). Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR). Retrieved April 25, 2007, from http://www.lehigh.edu/~amb4/stir/stir.pdf.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Horizon Research. (2002). Inside the classroom interview protocol [electronic version]. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/clas/cop.php.
- 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
- 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
- Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Knowles, T., & Brown, D. F. (2000). What every middle school teacher should know. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
- 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
- Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
- Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
- Llewellyn, D. (2005). Teaching high school science through inquiry: a case study approach. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
- Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades 3–8 (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
- Luft, J., Bell, R. L., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2008). Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. Arlington: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Moscovici, H., & Holdlund-Nelson, T. (1998). Shifting from activity mania to inquiry. Science and Children, 35(4), 14–17.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
- 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/.
- 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.
- Sampson, V. (2004). The Science Management Observation Protocol. The Science Teacher, 71(10), 30–33.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar