a psychometric approach to the development of a 5e

8/12/2019 A Psychometric Approach to the Development of a 5E

1/26

A Psychometric Approach to the Development of a 5E

Lesson Plan Scoring Instrument for Inquiry-BasedTeaching

M. Jenice Goldston John Dantzler Jeanelle Day

Brenda Webb

Published online: 25 December 2012 The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2012

Abstract This research centers on the psychometric examination of the structure of an

instrument, known as the 5E Lesson Plan (5E ILPv2) rubric for inquiry-based teaching.

The instrument is intended to measure an individuals skill in developing written 5E

lesson plans for inquiry teaching. In stage one of the instruments development, an

exploratory factor analysis on a fifteen-item 5E ILP instrument revealed only three

factor loadings instead of the expected five factors, which led to its subsequent revision.

Modifications in the original instrument led to a revised 5E ILPv2 instrument comprisedof twenty-one items. This instrument, like its precursor, has a scoring scale that ranges

from zero to four points per item. Content validity of the 5E ILPv2 was determined

through the expertise of a panel of science educators. Over the course of five semesters,

three elementary science methods instructors in three different universities collected

post lesson plan data from 224 pre-service teachers enrolled in their courses. Each

instructor scored their students post 5E inquiry lesson plans using the 5E ILPv2

instrument recording a score for each item on the instrument. A factor analysis with

maximum likelihood extraction and promax oblique rotation provided evidence of

M. J. Goldston (&)The University of Alabama, 204 Graves Hall, Tuscaloosa, AL 35405, USAe-mail: [email protected]

J. DantzlerThe University of Alabama, Carmichael Hall, Tuscaloosa, AL 35405, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

J. Day

Eastern Connecticut State University, 83 Windham Str., Rm 144 Webb Hall,Willimatic, CT 06226, USAe-mail: [email protected]

J Sci Teacher Educ (2013) 24:527551DOI 10.1007/s10972-012-9327-7


2/26

construct validity for five factors and explained 85.5 % of the variability in the total

instrument. All items loaded with their theoretical factors exhibiting high ordinal alpha

reliability estimates of .94, .99, .96, .97, and .95 for the engage, explore, explain,

elaborate, and evaluate subscales respectively. The total instrument reliability estimate

was 0.98 indicating strong evidence of total scale reliability.

Keywords Assessment Inquiry-based teaching 5E lesson planning

Background

Today, evaluation is a predominant feature woven within the fabric of science and

mathematics education in the United States. In fact, the importance placed on

evaluating student achievement in science and mathematics reaches a global scalewith the testing of U.S. students in the fourth and eighth grade as part of the Trends in

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). With the TIMSS, students

are tested across the globe in science and mathematics, whereby participating nations

are ranked based on their students test scores. On a national level, every four to five

years, U.S. students are tested in the disciplines, and their scores are reported in the

Nations Report Card for the fourth-, eighth- and twelfth-grade levels (NAEP 2010a,

b). Furthermore, every spring across the United States, evaluation is ubiquitous with

state-mandated, standardized testing for all students. For K-12 teachers, the impact of

testing has become more pronounced with the reauthorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act of 1965, known today as No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

(2002). As a result of NCLB, standardized test scores have resulted in what is viewed

by many as equivalent to a students success and the single measure for determining

successful schools and the teachers working therein. Shifting from the broad

perspectives on testing and evaluation to peer into a K-12 science teachers

classroom in a local setting, one will find evaluation again revealing itself in many

forms. Teachers may use many forms of evaluation as a mechanism for meeting local

standards and classroom objectives that measure students learning of science

content and skill. No matter its purpose or whether it is conducted locally or globally,

evaluation as part of accountability is deeply embedded within the fabric of the

United States educational system where student outcomes are made public and the

eyes of society are constantly viewing and critiquing the results.

Teacher preparation programs and associated faculty, much like our K-12 public

school counterparts, are also held accountable for student performance. For instance,

in some states, the Colleges of Education and the professoriate who teach pre-service

methods courses are accountable for the performance of their graduates for up to

2 years after graduation and certification from their teacher preparation programs. In

other words, if a graduate from their teacher preparation program is unsuccessful as a

teacher hired by a school district in the first 2 years of their career, the professors ofthe College of Education program can be called, free of charge, to remediate their

528 M. J. Goldston et al.
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/26

Report Card on Hands-On and Interactive Computer Tasks Assessment from the

2009 Science Assessment (NAEP2010a,b), the majority of students were able to

make observations of data, but were unable to make decisions about the appropriate

data to collect in investigations and even fewer students could select correct

conclusions and explain results. Inquiry-based teaching approaches if implementedproperly can afford teachers opportunities to lead students through exploratory

activities that address content and practices across STEM fields. Science methods

courses are designed to prepare pre-service teachers in using inquiry-based teaching

approaches that foster K-12 student learning of science concepts, as well as

practices of the STEM fields as advocated in documents such as the National

Science Education Standards (NRC 1996), Benchmarks for Science Literacy

(AAAS 1993), and Blueprints for Reform (AAAS 1998). With the publication of

A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and

Core Ideas (NRC2011), the forerunner to the Next Generation Science Standards(NGSS) (Achieve2012), there is a continued and clear need for classroom inquiry

pedagogies that foster student learning of both content as well as science and

engineering practices. A Framework for K-12 Science Education Practices,

Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas identifies eight practices in science and

engineering that are essential for classroom curriculum. These include the

following: (a) asking questions (science) and defining problems (engineering),

(b) developing and using models, (c) planning and carrying out investigations,

(d) analyzing and interpreting data, (e) constructing explanations (science) and

designing solutions (engineering), (f) engaging in argument from evidence, and(g) obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (2012, p. 49). Though

some of these practices are often different in science and engineering, addressing

both provides students with a way of understanding how scientists and engineers

work. Despite a shift away from the use of the term inquiry withinA Framework for

K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts and Core Ideas (NRC

2011) and The Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve 2012), many of the

scientific practices advocated are not new and can be seen in the following NSES

description of student inquiry as a

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. (NRC 1996,

p. 23)

Along these same lines, Settlage et al. (2008) sum it up by stating that inquiry is

the process students go through to encounter the evidence that serves as the source

of scientific ideas (2008, p. 179).

Inquiry-Based Teaching 529
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/26

range of classroom inquiry pedagogies that students acquire knowledge of and

practice such skills. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC

2000) describe scientific practices as a part of student inquiry and as focal point for

building classroom inquiry strategies as seen in The Essential Features of Classroom

Inquiry and Their Variations.These essential features include the following: (a) thelearners engagement in scientifically oriented questions, (b)priority of evidence in

response to questions, (c) formulation of explanations from evidence, (d) explana-

tions connected to scientific knowledge and (e) communication and justification of

explanations (NRC 2000; p. 29). Though these features are but a framework for

inquiry teaching, they offer varying degrees of engagement for students to gain

knowledge and skill with scientific practices. The Essential Features of Classroom

Inquiry clearly represent some important scientific, as well as, engineering practices

as noted earlier that all students should acquire as part of the K-12 school experience.

For elementary and secondary science methods courses, teaching science usinginquiry-based pedagogies with its many permutations is a central premise around

which other components of the methods course connect. According to Marek et al.

(2003), it is classroom inquiry-based pedagogy that links all the components of

science methods courses. Thus, classroom inquiry as the centerpiece of science

methods courses leads to the focus of this studythe development of an assessment

instrument that provides science instructors a tool for assessing and evaluating pre-

service teachers skills in developing inquiry-based lesson plans using a 5E

instructional model.

Inquiry in Science Teaching

Despite decades of science reform with focused endeavors advocating the use of

inquiry as a pedagogical practice in the science classroom, it is still not a common

teaching approach seen in elementary or secondary science classrooms today (Weiss

2006; Weiss et al. 2003). Research findings suggest several rationales that K-12

teachers give for not using inquiry teaching approaches. In general, the reasons

include the following: (a) managing inquiry is difficult, (b) inquiry takes too much

time, (c) inquiry is for advanced students, (d) inquiry does not provide information

to students needed for the next grade level, (e) lack confidence responding to student

questions due to a lack content knowledge, and (f) pressure to teach other subjects

(Hodson1988; Welch et al. 1981; Pomperoy1993; Slotta2004; Sunal and Wright

2006; Appleton 2008). Further confounding the reasons teachers give for not

utilizing inquiry teaching approaches in their science classes is the term inquiry

itself. The term inquiry used without care can be confusing because it often refers to

(1) teaching approaches and (2) what students do (Colburn 2008). In both

elementary and secondary science teacher preparation, recognizing the distinction is

important. As noted in A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,

Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, having knowledge of the progression of

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/26

As such, in science methods courses, inquiry-based teaching approaches are

viewed on a continuum that shifts from predominantly teacher-centered, to various

forms of guided inquiry to open inquiry that is primarily student-centered (Olson

and Loucks-Horsley 2000; NRC 2000). Eick et al. advocate using the essential

features of classroom inquiry as a scaffold for designing inquiry-based teachingthat engage students in scientific phenomena through direct observation, data

gatherings and analysis of evidence (2005, p. 49). Furthermore, Eick et al. (2005)

suggest teachers should use the essential key features as a guide for scaffolding the

learning of science based upon students needs and skills. For instance, in the early

grades, students may need a great deal of direction and structure with learning

scientific concepts and practices associated with the essential features, thus teacher

directed inquiry-based teaching is generally appropriate. As students develop

knowledge and skill with scientific practices for conducting investigations and

experimentation, the choice of inquiry-based pedagogies may shift to a guidedapproach whereby students have more decision-making opportunities such as

choosing the question to explore or giving priority to evidence by deciding what

data are important and what data will be collected. Using the essential features of

the classroom inquiry, teachers can design inquiry-based lessons that not only

support students knowledge of concepts, but also the development of scientific

practices until students can conduct investigations independently.

No matter where on the continuum that inquiry-based instruction falls, an

instructional model that has been viewed as successful for inquiry teaching since its

inception is the learning cycle (Atkins and Karplus1962; Marek and Cavallo1997;Blank2000). In their early paper, Atkins and Karplus (1962) did not identify a phase

as exploration or use the term learning cycle, however, it is evident that the phase

was present in the invention and discovery stages of their lessons structure. The

term, learning cycle, actually first appeared in the Science Curriculum Improvement

Study Teachers Guides in the 1970s; however, the phases of the learning cycle had

been discussed in previous publications (Karplus and Thier 1967; Jacobson and

Kondo 1968; Barman and Shedd 1992). Though the learning cycle phases have

undergone an evolution of names, today it is commonly recognized by three phases

known as Explore, Introduction of Concepts, and Application of Concepts. The first

stage of the learning cycle begins with the explorationphase that provides students

with an activity to give them experiences for constructing science concepts and

skills. Next, using students data or ideas gleaned from their activities, the teacher

involves students in an interactive discussion introducing them to appropriate

concepts and vocabulary connecting the exploration to the second phase,

introduction to concepts. Last, during the application of concepts phase, the

students are challenged to apply the newly acquired concepts in a new situation

connecting it to the previous phase. The three-stage learning cycle approach draws

upon works of Deweys reflective thinking, Piagets theory of cognitive develop-

ment, and social constructivism. Thus, the learning cycle underpinned by a

constructivist stance fosters climates where students question and are actively

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/26

stands in a stark contrast to the traditional image of students as passive receivers of

facts and concepts derived from a teachers lecture.

Findings associated with the learning cycle uncover a multitude of studies that

address various aspects of its effectiveness from different research perspectives.

Some of the studies have been conducted to ascertain the level of the learningcycles success in science teaching (Karplus1979; Karplus and Thier1967; Lawson

1995; Settlage2000; Odom and Kelly2001). Other areas of research examine the

learning cycle and student learning outcomes (Jinkins 2002; Cavallo and Laubach

2001; Odom and Kelly2001; Dwyer and Lopez2001; Munsheno and Lawson1999;

Lovoie1999; Barman1993). Furthermore, many studies describe teacher activities

and their actions associated with using the learning cycle (Jinkins 2002; Settlage

2000; Barman1992; Glasson and Lilik1993; Odom and Settlage1996; Marek and

Methven1992; Barman and Shedd1992; Lawson et al. 1989; Marek et al. 1990).

Associated with this last category, some research findings emphasize thatunderstanding the learning cycle and its lesson development are difficult for

teachers (Settlage2000; Odom and Settlage1996); while other studies suggest that

teachers understandings of the learning cycle demonstrate a wide array of

understanding (Atkins and Karplus1962; Karplus et al. 1975; Marek et al. 2008).

Despite the contrasting findings, the learning cycle continues to be supported and

utilized as an effective inquiry-based approach in science methods teaching.

For this research, the Five E instructional model, a modification of the learning

cycle has been used for inquiry-based science teaching (Trowbridge and Bybee

1996; Bybee1997; Bybee et al.2006). The 5E model consists of five phases. Eachof the five phases begins with the letter e and includes five phases instead of three

phases used in the learning cycle. The five phases of the 5E model are engage,

explore, explain, elaborate and evaluate. Examining the 5E and Learning Cycle

models reveal that the phases of the 5E phases align with the Learning Cycle as

follows:Exploration(5E-Engage and Explore), Concept Introduction(5E-Explain),

and Application of Concepts (5E-Elaborate and Evaluate).

