Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

  • Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85, 536–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 169.

    Article  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 

  • Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.

    Article  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 

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  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).

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morge, L. (2005). Teacher–pupil interaction: A study of hidden beliefs in conclusion phases. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 935–956.

    Article  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/.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eugene T. Moore School of Education, Clemson University, 418G Tillman Hall, Clemson, SC, 29634-0705, USA

    Jeff C. Marshall, Julie Smart & Robert M. Horton

Authors
  1. Jeff C. Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie Smart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert M. Horton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeff C. Marshall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marshall, J.C., Smart, J. & Horton, R.M. THE DESIGN AND VALIDATION OF EQUIP: AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 8, 299–321 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9174-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9174-y

Key words

Search

Navigation