Presented by Peter D. Marle, B.A. A New Survey to Measure Alignment to Inquiry in Curricula...

Presented by

Peter D. Marle, B.A.

A New Survey to MeasureAlignment to Inquiry

in Curricula

Alignment to Inquiry

Presented By Peter D. Marle, M.A.

Center for STEM EducationAlso, David H. Khaliqi and Lisa L. Decker


• The Need• The National Research Council (NRC; 1996) adopted inquiry learning as a central

tenet of instruction in science, and later stipulated that inquiry-based pedagogy engenders a deeper understanding of concepts in students than does traditional learning, and noted that “the research base on learning and on effective learning environments makes a strong case for inquiry-based approaches” (NRC, 2000; p. 128).

• The National Science Board (2003; 2007; 2010) has continually advocated for increased efforts toward educating students in the broad fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in order to reverse the declining trend of students entering into those fields.

• Over the past few decades, inquiry-based instruction has increased in popularity in both formal and informal classrooms.

• Many theories regarding implementation exist, and contain many similarities.

• Apart from observation/interview protocols, instructor/student surveys designed to measure inquiry in practice are non-existent.


• Current Theories of Inquiry Implementation• Atkin-Karplus Learning Cycle Adaptations

• Conceptual Change Model• Builds on Piaget’s concept of “accommodation” and Kuhn’s concept of “paradigm shift”

• Accommodation: e.g., bicycle brakes• Paradigm shift: e.g., Newton’s Laws of Motion Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity

• Extinction, replacement, addition, and rearrangement of ideas• Guided-inquiry > open-inquiry

• SAIL Cycle • Student-driven investigations• Mixture of elements of Conceptual Change Model and 5E Instructional Model• Guided-inquiry > open-inquiry

• BSCS 5E Instructional Model of Inquiry• Active learning build around the interaction of information processing and previous

knowledge (i.e., conceptions and misconceptions)• Students in control of their learning• Guided-inquiry < open-inquiry


• Current Theories of Inquiry Implementation• Atkin-Karplus Learning Cycle Adaptations

• Conceptual Change Model• Builds on Piaget’s concept of “accommodation” and Kuhn’s concept of “paradigm shift”

• Accommodation: e.g., bicycle brakes• Paradigm shift: e.g., Newton’s Laws of Motion Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity

• Extinction, replacement, addition, and rearrangement of ideas• Guided-inquiry > open-inquiry

• SAIL Cycle • Student-driven investigations• Mixture of elements of Conceptual Change Model and 5E Instructional Model• Guided-inquiry > open-inquiry






• Phases of the 5E Inquiry Model, Defined for Instructors and Students

Phase

Summary

Instructors Students

Build on students’ prior knowledge Engage students through activities Make knowledge/learning connections Promote curiosity

Make connections between prior knowledge and new learning

Thoughts organized toward learning outcomes

Identify students’ current concepts, processes, and skills through activities

Facilitate conceptual change

Use prior knowledge to complete activities Generate new ideas Explore questions and possibilities Design preliminary investigation

Provide opportunities for students to demonstrate process skills, behaviors, or conceptual understanding

Introduce concepts, processes, or skills

Explain their understanding of concepts Gain deeper understandings

Challenge students’ conceptual understanding and skills

Develop deeper and broader understanding, more information, and adequate skills

Apply their conceptual understanding by conducting additional activities

Evaluate student progress toward learning objectives

Assess their understanding and abilities

Note. Table adapted from Bybee et al. (2006; p. 2).

Engagement

Exploration

Explanation

Elaboration

Evaluation

Engagement

Exploration

Explanation

Elaboration

Evaluation


• Sample Items for the Survey of Inquiry in Practice (SIP) • Derived by creating questions aligned to the 5E Inquiry Model phases (Bybee et al., 2006)

• Engagement• I was engaged in the problem presented in the workshop.• I connected past experiences to the tasks I was assigned to.

• Exploration• I understand how everything presented in the workshop is related to each other.• I was able to see patterns in the data I collected.

• Explanation• I feel that the teachers presented the concepts briefly, but clearly.• I feel I can explain what the activities presented in this workshop were.

• Elaboration• After the hands-on portion, I was given time to discuss the activities with my friends, which

gave me a better understanding of the activities.• Discussing with my friends afterward, I realized I may have not arrived at the correct

solution to some of the activities.• Evaluation

• Qualitative items only given on the Instructor Version


• It was hypothesized that the SIP items would be loosely related to one another

• Items were thought to be best combined via a variable reduction technique (Principal Components Analysis)

• A Principal Components Analysis with varimax rotation was thought to be able to combine the items into related components

• Because the SIP was aligned to a pedagogical model and not a theoretical model, we did not hypothesize for a set number of components


• Participants• Data for this study were collected from students and instructors

• Students (n = 135):• Many of the students were involved in multiple workshops

• 1 workshop (n = 46), 2 (n = 7), 3 (n = 3), 4 (n = 2), 5 (n = 2), 6 (n = 8)• Of the unique students (n = 68); Of the weighted

students (n = 135)• 25 females (40%), 6 unreported; 55 females

(43%), 8 unreported• 10 Hispanic (16%), 6 unreported; 25 Hispanic

(20%), 8 unreported• Grade range: 5 -12 (M = 8, SD = 2); 5 to 12 (M = 9,

SD = 2), 1 unreported• Race:

• 6 unreported

8 unreported

• Instructors (n = 45):• 20 males (47%), 2 unreported• 15 (35%) reported having formal experience in the subject matter taught; 4

unreported• 19 instructors (46%), 22 co-facilitators (54%); 4 unreported

10%2%

74%

3%11%

Asian

Black

White

Other

Mixed

8%5%

69%

8%11%


• Materials and Procedure

• All data were collected with IRB approval

• All workshops were hosted by the Center for STEM Education

• As this is part of a larger study, demographic information and informed consent forms are gathered prior to students’ participation in any workshops