5E Instructional Model

This section describes each of the phases of the 5E instructional model used in

inquiry-based teaching. The 5E models first phase, engage, is one whereby a

teacher utilizes strategies that ascertain students prior understandings of the science

concepts to be taught, encourages students questions, and generates students

interest for the activities that follow. During the second phase, explore, the teacher

facilitates students actively working together with other students in a hands-on,

minds-on activity. Also during the explore phase, a teacher gives directions,

responds to students, and encourages students to find answers on their own. The

explain phase begins when a teacher starts questioning students and encouraging

them to explain their ideas about the concepts based upon the evidences of their

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/26

everyday situations. In the evaluation phase, a summative evaluation is created to

match the stated objectives in the inquiry lesson and includes a rubric with

appropriate criteria as needed.

Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry and the 5E Inquiry Model

The Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry (NRC 2000) is a useful guide for

inquiry-based lesson planning. Using the essential features, 5E lessons can address

content as well as scientific and engineering practices (NRC 2011) whether the

approach used is directed, guided, or open inquiry. The following brief example

describes how the 5E instructional approach may integrate the essential features that

foster development of scientific and engineering practices. For instance, though the

engage stage of the 5E approach is designed to evoke students prior knowledgeand/or questions about a concept or topic, the engagestage can also be used to have

students to generate questions for science investigations or problems about an

engineering design depending on the lessons objectives. Therefore, the essential

feature, the learner engages in scientifically oriented questions or an engineering

problem, may occur in the 5E engage stage. However, depending on the teachers

intent, students questions or design problems could occur at the beginning of the

explore stage of the 5E approach prior to student investigation. It is during the

explorationstage of the 5E approach that one may find the essential features of the

learner formulates explanations from evidence and the learner gives priority toevidence in response to a question addressed as part of the learners investigations.

The next stage,explainof the 5E model, often integrates the essential features of the

learner connects explanations to scientific knowledgeand thelearner communicates

and justifies explanations with teachers facilitating learner discourse. During 5E

explain stage, the instructor may a) explain the data findings utilized in directed

approaches, b) facilitate learner explanations gleaned during investigations and

readings through questioning seen in guided approaches, or c) students may be held

responsible for providing explanations and evidences as with full or open inquiry.

Depending on the activity used in the elaborate stage, the essential features might

be thelearner gives priority to evidence in response to a question and/or the learner

formulates explanations from evidence to allow students to apply what they have

learned. Last, based on the lessons objectives, the evaluate stage might have an

assessment whereby the learner communicates and justifies explanations. So,

depending on the teachers objectives, the 5E instructional model used for inquiry

teaching has the flexibility to incorporate content as well as scientific or engineering

practices into a range of lessons that span direct, guided, or full inquiry for student

investigation or design.

This study utilizes the 5E inquiry model that the three researchers have used for

over 10 years while teaching elementary science methods courses. The researchers

use the 5E instructional model instead of the Learning Cycle, finding the additional

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


8/26

processing evoking the students prior knowledge which can be a powerful influence

on learning subject content and the evaluate stage supports pre-service teachers

development of skills in gathering and documenting student achievement and

growth. Crafting create effective evaluations and understanding their varied uses is

a critical skill for science teaching professionals given the state and federal policydemands for school and teacher accountability.

Purpose

Thus, the purpose of this research is to describe the redesign and psychometric

examination of the 5E Lesson Plan rubric (5E ILPv2) for inquiry teaching. The 5E

ILPv2 instrument is developed for use in assessing a pre-service teachers ability to

create inquiry-based 5E lesson plans (See Appendix). An extensive literaturesearch for instrumentation relevant to planning inquiry lessons revealed little. The

search did reveal an inquiry-based science teaching rubric, STIR, for observing

inquiry-based science teaching (Bodzin and Beerer2003; Beerer and Bodzin2004),

assessments that determine teachers knowledge of inquiry process skills, instru-

ments for determining understandings about the nature of science (Lederman et al.

1998; Ackerson et al. 2000), and instruments for examining teachers understand-

ings of the learning cycle (Odom and Settlage 1996; Marek 2008). However, we

found no such inquiry-based instrument designed for assessing a teachers ability to

write an inquiry-based 5E lesson plan. As such, the initial development of a 5Elesson plan rubric (Goldston et al.2009) and its revised form, 5EILPv2, for inquiry-

based teaching is the focus of this paper. The instrument was developed by the

researchers with a threefold purpose. These include a need by instructors (a) to

assess students 5E lesson plans in equitable ways with a validated instrument, (b) to

examine a students inquiry-based 5E lesson plan and provide detailed feedback

aligned to specific criteria associated with each of the phases of the 5E model, and

(c) to guide our teaching of the 5E instructional model to support pre-service

teachers skills in designing inquiry-based 5E lessons.

Methods

Psychometric Development of the 5E ILP: Stage One

In the pilot study, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the 5E Lesson

Plan (5E ILP) instrument designed to assess pre-service teachers abilities to

develop inquiry-based 5E lesson plans. The initial 5E ILP instrument incorporated a

Likert-type scale of 04 points per item with a total of sixty points. The entire

instrument included 15 items, with 12 items associated with the phases of 5E model

used in the analysis. The instrument included one item for the engage phase, three

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/26

maximum likelihood extraction and varimax orthogonal rotation was conducted on

the items of the 5E ILP instrument to establish evidence of construct validity.

Despite showing strong evidence of validity and reliability, the findings revealed

only three of the five distinct factors corresponding with the five E stages. The three

factors identified were explore, engage/explain/elaborate, and evaluate whichaccounted for 75.98 % of the rubrics total variability. These findings led to re-

examining and expanding the number of items for all the theoretical factors and

thereby strengthen the instrument resulting in the 5E ILPv2.

Psychometric Development of the 5E ILPv2: Stage Two

In stage two of the instruments development, the research methodologists and

science researchers met and identified nine items requiring revisions for incorpo-ration into the 5E ILPv2. These nine additions resulted in each of the five phases

being comprised of three to six items for a total of 21 items. The 5E ILPv2 is a

Likert-type instrument with a range of 04 points per item with a total of 84 points.

Analysis of the original 5E ILP instrument revealed that individual items contained

multiple elements that should be separated and made into individual items of a 5E

phase. As a result, the additional items incorporated into the 5E ILPv2 were not

newly constructed items, but were separated from individual items with multiple

elements found in the original 5E ILP rubric. As a result of the revisions, the 5E

ILPv2 instruments engage subscale has four items that address students priorknowledge, motivation, student discussion, and transition into the explore phase.

The next four items of the explore subscale target teacher instruction, involve

hands-on minds-on activity, utilize student-centered activity, and show evidence of

student learning. The explain subscale is comprised of six items that focus on

fostering student discussion by means of questions associated with the explore

activity, the use of divergent/convergent questions, an explanation of the concept

and appropriate terminology, and the use of a variety of approaches to develop

concepts. The elaborate subscale includes three items aimed at providing students

opportunities to apply their knowledge in new situations with real-life connections.

Lastly, four evaluate subscale items are directed toward the objectives and their

alignment to the evaluation questions or task, the appropriateness of the task for

concepts or skills, and the quality of rubric features and criteria. Four additional

items commonly found in lesson plans were included (objectives, standards,

materials, safety) in the instrument; however, only the items directly related to the

5E inquiry were used in the instrument analysis.

Content validity for the 5E ILP instrument was assessed by a committee of five

science educators who have used the 5E inquiry instructional model for over

10 years. The committees task was to examine the instrument and determine

whether it aligned with the 5E instructional model and to determine whether thescoring criteria were clear and commonly understood by educators. Because the



10/26

Inter-rater Reliability

To establish inter-rater reliability, two of the science education researchers met

three times to develop consistency in scoring on the same set of ten lesson plans.

When scoring differences on the items occurred, the researchers discussed the itemswith key criteria that were used to delineate between the various scoring levels. For

instance, examining the first explore item, a score of zero was given when teacher

instructions were not presented in the lesson plan. A score of two was given if

teacher instructions were present, developmentally appropriate, clear, and under-

standable but were missing some important details. A score of three was given if

teacher instructions were present, developmentally appropriate, clear, and under-

standable with minor detail omissions. The high score of four was given if teacher

instructions were detailed, clear, and developmentally appropriate with nothing

missing.A third science education researcher joined the team and met to score the same

ten lessons to develop consistency using the rubric. After all three science education

researchers scored the practice lesson plans, they discussed the rubrics criteria.

Following this, each researcher who also taught an elementary methods science

course independently scored the same set of twenty lesson plans using the 5E ILPv2

rubric. An intraclass correlation coefficient was computed to determine inter-rater

reliability among the three researchers using their scores for the set of twenty lesson

plans. The intraclass correlation for all raters was .84 with a range of .79 to .88 for

pairs of raters indicating high inter-rater reliability.

Sample Population

Data for analyzingthe revised 5E ILPv2, were collected from undergraduate pre-service

teachers enrolled in elementary science methods from three different universities. The

participants came from one large university, with approximately 30,000 students and

two Masters granting state universities with enrollments of about 5,000 students. One

university was located in the northeast and two universities were located in the

southeastern United States. The preservice teachers in the sample were undergraduates

in education programs and in their last semester prior to their internship. The pre-service

teachersenrolledin the science methods courses were completing coursework to acquire

K-6 teaching certification. Data from 224 pre-service teachers were collected from post-

course lesson plans assigned as part of the elementary methods courses over five

consecutive semesters. In nearly all cases, the science methods course is their first

introduction to the 5E instructional model. During the science methods courses, the pre-

service teachers participated in inquiry-based 5E lessons and activities modeled by the

instructors discussed the 5E model and its phases and learned key features of the 5E

inquiry lesson plan throughout the course. Three researchers, also science educators,

taught the elementary science methods courses and were responsible for scoring thelessons of their respective students. As part of their science methods courses, pre-service



11/26

Results

Analysis of the 5E ILPv2 Instrument

Utilizing the 5E ILPv2 instrument, 224 pre-service teachers 5E inquiry-based post-course lesson plans were scored item by item and underwent psychometric analysis.

Three science education researchers combined efforts to collect and score the post

lesson plans for this study from multiple classes of elementary pre-service teachers.

One science educator provided the majority of post-course lesson plan data with

67 % of the total sample. The other two science educators provided approximately

equal amounts of data with 16.0 and 17.0 % respectively.

Analysis of post-course lesson plan data using the 5E ILPv2 instrument reveals

that mean scores for the items ranged from 2.68 to 3.30. More specifically, the

engage items range from 3.06 to 3.30; the explore items from 2.81 to 3.00; theexplain items from 2.97 to 3.09; the elaborate items from 2.79 to 2.82; and the

evaluate items from 2.68 to 3.02. Table1details the descriptive statistics for each

item in the 5E ILPv2.

Table 1 5E ILPv2 rubric Item descriptive statistics (n =224)

Item Range M SE S Skewa Kurtosisb

Engage 1 14 3.30 .057 0.85 -0.89 -0.31

Engage 2 14 3.11 .057 0.85 -

0.53 -

0.66Engage 3 04 3.27 .060 0.90 -1.12 0.70

Engage 4 04 3.06 .076 1.13 -1.09 0.45

Explore 1 04 3.00 .091 1.36 -1.23 0.24

Explore 2 04 2.92 .089 1.33 -1.18 0.25

Explore 3 04 2.90 .089 1.33 -1.08 0.03

Explore 4 04 2.81 .094 1.40 -0.88 -0.50

Explain 1 14 3.09 .064 0.96 -0.55 -0.99

Explain 2 04 2.78 .083 1.25 -0.91 -0.01

Explain 3 04 2.75 .080 1.19 -0.94 0.14Explain 4 04 2.86 .082 1.23 -0.84 -0.28

Explain 5 14 3.02 .057 0.86 -0.34 -0.91

Explain 6 04 2.97 .067 1.00 -0.70 -0.22

Elaborate 1 04 2.82 .088 1.32 -0.87 -0.39

Elaborate 2 04 2.79 .087 1.30 -0.96 -0.14

Elaborate 3 04 2.80 .077 1.16 -0.73 -0.23

Evaluate 1 04 3.02 .074 1.11 -0.93 0.01

Evaluate 2 04 2.87 .078 1.17 -0.96 0.23

Evaluate 3 04 2.68 .084 1.25 -0.78 -0.35Evaluate 4 04 2.73 .084 1.25 -0.84 -0.23

http://-/?-http://-/?-


12/26

Fig. 1 Scree plot of the 5E ILPv2

Table 2 Results of parallelanalysis

* Eigenvalues based on adjustedcorrelation matrices with

squared multiple correlation(SMD) on the diagonal

Root Raw dataa Random data

Means 95th percentile

1 13.42* 0.69 0.79

2 1.44* 0.59 0.67

3 0.87* 0.50 0.57

4 0.77* 0.43 0.50

5 0.58* 0.37 0.42

6 0.26 0.31 0.37

7 0.08 0.25 0.31

8 0.07 0.20 0.249 0.05 0.15 0.18

10 0.02 0.10 0.14

11 0.01 0.05 0.09

12 -0.00 0.01 0.04

13 -0.01 -0.03 0.00

14 -0.03 -0.07 -0.03

15 -0.04 -0.11 -0.08

16 -0.05 -0.15 -0.12

17 -

0.06 -

0.19 -

0.1518 -0.06 -0.23 -0.20

19 0 08 0 27 0 24



13/26

In addition to the descriptive statistics, 17 out of the 21 instrument items display

the full range of possible scores from zero to four. Four items, however, Engage

items one and two, and Explain items one and five display scores from one to four.

