slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Creation, Validation, and Reliability Associated with the EQUIP: A Measure of Inquiry-Based Instruction PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Creation, Validation, and Reliability Associated with the EQUIP: A Measure of Inquiry-Based Instruction

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

The Creation, Validation, and Reliability Associated with the EQUIP: A Measure of Inquiry-Based Instruction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 220 Views
  • Uploaded on

The Creation, Validation, and Reliability Associated with the EQUIP: A Measure of Inquiry-Based Instruction. Jeff C. Marshall Clemson University NARST 2009 Conference. Challenge. K-12 teachers report 39% of instructional time is spent on inquiry (Marshall, Horton, Igo, & Switzer, 2009) .

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

The Creation, Validation, and Reliability Associated with the EQUIP: A Measure of Inquiry-Based Instruction


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

The Creation, Validation, and Reliability Associated with the EQUIP: A Measure of Inquiry-Based Instruction

Jeff C. Marshall

Clemson University

NARST 2009 Conference

challenge
Challenge
  • K-12 teachers report 39% of instructional time is spent on inquiry (Marshall, Horton, Igo, & Switzer, 2009).
    • Is this true?
    • Regardless of amount, what is the quality of the inquiry?
  • Current protocols were too broad, too limiting, or not valid for our purpose.
  • Goal: create and validate a more useful protocol
inquiry defined
Inquiry Defined
  • NSES definition (NRC, 1996, p.23):
    • multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations and predictions; and communicating the results. Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanations.
existing protocols
Existing Protocols
  • Inside the Classroom Observational Protocol(Horizon Research, 2002)
  • Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP)(Sawada et al., 2000)
  • The Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR)(Beerer & Bodzin, 2003)
  • The Science Management Observation Protocol (SMOP)(Sampson, 2004)
  • Various teacher efficacy scales (Riggs & Enochs, 1990) have been used as a measure to predict whether reform is likely to occur. This approach is often used because self-reports of efficacy have been closely tied to outcome expectancy (Saam, Boone, & Chase, 2000).
need for new protocol
Need for New Protocol

In our search for a protocol, we found several instruments that all have significant value. None fully matched our needs.

  • Inside the Classroom Observational Protocol –too global
  • The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) —focuses on constructivist classroom issues; uses Likert scale instead of descriptive rubric—we desired specific incremental targets to guide reformed practice; micro view not reliable, only macro is limiting  
  • The Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR) –aligned with NSES definition but lacks specifics necessary to facilitate each aspect of inquiry.
  • The Science Management Observation Protocol (SMOP)—emphasizes classroom management issues but not key components of inquiry-based instruction.
  • Various teacher efficacy scales—possible predictors but not instructional focused
need for new protocol6
Need for New Protocol

In our search for a protocol, we found several instruments that all have significant value. None fully matched our needs.

  • Inside the Classroom Observational Protocol (Horizon Research, 2002) –too global lacks granular look at inquiry instruction
  • The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Sawada et al., 2000) focuses on constructivist classroom issues, but goes beyond a look at inquiry-based instruction to more of an evaluation of teaching. Furthermore, the use of a Likert scale to assess classroom instruction was a limiting factor for our needs. We ultimately sought an instrument with a descriptive rubric that can be used to guide teachers and help them set specific incremental targets as they seek to improve their inquiry-based instruction.  
  • The Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR) (Beerer & Bodzin, 2003) aligned with the NSES definition but lacks insight into the specifics of inquiry that teachers must facilitate with each aspect of inquiry.
  • The Science Management Observation Protocol (SMOP) (Sampson, 2004) emphasizes classroom management issues and does not assess key components of inquiry-based instruction.
  • Various teacher efficacy scales (Riggs & Enochs, 1990)
instrument development
Instrument Development
  • Protocol requirements:
    • measure the quantity and quality of inquiry instruction (validation focuses on quality)
    • work with various inquiry instructional models (e.g., 4E x 2, 5E, Learning Cycle)
    • appropriate for both researchers and teachers
    • view of instruction from micro and macro
instrument validity
Instrument Validity
  • Face Validity
    • 11 Researchers (4 internal and 7 external)
  • Internal Consistency
    • Cronbach’s Alpha (.880-.889)
  • Inter-Rater Reliability
    • Cohen’s Kappa (.55-62)
    • R2 = .856
  • Content and Construct Validity
    • Literature
    • SEM
structural equation modeling sem
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
  • Confirmatory Factor Analysis conducted
  • Model Trimming (26-14 indicators)
    • 3 Constructs
    • 4th Construct justified from remaining indicators
    • Resulting in 4 constructs
      • Instruction, Discourse, Assessment, Curriculum
      • 19 total indicators
summary of sem data
Summary of SEM Data

All parameters within acceptable boundaries. 2 is significant p < .001, 2//df 2 indicates reasonable fit (Kline, 2005), root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA of .1 is on the threshold of reasonable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), standardized root mean squared residual, SRMR < .1 is considered favorable (Kline, 2005), and the computerized fit index, CFI, of > .90 is considered a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The four-construct model, 19-indicator model, though not quite as parsimonious as a 14-indicator model, provides a good-fitting model that also is solidly supported by the literature base regarding effective inquiry instruction.

discussion
Discussion
  • EQUIP provides valid macro (construct and lesson level) and micro (indicator level) view of inquiry.
  • EQUIP’s descriptive rubric can be used formatively by teachers and researchers.
  • Valid for both math and science.
  • Likely effective for both pre- and in-service teacher training.
further information
Further Information
  • Jeff C. Marshall, Clemson University
  • email: marsha9@clemson.edu
  • website: www.clemson.edu/iim (select research and evaluation tab for EQUIP; select outreach and dissemination for paper and PowerPoint)