Advertisement

PLANNING, ENACTMENT, AND REFLECTION IN INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING: VALIDATING THE MCGILL STRATEGIC DEMANDS OF INQUIRY QUESTIONNAIRE

  • Bruce M. ShoreEmail author
  • Tanya Chichekian
  • Cassidy A. Syer
  • Mark W. Aulls
  • Carl H. Frederiksen
Article

ABSTRACT

Tools are needed to track the elements of students’ successful engagement in inquiry. The McGill Strategic Demands of Inquiry Questionnaire (MSDIQ) is a 79-item, criterion-referenced, learner-focused questionnaire anchored in Schön’s model and related models of self-regulated learning. The MSDIQ addresses three phases of inquiry engagement—planning, enactment, reflection—perceived as important by teachers, parents, and students before or after inquiry participation. Internal consistency and validity evidence was obtained from 205 university students with different inquiry backgrounds: teacher education years 1 and 4, continuing teacher education, and honors psychology. Separate confirmatory factor analyses of planning, enactment, and reflection generated 14 intercorrelated factors congruent with definitions of inquiry instruction and supported the hypothesized structure underlying the MSDIQ as a reliable and valid instrument for measuring inquiry engagement and valuing its building blocks.

KEY WORDS

evaluating inquiry progress inquiry inquiry components learning teaching inquiry tools for inquiry evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2011_9301_MOESM1_ESM.doc (43 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 43 kb)
10763_2011_9301_MOESM2_ESM.doc (70 kb)
ESM 2 (DOC 69 kb)

References

  1. Aulls, M. W. & Shore, B. M. (2008). Inquiry in education (Vol. I): The conceptual foundations for research as a curricular imperative. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Barell, J. (2003). Developing more curious minds. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Boisvert, K. & Roumain, S. (2000). Questionnaires to explore strategic demands of inquiry teaching and learning. Unpublished master’s Special Activity report, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Brandon, P. R., Young, D. B., Pottenger, F. M. & Taum, A. K. (2009). The Inquiry Science Implementation Scale: Development and applications. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1135–1147. doi: 10.1007/s10763-009-9156-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, T., Abd-Hamid, N. H. & Chapman, H. (2009). Development of instruments to assess teacher and student perceptions of inquiry experiences in science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 13–30. doi: 10.1007/s10972-009-9151-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiappetta, E. L. (1997). Inquiry-based science. The Science Teacher, 64, 22–26.Google Scholar
  8. Christou, D. (2001). What do elementary students understand about inquiry learning? Unpublished master’s Special Activity report, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, A. L. (1989). Making explicit implicit theories of teaching: starting points in preservice programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED308163).Google Scholar
  11. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes, England: The Open University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Germann, P. J. (1991). Developing science process skills through directed inquiry. American Biology Teacher, 53, 243–247.Google Scholar
  13. Jeroski, S., Booth, L. & Dockendorf, M. (1992). Field based research: A working guide. Vancouver, BC, Canada: British Columbia Ministry of Education and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights; Research and Evaluation Branch.Google Scholar
  14. Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  15. Llewellyn, D. (2005). Teaching high school science through inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  16. Manconi, L., Aulls, M. W. & Shore, B. M. (2008). Teachers’ use and understanding of strategy in inquiry instruction. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls & M. A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education (Vol. II): Overcoming barriers to successful implementation (pp. 247–270). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Marshall, J. C., Smart, J. & Horton, R. M. (2009). The design and validation of EQUIP: An instrument to assess inquiry-based instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 299–321. doi: 10.1007/s10763-009-9174-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec [Quebec Ministry of Education]. (1999). Programme de formation de l’école québécoise: Éducation préscolaire, enseignement primaire [Quebec education program: Preschool education, elementary learning]. Quebec, QC, Canada: Author.Google Scholar
  20. Muis, K. R. & Franco, G. (2009). Epistemic beliefs: Setting the standards in self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muthen, B. O. (2003). Factor loadings . . . . Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008–1:44 pm. Retrieved on February 24, 2011 from http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/9/488.html?1212698662
  22. National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school. mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  23. National Council for the Social Studies (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Alexandria, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Puustinen, M. & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reiff, R. (2002). If inquiry is so great, why isn’t everyone doing it? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED465642). Google Scholar
  28. Reinke, K. & Moseley, C. (2002). The effects of teacher education on elementary and secondary preservice teachers’ beliefs about integration: A longitudinal study. Action in Teacher Education, 24(1), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Runyon, R. P., Coleman, K. A. & Pittenger, D. J. (2000). Fundamentals of behavioral statistics (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Saunders, K. S. (2004). Parents’ and teachers’ views of group work and reporting of inquiry products. Unpublished master’s thesis in educational psychology, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  31. Saunders-Stewart, K. S. (2008). Student perceptions of important outcomes of involvement in inquiry-based teaching and learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation in school/applied child psychology, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  32. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~kscherm/schermelleh/mpr_Schermelleh.pdf
  33. Schön, D. (1983). “The reflective practitioner.” How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Shore, B. M., Aulls, M. W. & Delcourt, M. A. B. (Eds.). (2008). Inquiry in education (Vol. II): Overcoming barriers to successful implementation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Shore, B. M., Birlean, C., Walker, C. L., Ritchie, K. C., LaBanca, F. & Aulls, M. W. (2009). Inquiry literacy: A proposal for a neologism. LEARNing Landscapes, 3(1), 138–155.Google Scholar
  36. Short, K. G. & Burke, C. (1996). Examining our beliefs and practices through inquiry. Language Arts, 73, 97–104.Google Scholar
  37. Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Syer, C. A. (2007). Student teachers’ understanding of inquiry instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation in school/applied child psychology, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  39. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. (Trans. M. Cole). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wills, C. (1995). Voice of inquiry: Possibilities and perspectives. Childhood Education, 71, 261–265.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce M. Shore
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tanya Chichekian
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cassidy A. Syer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mark W. Aulls
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carl H. Frederiksen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational and Counselling PsychologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Centre for the Study of Learning and PerformanceMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyThe Montreal Children’s HospitalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations