A New Survey to Measure Alignment to Inquiry in Curricula

1. A New Survey to MeasureAlignment to Inquiryin Curricula Presented By Peter D. Marle, M.A. Center for STEM Education Also, David H. Khaliqi and Lisa L. Decker Presented by Peter D. Marle, B.A. Alignment to Inquiry

2. Literature Review - Survey Origin • 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. Alignment to Inquiry

3. Literature Review - Survey Origin • 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 Alignment to Inquiry

4. Literature Review - Survey Origin • 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 • 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 Alignment to Inquiry

5. Literature Review - Survey Origin • Phases of the 5E Inquiry Model, Defined for Instructors and Students Engagement Exploration Explanation Elaboration Evaluation Engagement Exploration Explanation Elaboration Evaluation Alignment to Inquiry

6. Survey Development • 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 Alignment to Inquiry

7. Hypotheses • 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 Alignment to Inquiry

8. Methodology • 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 Alignment to Inquiry

9. Methodology • 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 Alignment to Inquiry

10. Results • 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 • Process of Conceptual Change • Lesson Engagement • Conceptual Understandings • 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 Alignment to Inquiry

11. Results • 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 Alignment to Inquiry

12. Results  = .85  = .82  = .73  = .66 Alignment to Inquiry

13. Discussion • 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 Alignment to Inquiry

14. Discussion • 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 Alignment to Inquiry

15. Discussion • 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 Alignment to Inquiry

16. Thank you! Questions? Alignment to Inquiry