Reliability and Validity

A factor analysis using maximum likelihood extraction and promax oblique rotation

was conducted using 224 itemized post-course lesson plan rubric scores to establish

evidence of construct validity of the 5E ILPv2 instrument. The sample of 224 meets

Nunnallys (1978) recommendation of a ten-to-one participant to item ratio. In

addition, the KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of sample adequacy of .95 was obtained.

The closer the value is to 1.0 indicates that patterns of correlations are compact, and

the sample size is large enough to produce a satisfactory factor structure (Fields

2005; Hutcheson and Sofroniou1999).

The scree plot method seen in Fig. 1 was initially used to determine that five

distinct factors were evident at the point of inflexion (Tabachnick and Fidell 2006).

The eigenvalues for each of the factors were 13.60, 1.59, 1.04, 0.93, and 0.80

Table 3 Results of MAPanalysis

* Denotes factor eigenvaluesabove the upper point of the95th percentile range of

eigenvalues from randomlydrawn datasets

Root Squared Power 4

0 0.4047 0.1859

1 0.0584* 0.0167*

2 0.0552* 0.0111*

3 0.0546* 0.0090*

4 0.0486* 0.0081*

5 0.0362* 0.0060*

6 0.0341* 0.0069

7 0.0427 0.0084

8 0.0532 0.0116

9 0.0570 0.0128

10 0.0665 0.0225

11 0.0829 0.0339

12 0.1015 0.0395

13 0.1228 0.0561

14 0.1739 0.0881

15 0.2297 0.1363

16 0.2499 0.1449

17 0.2487 0.1304

18 0.3744 0.2465

19 0.5295 0.4018

20 1.0000 1.0000

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


14/26

Parallel analysis first proposed by Horn (1965) and endorsed by psychometric

researchers (Zwick and Velicer 1986; OConnor 2000; Hayton et al. 2004;

Worthingtong and Whittaker2006) is a statistical procedure based on the generation

of random eigenvalues and comparing these with computed eigenvalues from

psychometric data. Theoretically, any computed eigenvalue that is greater than the

average of a large number of randomly generated eigenvalues should be considered

as non-trivial and, thus, representative of an actual dimension in the data. Using an

SPSS procedure developed by OConnor (2000), eigenvalues were generated for

100 randomly drawn datasets extracted through a principal axis factoring method.

Principal axis factoring (PAF) was chosen over principal component factoring due

to PAF analyzing only shared variance among variables. The upper point of the 95th

percentile for the average eigenvalues over the randomly generated data sets was

lower than the computed eigenvalues based on the adjusted correlation matrix for

the 5E ILPv2 data for the first five factors (Table 2) indicating the non-trivial nature

of five components.

Velicers MAP test (Velicer1976; Velicer et al. 2000) is a method to determine

the optimal number of factors in an instrument through the examination of partial

Table 4 Item communalitiesItems Initial Extraction

Engage 1 .675 .626

Engage 2 .710 .729

Engage 3 .763 .819

Engage 4 .819 .790

Explore 1 .927 .931

Explore 2 .951 .971

Explore 3 .935 .942

Explore 4 .859 .843

Explain 1 .749 .715

Explain 2 .843 .876

Explain 3 .844 .888

Explain 4 .651 .633

Explain 5 .689 .656

Explain 6 .807 .771

Elaborate 1 .866 .883



Evaluate 1 .758 .720




http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


15/26

Velicer et al. (2000) indicated that coefficients raised to the fourth power may yield

more accurate results than squared partial correlations. A MAP SPSS procedure

(OConnor 2000) indicated that the optimal number of components based on

Velicers original MAP test was six; however, the revised MAP test with partial

correlations raised to the 4th power indicated that a five-factor solution was

indicated (Table3). The results of the parallel analysis and MAP analysis, in

conjunction with the scree plot, confirmed a five-factor solution explaining 85.5 %

of the total variability within the instrument. This is a gain of 9.52 % explanation

over the original 5E ILP (Goldston et al. 2009).

All items of the 5E ILPv2 instrument have moderate to high communality

estimates (h2) indicating that they are strong measures of the underlying theoretical

construct (See Table4). The lowest communality estimate was .621 for the Evaluate

2 item, and the highest was .973 for the Evaluate 4 item. Factor loadings for the

items indicated moderate to high overlap between items and their extracted factors.

Table 5 Pattern matrix

Factor 1(Explore)

Factor 2(Evaluate)

Factor 3(Engage)

Factor 4(Elaborate)

Factor 5(Explain)

Explore 2 1.034 -.012 -.012 -.019 -.025Explore 3 .986 -.038 -.023 -.041 .075

Explore 1 .885 -.006 .074 .064 -.033

Explore 4 .799 .012 .017 -.021 .147

Evaluate 4 -.027 1.079 -.045 -.052 -.032

Evaluate 3 -.003 1.061 -.042 -.038 -.047

Evaluate 2 -.054 .763 .034 -.006 .059

Evaluate 1 .220 .498 -.026 .285 -.016

Engage 3 .009 -.009 1.007 -.034 -.109

Engage 1 .071 -.097 .813 -.032 .002Engage 2 -.023 .021 .796 -.015 .094

Engage 4 .428 .024 .512 .134 -.163

Elaborate 2 -.012 -.039 -.014 1.012 .005

Elaborate 3 .041 -.017 -.117 .959 .001

Elaborate 1 -.055 -.012 .132 .865 .032

Explain 3 -.007 -.068 -.130 .049 1.053

Explain 2 .065 -.036 -.048 -.028 .967

Explain 4 .021 .171 .159 -.050 .560

Explain 6 .092 .093 .322 .014 .449Explain 5 -.003 .091 .334 .104 .373

Explain 1 .137 .119 .224 .158 .322

Loadings of items within each factor are bolded

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


16/26

factor, and the Engage four item also loads on the Explore factor. The Engage

four item loads primarily on its theoretical construct at .512, but also loads on

the Explore factor at .428 (.841 and .828 respectively on the structure matrix).