• The Survey on Inquiry in Practice was completed with student assent after their participation in any workshop offered


• Originally thought the concepts/items derived from the 5E Inquiry Model stages were loosely associated, but correlated with each other

• Conducted a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation as a variable reduction technique

• The analysis revealed that their may have been underlying factor structures that seemed correlated with each other

1. Process of Conceptual Change2. Lesson Engagement3. Conceptual Understandings4. Conceptual Connections

• Further analysis was conducted using an Exploratory Factor Analysis approach; specifically, Principal Axis Factoring with Promax rotation set at 4

• Items were highly congruous between the PCA and EFA, but fit better with the EFA


• EFA Analysis:

• Sampling Adequacy• Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) = .85• Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: 2 (190) = 1450.92, p < .001

• Item Adequacy• Anti-Image Correlation Matrix diagonal (MSA): range .46 to .94 (1 item fell below .50

[item 2])• Item communalities: range .29 to .64 (1 item fell below .30 [item 4])

• All 20 items included in factor analysis


Pattern Matrix and Scale Internal Reliabilities

Factor Loadings1 2 3 4

Lesson Engagement14 I was engaged in the problem presented in the workshop. .788

8 The teachers directed me to specific aspects of the task and then allowed me to explore the activity on my own. .773

20 The hands-on activities allowed me to explore the problem presented in the workshop. .711

15 I was motivated to figure out the problem presented in the workshop. .586

12 Sometime after the beginning of the hands-on activities, I understood the project more clearly. .580

7 I was given enough time to come up with ideas about how to solve the problem presented in the workshop. .482

Conceptual Connections3 I understand how everything presented in the workshop is related to each other. .716

9 I was able to come up with a clear understanding of the problem after we discussed our findings. .702

4 The teachers presented the concepts briefly, but clearly. .597

19 I was able to identify how each aspect of the workshop was part of the final solution. .552

17 I can explain what I learned from the activities presented in this workshop. .502

16 The teachers connected their explanations of "how" to do the activity to the "why" I am doing the activity. .354

10 I connected past experiences to the tasks I was assigned to. .345

Conceptual Understanding13 I was able to see patterns in the data I collected. .818

11 After I obtained data from the activities, I was given the opportunity to think about what the data meant. .659

1 After the hands-on portion, I was given time to discuss the activities with others, which gave me a better understanding of the activities. .611

Conceptual Change2 Discussing with others afterward, I realized I may not have arrived at the correct solution to some of the activities. .739

6 I realize some of my previous knowledge related to the activities in the workshop may not have been entirely accurate. .530

18 The activities, at times, were puzzling. .500

5 After talking with others, I think that there may have been different ways to come up with the same solutions. .395

= .85

= .82

= .73

= .66


• PCA EFA• Factor analysis

• Measures of Sampling Adequacy indicated suitable data for factor analysis• Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA > .60 (= .83)• Bartlett’s test of sphericity significant

• Item inclusion• Anti-Image Correlation Matrix diagonal (1 item fell below .50 [item 2])

• Discussing with others afterward, I realized I may not have arrived at the correct solution to some of the activities.

• Item communalities: (1 item fell below .30 [item 4])• The teachers presented the concepts briefly, but clearly.

• Factors• Lesson Engagement• Conceptual Change• Conceptual Understanding• Conceptual Connections


• PCA EFA• Factor analysis

• Measures of Sampling Adequacy indicated suitable data for factor analysis• Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA > .60 (= .83)• Bartlett’s test of sphericity significant

• Item inclusion• Anti-Image Correlation Matrix diagonal (1 item fell below .50 [item 2])

• Discussing with others afterward, I realized I may not have arrived at the correct solution to some of the activities.

• Item communalities: (1 item fell below .30 [item 4])• The teachers presented the concepts briefly, but clearly.

• Factors• Lesson Engagement• Conceptual Change• Conceptual Understanding• Conceptual Connections

• 6 items, Cronbach’s = .85, adequate factor loadings• Recommendation – good factor structure, maintain the items

• 4 items, Cronbach’s = .66, 1 item (#2) had a low anti-item correlation matrix MSA, 1 item had marginal factor loading (#5; .395)

• Recommendation – review literature for theoretical structure; remove questionable items, add at least two new items

• 3 items, Cronbach’s = .73, adequate factor loadings• Recommendation – add at least one new item congruous with the factor construct

• 7 items, Cronbach’s = .82, 1 item (#4) had a low communality, 2 items had marginal factor loadings (#16 and 10; .354 and .345, respectively)

• Recommendation – remove items 4 and 10

• Lesson Engagement• Conceptual Change• Conceptual Understanding• Conceptual Connections


• Implications• Research

• Curriculum Evaluation: Measurable gauge of inquiry in a workshop/lesson• Can also be used to compare inquiry continuum on various outcomes

• Curriculum Development/Implementation• Professional Development programs can use SIP for teacher/participant

implementation in the classroom• Limits need for observations and interviews• Can assess concordance between student and teacher perceptions on inquiry-based

lessons

• Future Research with the SIP• Come see my poster presentation tomorrow!• EFA/CFA to be conducted on finalized SIP• Explore teacher and student perceptions of a lesson’s alignment to inquiry


Thank you!

Questions?

Presented by Peter D. Marle, B.A. A New Survey to Measure Alignment to Inquiry in Curricula...

Documents

Transcript of Presented by Peter D. Marle, B.A. A New Survey to Measure Alignment to Inquiry in Curricula...