Validating a 3E Rubric Assessing Pre-service Science Teachers’ Practical Knowledge of Inquiry Teaching

Jianlan Wang; Stacey Sneed; Yuanhua Wang

doi:10.29333/ejmste/112547

Full Text (PDF)

Jianlan Wang ¹ ^* , Stacey Sneed ¹, Yuanhua Wang ¹

More Detail

¹ Texas Tech University, USA^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Inquiry teaching in science education has been widely advocated for decades. It is a critical learning objective in many science teacher preparation programs. Despite its importance, it is not effectively implemented in science classrooms. One of the reasons is the lack of reliable and valid instruments that provide practical definition, concrete guideline, and objective assessment for the practice of inquiry teaching. To fill this gap, we designed a 3E rubric based on the 5E learning model as one specific form of inquiry teaching to measure preservice teachers’ practice at different phases of a science lesson. In this study, we thoroughly introduced the 3E rubric and its use. Through drawing on 76 elementary pre-service science teachers’ teaching videos, we analyzed its reliability and validity with the tools of Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, Fleiss’ kappa, and Pearson correlation. According to the results, the 3E rubric is a reliable and valid tool to assess pre-service teachers’ practical knowledge of inquiry teaching. The contributions of this rubric to the teaching and research in science teacher preparation are discussed and future research directions are proposed.

Keywords

3E rubric
pre-service teachers
inquiry teaching

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2020, Volume 16, Issue 2, Article No: em1814

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112547

Publication date: 21 Oct 2019

Article Views: 1994

Article Downloads: 922

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching? What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982.
Bartko, J. J. (1966). The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological reports, 19(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.3.
Bell, R.L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
Bodzin, A. & Beerer, K. (2003). Promoting inquiry base science instruction: The validation of the science teacher inquiry (STIR). Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173842.
Brown, P. L., Abell, S. K., Demir, A., & Schmidt, F. J. (2006). College science teachers’ views of classroom inquiry. Science education, 90(5), 784-802. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20151.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bybee, R. W. (2000) Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp.20-46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Unpublished white paper. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9314-z.
Cheung, D. (2008). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 107-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9102-y.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Chapter 8: Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of research in education, 24(1), 249-305. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X024001249.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th edition). London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029053.
Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. 2, pp. 515-541). New York: Routledge.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological bulletin, 76(5), 378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619.
Fook, C. Y., Dalim, S. F., Narasuman, S., Sidhu, G. K., & Fong, L. L. (2016). Students’ Perception of Inquiry-Based Instruction, Active Learning and Formative Assessment in Higher Education. Advanced Science Letters, 22(12), 4422-4425. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2016.8173.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
Goldston, M. J., Day, J. B., 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), 633-648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9178-7.
Greer, M. A., Hudson, L. M., & Wiersma, W. (April, 1999). The constructivist teaching inventory: A new instrument for assessing constructivist teaching practices in the elementary grades. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal: CA.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educational psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S, & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(4), 495-547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics, 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.
Liu, T. C., Peng, H., Wu, W. H., & Ming-Sheng, L. (2009). The effects of mobile natural-science learning based on the 5E learning cycle: A case study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 344.
Marek, E. A., Maier, S. J., & McCann, F. (2008). Assessing understanding of the learning cycle: The ULC. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(4), 375-389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9100-0.
Marshall, J. C., Smart, J., & Horton, R. M. (2009). The design and validation of EQUIP: An instrument to assess inquiry-based instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 299-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9174-y.
Meltzer, D. E., & Otero, V. K. (2015). A brief history of physics education in the United States. American Journal of Physics, 83(5), 447-458.Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4902397.
Minstrell, J. (2000). Implications for teaching and learning inquiry: A summary. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 471-496). Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
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(2), 123-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00114122.
Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific Practices and Inquiry in the Science Classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. 2, pp. 579-599). New York: Routledge.
Palmer, D. H. (2009). Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 147-165. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20263.
Sampson, V. (2004). The science management observation protocol. The Science Teacher, 71(10), 30-33.
Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School science and mathematics, 102(6), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17883.x.
Wang, J. (2019). Compare scaffolding pedagogical instruction with direct instruction for pre-service science teacher education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10010-7.
Wang, J., & Sneed S. (2019). Exploring the Design of Scaffolding Pedagogical Instruction for Elementary Preservice Teacher Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 30(5), 483-506.
Wilder, M., & Shuttleworth, P. (2005). Cell inquiry: A 5E learning cycle lesson. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 41(4), 37-43. https://doi.org/10.3200/SATS.41.4.37-43.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Teacher Education, 87, 112-143. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10044.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model‐based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science education, 92(5), 941-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259.
Zafra-Gómez, J. L., Román-Martínez, I., & Gómez-Miranda, M. E. (2015). Measuring the impact of inquiry-based learning on outcomes and student satisfaction. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(8), 1050-1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.963836.

How to cite this article

APA

Wang, J., Sneed, S., & Wang, Y. (2020). Validating a 3E Rubric Assessing Pre-service Science Teachers’ Practical Knowledge of Inquiry Teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(2), em1814. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112547

Vancouver

Wang J, Sneed S, Wang Y. Validating a 3E Rubric Assessing Pre-service Science Teachers’ Practical Knowledge of Inquiry Teaching. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2020;16(2):em1814. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112547

AMA

Wang J, Sneed S, Wang Y. Validating a 3E Rubric Assessing Pre-service Science Teachers’ Practical Knowledge of Inquiry Teaching. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2020;16(2), em1814. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112547

Chicago

Wang, Jianlan, Stacey Sneed, and Yuanhua Wang. "Validating a 3E Rubric Assessing Pre-service Science Teachers’ Practical Knowledge of Inquiry Teaching". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2020 16 no. 2 (2020): em1814. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112547

Harvard

Wang, J., Sneed, S., and Wang, Y. (2020). Validating a 3E Rubric Assessing Pre-service Science Teachers’ Practical Knowledge of Inquiry Teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(2), em1814. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112547

MLA

Wang, Jianlan et al. "Validating a 3E Rubric Assessing Pre-service Science Teachers’ Practical Knowledge of Inquiry Teaching". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 16, no. 2, 2020, em1814. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112547