While the Explain five item loads primarily on the expected Explain factor at

.373, it also loads on the Engage factor with a loading of .334 (.759 and .749

Table 6 Structure matrix

Factor 1(Explore)

Factor 2(Evaluate)

Factor 3(Engage)

Factor 4(Elaborate)

Factor 5(Explain)

Explore 2 .985 .590 .769 .695 .699Explore 3 .969 .580 .763 .684 .722

Explore 1 .963 .605 .795 .731 .710

Explore 4 .912 .601 .756 .679 .737

Evaluate 4 .543 .981 .553 .534 .599

Evaluate 3 .547 .978 .561 .545 .600

Evaluate 2 .483 .787 .513 .487 .550

Evaluate 1 .701 .781 .656 .719 .655

Engage 3 .699 .538 .901 .617 .634

Engage 2 .679 .562 .851 .620 .686Engage 4 .828 .585 .841 .715 .649

Engage 1 .635 .441 .787 .547 .586

Elaborate 2 .688 .567 .685 .973 .665

Elaborate 1 .691 .588 .729 .936 .687

Elaborate 3 .632 .522 .597 .895 .599

Explain 3 .651 .578 .658 .642 .937

Explain 2 .690 .602 .697 .636 .934

Explain 6 .742 .660 .805 .681 .832

Explain 1 .737 .656 .766 .715 .781Explain 4 .625 .627 .674 .574 .776

Explain 5 .666 .613 .749 .659 .759

Loadings of items within each factor are bolded

Table 7 Factor correlation matrix

Factor 1(Explore)

Factor 2(Evaluate)

Factor 3(Engage)

Factor 4(Elaborate)

Factor 5(Explain)

Factor 1 1.000 .617 .794 .723 .729

Factor 2 .617 1.000 .630 .612 .667

Factor 3 .794 .630 1.000 .721 .761

Factor 4 .723 .612 .721 1.000 .697

Factor 5 .729 .667 .761 .697 1.000



17/26

Internal consistency was assessed using the ordinal alpha reliability coefficient

(Zumbo et al. 2007). All five subscales derived from the factor analysis displayed

strong evidence of internal consistency with very high reliability coefficients.

Ordinal alpha estimates were .94, .99, .96, .97, and .93 for the engage, explore,

explain, elaborate, and evaluate subscales respectively.

Discussion

Psychometric analysis of the 5E ILPv2 rubric revealed an overall solid instrument

for its designed purpose of assessing written 5E inquiry-based lesson plans. By

design, the 5E ILPv2 rubric as a technical instrument identified key items of the 5E

instructional approach and posed some interesting findings. For one, while

examining the twenty-one items for scoring ranges (04), there were four specificitems: the engage items (1 and 2) and explain items (1 and 5) that lacked zero scores

in post lesson plan data. A possible interpretation is that by the end of the semester,

all the students had at minimum learned to address these four items (see

Appendix). The two engage items focused on ascertaining what learners know

about a concept and motivating students by setting the stage for exploration. The

explain item 1 was a transition item while explain item 5 focused on the use of

multiple strategies in building lesson concepts. Each of these items upon

examination is straight forward and perhaps less difficult than other items, it does

appear from the findings that all the preservice teachers attempted to address thesefour items in writing in their final 5E lesson plans.

Another surprising finding stems from the factor analysis. Unexpectedly, the

instruments items engage four and explain five, both loaded primarily on their

expected factor, however also loaded on another factor in the 5E ILPv2 instrument

analysis. The engage four item also loaded on the explore factor which could be

explained by the items focus on creating a logical connection and transition

between the end of engage phase and the beginning of the explore phase. The

double loading of explain item five on the engage factor proves a bit more difficult

to interpret. Explain five item focuses on a teacher using more than a single

pedagogical approach when facilitating a discussion of concepts examined by

students during the explore phase. Scoring of this item is based on whether the

explain phase of the inquiry lesson plan displays multiple approaches. So if the

explain included a student discussion, power point, and a demonstration, this would

score higher than a lesson including only a discussion. We recognize that this is not

necessarily a key element of the 5E instructional model, but it is an effective

teaching strategy. In future versions of the instrument, this item may need to be

changed or eliminated.

The 5E ILPv2 was developed to assist instructors in assessing inquiry-based 5E

lesson plans more equitably and identify problem areas, as well as give feedback to

preservice teachers on problem areas. The scoring of any lesson plan is no easy task,

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


18/26

feedback on specific aspects of the inquiry lesson plan phases that may need more

development. For instance, if the questions of a 5E lesson plans explain stage are

not written in such a way or are not sequenced properly or are not complete enough

to develop the concept targeted in the lesson, then the explain item of the rubric

would reflect a lower score. Additional feedback on the item is therefore specific, sothe lesson can be revised and improved prior to teaching. There is no perfect

instrument and all are in some way subjective; while we have attempted to make the

items reflective of the key aspects of the 5E model supported through psychometric

analysis, there are always limitations.

The items of the 5E ILPv2 instrument help to identify and determine the quality

of the distinct phases of the instructional model; however, one limitation is that no

single item captures the fluid, holistic nature of an inquiry-based 5E lesson plan.

Indeed, the 5E ILPv2 instruments items appear as discrete, isolated elements while

the 5E instructional approach is holistic and represents continuity, a flow within andbetween the five phases that builds both content and skill. The authors attempted to

capture continuity between phases with transition items that connect the phases.

Recall that one of these items, Engage 4, loaded on both the engage and explore

factors where one might expect a link. In addition, to represent cohesiveness within

the phases, the items are descriptive to link the key elements of each phase. For

example, examining the 5E ILPv2 instrument for how well or fluid the explain stage

addresses and develops the target concepts requires the scorers attention to focus on

the question quality and the sequence of questions or strategies used. Furthermore,

from a pragmatic stance in scoring lesson plans, a single item related to conceptdevelopment is less useful to students than the items addressing the strategies and

questions during the explain that are critical to the development of the concept(s).

While recognizing the limitations of the instrument, some aspects of the lesson plan

process may be best viewed in the actual orchestration or teaching of the lesson

rather than the lesson plan itself. At some point writing about every aspect of any

lesson, much less an inquiry lesson makes for a long unwieldy lesson plan. Specific

items related to the continuity between and within the phases or single items that

capture the holistic nature of the lesson are currently not included in the 5E ILPv2,

but will be considered and examined along with examining the instruments items

for levels of difficulty using Rasch analysis.

