The design and validation of equip: An instrument to assess inquiry-based instruction

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 299-321

  Marshall, Jeff C ^a   Smart, Julie ^a   Horton, Robert M ^a  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

EQUIP; Inquiry; Inquiry protocol; Inquiry based instruction; Mathematics education; Observational protocol; Professional development; Professional development protocol; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952290308     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-009-9174-y     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Atkin, J., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery of invention? Science Teacher, 29(5), 45.
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.
8. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-364.
9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
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.
11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington: National Academies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
16. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.
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.
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.
19. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington: National Academies.
20. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Taylor & Francis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
26. Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 169.
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.
28. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
29. Knowles, T., & Brown, D. F. (2000). What every middle school teacher should know. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
30. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
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.
32. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
33. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex.
34. Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
35. Llewellyn, D. (2005). Teaching high school science through inquiry: a case study approach. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
36. Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades 3-8 (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
37. Luft, J., Bell, R. L., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2008). Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. Arlington: National Science Teachers Association.
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.
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.
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).
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.
43. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria: ASCD.
44. Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
46. Morge, L. (2005). Teacher-pupil interaction: A study of hidden beliefs in conclusion phases. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 935-956.
47. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
48. Moscovici, H., & Holdlund-Nelson, T. (1998). Shifting from activity mania to inquiry. Science and Children, 35(4), 14-17.
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.
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.
52. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.
53. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academies.
54. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington: National Academies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
64. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
66. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211-223.
67. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria: ASCD.