A Psychometric Approach to the Development of a 5E Lesson Plan Scoring Instrument for Inquiry-Based Teaching

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 527-551

  Goldston, M Jenice ^a   Dantzler, John ^a   Day, Jeanelle ^b   Webb, Brenda ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

^b EASTERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

5E lesson planning; Assessment; Inquiry based teaching

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877817531     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10972-012-9327-7     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. AAAS. (1998). Blueprints for reform: Science, mathematics, and technology education. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Achieve. (2012). Next generation science standards: For states by states. Retrieved at http://www. nextgenscience. org/next-generation-science-standards/.
4. Ackerson, V., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317.
5. Appleton, K. (2008). Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(6), 523-545.
6. Atkins, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? Science Teacher, 29(5), 45.
7. Barman, C. R. (1992). An evaluation of the use of a technique designed to assist prospective elementary teachers' use of the learning cycle with science textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 92(2), 59-63.
8. Barman, C. R. (1993). The learning cycle: A basic tool for teachers, too. Perspectives in Education and Deafness, 11(4), 7-11.
9. Barman, C., & Shedd, J. (1992). Program designed to introduce K-6 teachers to the learning cycle teaching approach. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3(2), 58-64.
10. Beerer, K. & Bodzin, A. (2004). Promoting inquiry-based science instruction with the science teacher inquiry rubric (STIR). Paper presented at the 2004 Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (AETS), Annual International Conference in Nashville, TN.
11. Blank, L. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding. Science Education, 84(4), 486-506.
12. Bodzin, A. & Beerer, K. (2003). Promoting inquiry based science instruction: the validation of the science teacher inquiry. Journal of Elementary Science Education. 15(2), 39-49. Retrieved on line at http://www. thefreelibrary. com/Promoting+inquiry-based+science+instruction%3a+the+validation+of+the-a0108967578.
13. Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purpose to practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Press.
14. Bybee, R., Taylor, J., Gardner, A., van Scotter, P., Carlson, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCE 5e instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. A report for Office of Science Education National Institutes of Health. Retrieved on line at http://science. education. nih. gov/houseofreps. nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix+D. pdf.
15. Cavallo, A., & Laubach, T. (2001). Students' science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1029-1062.
16. Colburn, A. (2008). An inquiry primer. In E. Brunsell (Ed.), Readings in science methods K-8 (pp. 33-36). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
17. Dwyer, W., & Lopez, V. (2001). Simulations in the learning cycle: A case study involving 'Exploring the Nardoo'. In J. Price, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2556-2557). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
18. Eick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into inquiry: Scaffolding support beginning efforts to implement inquiry in the classroom. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 49-53.
19. Fields, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications.
20. Glasson, G., & Lilik, R. (1993). Reinterpreting the learning cycle from a social constructivist perspective: A qualitative study of teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 187-207.
21. Goldston, M. J., Day, J., Sundberg, C., & Dantzler, J. (2010). Psychometric analysis of a 5E learning cycle lesson plan assessment instrument. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(4), 633-645.
22. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191-205.
23. Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education, 72(1), 19-40.
24. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.
25. Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage Publications.
26. Jacobson, W., & Kondo, A. (1968). SCIS elementary science sourcebook. Berkeley, CA: Science Curriculum Improvement Study.
27. Jinkins, D. (2002). Impact of the implementation of the teaching/learning cycle on teacher decision-making and emergent readers. Reading Psychology, 22(4), 267-288.
28. Karplus, R. (1979). Teaching for the development of reasoning. In A. Lawson (Ed.), 1980 AETS yearbook: The psychology of teaching for thinking and creativity. ERIC/SMEAC: Columbus, OH.
29. Karplus, R., Collea, F, Fuller, R., Paldy, L., & Renner, J. (1975). Workshop in physics teaching and the development of reasoning. Presented for the American Association of Physics Teachers.
30. Karplus, R., & Thier, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
31. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
32. Lawson, A. & Abraham, M. & Renner, J. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. NARST monograph, number one, National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
33. Lederman, N., Wade, P., & Bell, R. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 331-350). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
34. Lovoie, D. (1999). Effects of emphasizing hypothetico-predictive reasoning within the science learning cycle on high school student's process skills and conceptual understanding of biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1127-1147.
35. Marek, E. (2008). Why the learning cycle? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 63-69.
36. Marek, E., & Cavallo, A. (1997). Learning cycle: Elementary school science and beyond. Portsmith, NH: Heinnemann.
37. Marek, E., Eubanks, C., & Gallaher, T. (1990). Teachers' understanding and the use of the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 821-834.
38. Marek, E., Laubach, T. A., & Pederson, J. (2003). Preservice elementary school teachers' understandings of theory based science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(3), 147-159.
39. Marek, E., Maier, S., & McCann, F. (2008). Assessing understanding of the learning cycle: The ULC. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(4), 375-389.
40. Marek, E., & Methven, S. (1992). Effects of the learning cycle upon student and classroom teacher performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 41-53.
41. Munsheno, B., & Lawson, A. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 23-37.
42. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2010a). The Nation's Report Card: Science 2009. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES Publication 2011-451 or 15654K PDF). Retrieved from http://nces. ed. gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2009/2011451. asp.
43. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2010b). Hands-on and interactive computer assessment from 2009 Science Assessment. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard. gov/science_2009/ict_summary. asp.
44. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
46. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
47. No Child Let Behind. (2002). No child left behind act of 2001. U. S. Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 435.
48. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
49. O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396-402.
50. Odom, A., & Kelly, P. (2001). Integrating concept mapping and the learning cycle to teach diffusion and osmosis concepts to high school biology students. Science Education, 85(6), 615-635.
51. Odom, A., & Settlage, J. J. (1996). Teachers' understandings of the learning cycle as assessed with a two-tier test. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(4), 123-142.
52. Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.
53. Pomperoy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers' beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 26-278.
54. Settlage, J. J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 84, 43-50.
55. Settlage, J., Meadows, L., Olson, M., & Blanchard, M. (2008). Teacher knowledge about inquiry: Incorporating conceptual change theory. In E. Abrams, S. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the classroom: Realities and opportunities (pp. 172-191). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
56. Slotta, J. D. (2004). The web-based inquiry science environment (WISE): Scaffolding knowledge integration in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, P. Bell & E. Davis (Eds.), Internet Environments for Science Education (pp. 203-232). LEA.
57. Streiner, D. L. (1998). Factors affecting reliability of interpretations of scree plots. Psychological Reports, 83, 687-694.
58. Sunal, D., & Wright, E. (2006). Teacher perceptions of science standards in K-12 classrooms: An Alabama case study. In D. Sunal & E. Wright (Eds.), The impact of state and national standards on k-12 science teaching (pp. 7-49). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
59. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
60. Trowbridge, L., & Bybee, R. (1996). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy (6th ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
61. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321-327.
62. Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment (pp. 41-71). Boston: Kluwer.
63. Weiss, I. (2006). A framework for investigating the influence of the national science standards. In D. Sunal & E. Wright (Eds.), The impact of state and national standards on K-12 science teaching (pp. 123-152). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
64. Weiss, I., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
65. Welch, W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G., & Robinson, J. (1981). The roles of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65(1), 33-50.
66. Worthingtong, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research. A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806-838.
67. Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A. M., & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for likert rating scales. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6, 21-29.
68. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442.