As educators, we use assessments during our courses to improve and guide

instruction. Thus, using the 5E ILP to generate descriptive statistics from individual

class data can be useful to instructors in identifying areas of inquiry-based 5E lesson

planning that preservice teachers are struggling to grasp and those items they have

already learned and can apply. The descriptive statistics of the 224 preservice

teachers post lesson plan data reveal that by the end of the semester, the preservice

teachers appear to have higher mean scores with the engage items and lower mean

scores with the elaborate and some items of the evaluate. This suggests to us that

additional work with these two phases is warranted in our courses. Examining

specific items can help instructors revise their strategies for teaching and modeling



19/26

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to conduct a psychometric analysis on the 5E ILPv2 rubric

for inquiry-based lesson plans in order to assess evidence of validity and reliability. The

conclusion of this analysis suggests that the 5E ILPv2 displays strong evidence of both,and it is an appropriate instrument for use in evaluating preservice teachers inquiry

lesson plan development using the 5E instructional model. The 5E instructional approach

is built upon the three phases of the learning cycle (Atkins and Karplus 1962).

Modifications of the learning cycle evolved into the 5E instructional model (Bybee et al.

2006) which includes an engage phase and the addition of an evaluation phase. These

phases have emerged over time as a result of research on effective learning and the

demands for accountability. Thus, the 5E ILPv2 rubric was examined to discern whether

the items associated with each of the five different phases hold together as five distinct

subscales asopposed to three found in the initial 5E ILP instrument (Goldston et al. 2009).Using 5E ILPv2 itemized scores from 224 pre-service elementary science teachers post

lesson plans, a factor analysis revealed five distinct theoretical constructs with the items

loading on the expected factor. With 85.5 % of the instruments variability explained and

the items loading on their associated theoretical constructs, the 5E ILPv2 is a strong

instrument for assessing an individuals ability to write inquiry-based 5E lesson plans.

Given the lack of rubrics available to science educators for scoring 5E lesson

plans, the usefulness of having an instrument such as this offers a tool that provides

equity and consistency in scoring. From a practical stance, the instrument provides

pre-service teachers a guide to use in writing inquiry lessons with item-by-itemdescriptions of the inquiry models five phases. As an assessment tool, it provides

feedback on lesson plan items that pre-service teachers developed well and those

areas that still need improvement. Last, the 5E ILPv2 also offers instructors

opportunities to research 5E lesson planning within their own courses by examining

students progress on specific phases or items.

Appendix

5E Inquiry Lesson Plan Version 2 Rubric (5E ILPv2)

Name(s)________________________ Lesson Title ________________________ Grade leve1 __________

Approval of Field/Clinical Placement Supervisor/Faculty ____________________

Approval of Methods Faculty __________________________________________

Science Learning Cycle Lesson Plan Rubric v1

0 1 2 3 4 Concepts and/or skills selected for the lesson align with National ScienceEducation Standards and relevant state/local standards

0 1 2 3 4 The lesson plan contains objectives that are clear, appropriate, measurable, andalign with the assessment/evaluation

0 1 2 3 4 Materials list is present and complete

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


20/26

ExplorationPhase 1 (Engage and Explore)

InventionPhase 2 (Explain)

Explain item 1

0 1 2 3 4 There is a logical transition from the explore phase to the explain phase

Explain item 2

0 1 2 3 4 The explain includes teacher questions that lead to the development of conceptsand skills (Draws upon the explore activities/or data collected during the exploreactivities)

Explain item 30 1 2 3 4 The explain includes mixed divergent and convergent questions for interactive

discussion facilitated by teacher and/or students to develop concepts or skills

Explain item 4

0 1 2 3 4 The explain includes a complete explanation of the concept (s) and/orskill(s) taught

Explain item 5

0 1 2 3 4 The explain phase provides a variety of approaches to explain and illustrate theconcept or skill. (For example, approaches might include but are not limited tothe use of technology, virtual field trips, demonstrations, cooperative group

discussions, panel discussions, interview of guest speaker, video/print/audio/computer program materials, or teacher explanations.)

Explain item 6

Engage item 1

0 1 2 3 4 The engage elicits students prior knowledge (based upon the objectives)

Engage item 20 1 2 3 4 The engage raises student interest/motivation to learn

Engage item 3

0 1 2 3 4 The engage provides opportunities for student discussion/questions (or invites student

questions)

Engage item 4

0 1 2 3 4 The engage leads into the exploration

Explore item 1

0 1 2 3 4 During the explore phase, teachers present instructions

Explore item 2

0 1 2 3 4 Learning activities in the exploration phase involves hands-on/minds-on activities

Explore item 3

0 1 2 3 4 Learning activities in the exploration phase are student-centered (When appropriate,teacher questions evoke the learners ideas and/or generate new questions from

students. Student inquiry may involve student questioning, manipulating objects,

developing inquiry skills (as appropriate) and developing abstract ideas). *See back

for list of typical inquiry skills

Explore item 4

0 1 2 3 4 The inquiry activities of the explore show evidence of student learning (formative/

authentic assessment). *See back for a list of formative assessment methods



21/26

ExpansionPhase 3 (Elaborate and Evaluate)

Points

Additional Lesson Plan components:

Scoring Criteria

4 Excellent All elements of the item are present, complete, appropriate, and accurate, withrich details. Another teacher can use the plan(or phase) as written

3 Good Most of the elements of the item are present, complete, appropriate, and

accurate, with rich details. Another teacher could use the plan (or phase) witha few modifications

Elaborate item 1

0 1 2 3 4 There is a logical transition from the explain phase to theelaborate phase

Elaborate item 2

0 1 2 3 4 Theelaborateactivities provide students with the opportunity to apply the newlyacquired concepts and skills into new areas

Elaborate item 3

0 1 2 3 4 The elaborate activities encourage students to find real-life (every day)connections with the newly acquired concepts or skills

Evaluation item 1

0 1 2 3 4 The lesson includes summativeevaluation, which can include a variety of forms/

approaches. * See back for list of some methods of evaluation

Evaluation item 2

0 1 2 3 4 The evaluation matches the objectives

Evaluation item 3

0 1 2 3 4 The evaluation criteria are clear and appropriate

Evaluation item 4

0 1 2 3 4 The evaluation criteria are measurable (i.e., rubrics)

0 1 2 3 4 Relevant safety issues are addressed. Appropriate safety equipment is delineated.Selection of materials is age appropriate

0 1 2 3 4 The time specified in each of the lesson plan phases (exploration, invention,expansion) is appropriate

0 1 2 3 4 Accommodations for students with special needs are addressed. A variety ofcognitive levels is addressed throughout the lesson. The lesson is appropriate forall students

0 1 2 3 4 The lesson plan includes a bibliography. Cited works include web sites, textbooks,childrens literature, and relevant articles. Using only childrens literature is notacceptable. Multiple sources must be used for content verification



22/26

Appendix continued

2 Average Approximately half of the elements of the item are present, complete,appropriate, and accurate, with some details. Another teacher could usethe plan (or phase) with modifications

1 Poor Few of the elements of the item are present, complete, appropriate, andaccurate, with few details. Another teacher would have to re-write thelesson (or phase) in order to implement the lesson

0 Unacceptable Key elements of the item are not present. Descriptions are inappropriate.Plan lacks coherence and is unusable as written

*Typical inquiry skillspredicting, hypothesizing, observing, measuring, test-

ing, recording, graphing, creating tables, drawing conclusions.

