Development of Instruments to Assess Teacher and Student Perceptions of Inquiry Experiences in Science Classrooms
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.
KeywordsScientific inquiry Reform Research instrument
- American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, D.C.: Author.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow, England: Longman Group.Google Scholar
- Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Leong, F., & Austin, J. (2006). The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and research assistants (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17, 13–17.Google Scholar
- National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council (NRC). (2005). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- Smith, K. (1993). Development of the primary teacher questionnaire. Journal of Educational Research, 87(1), 23–29.Google Scholar
- Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows (SPSS). (2007). Chicago: SPSS Inc. (Rel. 16.0.1. 2007).Google Scholar
- 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.