*Typical formative assessment methods: science journals, science notebooks,photonarratives, KWL charts, concept maps, writing assignments, art work,

drawings/charts, graph, quiz, test, PowerPoint presentation, I-movie, movie,

cartoons. Note that evaluation comes from the culmination of the formative

assessments used during the lesson.

*Examples of appropriate experiences include the following: the use of

technology, Internet field trips, field trips, hands-on/minds-on learning activities,

cooperative group discussions, panel discussions, interview of guest speaker, video/

print/audio/computer program materials, teacher explanations, Webquest, Track-

Star, I-movie, PowerPoint.

References

AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.AAAS. (1998). Blueprints for reform: Science, mathematics, and technology education. New York:

Oxford University Press.Achieve. (2012). Next generation science standards: For states by states. Retrieved at http://www.

nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards/.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 inScience Teaching, 37(4), 295317.

Appleton, K. (2008). Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementaryteachers.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(6), 523545.

Atkins, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? Science Teacher, 29(5), 45.

Barman, C. R. (1992). An evaluation of the use of a technique designed to assist prospective elementaryteachers use of the learning cycle with science textbooks.School Science and Mathematics, 92(2),5963.

Barman, C. R. (1993). The learning cycle: A basic tool for teachers, too. Perspectives in Education andDeafness, 11(4), 711.

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), 5864.Beerer, K. & Bodzin, A. (2004). Promoting inquiry-based science instruction with the science teacherinquiry rubric (STIR). Paper presented at the 2004 Association for the Education of Teachers in

http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards/http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards/http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards/http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards/


23/26

Bodzin, A. & Beerer, K. (2003). Promoting inquiry based science instruction: the validation of the scienceteacher inquiry.Journal of Elementary Science Education.15(2), 3949. Retrieved on line at http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Promoting+inquiry-based+science+instruction%3a+the+validation+of+the-a0108967578.

Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purpose to practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Press.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 EducationNational Institutes of Health. Retrieved on line at http://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix?D.pdf.

Cavallo, A., & Laubach, T. (2001). Students science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing

learning cycle classrooms.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 10291062.Colburn, A. (2008). An inquiry primer. In E. Brunsell (Ed.), Readings in science methods K8 (pp.

3336). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.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 andTeacher Education International Conference (pp. 25562557). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Eick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into inquiry: Scaffolding support beginningefforts to implement inquiry in the classroom. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 4953.

Fields, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications.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), 187207.

Goldston, M. J., Day, J., Sundberg, C., & Dantzler, J. (2010). Psychometric analysis of a 5E learningcycle lesson plan assessment instrument. International Journal of Science and MathematicsEducation, 8(4),633645.

Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factoranalysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191205.

Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum.Science Education, 72(1),1940.

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30,179185.

Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage Publications.Jacobson, W., & Kondo, A. (1968). SCIS elementary science sourcebook. Berkeley, CA: Science

Curriculum Improvement Study.Jinkins, D. (2002). Impact of the implementation of the teaching/learning cycle on teacher decision-

making and emergent readers. Reading Psychology, 22(4), 267288.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.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.Karplus, R., & Thier, H. D. (1967).A new look at elementary school science. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Lawson, A. E. (1995).Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.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 ofResearch in Science Teaching.

Lederman, N., Wade, P., & Bell, R. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historicalperspective. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and

strategies (pp. 331350). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Lovoie, D. (1999). Effects of emphasizing hypothetico-predictive reasoning within the science learning

cycle on high school students process skills and conceptual understanding of biology.Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 36

(10), 11271147.Marek, E. (2008). Why the learning cycle?Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 6369.Marek, E., & Cavallo, A. (1997).Learning cycle: Elementary school science and beyond. Portsmith, NH:

http://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%2bD.pdfhttp://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%2bD.pdfhttp://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%2bD.pdfhttp://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%2bD.pdfhttp://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%2bD.pdfhttp://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%2bD.pdf


24/26

Marek, E., Laubach, T. A., & Pederson, J. (2003). Preservice elementary school teachers understandingsof theory based science education.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(3), 147159.

Marek, E., Maier, S., & McCann, F. (2008). Assessing understanding of the learning cycle: The ULC.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(4), 375389.Marek, E., & Methven, S. (1992). Effects of the learning cycle upon student and classroom teacher

performance.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 4153.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), 2337.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2010a). The Nations Report Card: Science 2009.National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES Publication 2011-451 or 15654K PDF). Retrieved

fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2009/2011451.asp.National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2010b).Hands-on and interactive computer assessment

from 2009 Science Assessment. Retrieved fromhttp://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/ict_summary.asp.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2011). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscuttingconcepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

No Child Let Behind. (2002). No child left behind act of 2001. U. S. Pub.L. No. 107110, 115 Stat. 435.Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.OConnor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using

parallel analysis and Velicers MAP test.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,32(3), 396402.

Odom, A., & Kelly, P. (2001). Integrating concept mapping and the learning cycle to teach diffusion andosmosis concepts to high school biology students. Science Education, 85(6), 615635.

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), 123142.

Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000).Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guidefor teaching and learning. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Pomperoy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of thebeliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers.Science Education, 77(3),26278.

Settlage, J. J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by

preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 84, 4350.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 inthe classroom: Realities and opportunities (pp. 172191). Greenwich, CT: Information Age

Publishing.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 Environmentsfor Science Education(pp. 203232). LEA.

Streiner, D. L. (1998). Factors affecting reliability of interpretations of scree plots.Psychological Reports,83, 687694.

Sunal, D., & Wright, E. (2006). Teacher perceptions of science standards in K-12 classrooms: AnAlabama case study. In D. Sunal & E. Wright (Eds.),The impact of state and national standards on

k-12 science teaching (pp. 749). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2006).Using multivariate statistics(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Trowbridge, L., & Bybee, R. (1996). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developingscientific literacy

(6th ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations.

Psychometrika, 41, 321327.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2009/2011451.asphttp://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/ict_summary.asphttp://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/ict_summary.asphttp://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/ict_summary.asphttp://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/ict_summary.asphttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2009/2011451.asp


25/26

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.123152). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Weiss, I., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside theclassroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States . Chapel Hill,

NC: Horizon Research.Welch, W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G., & Robinson, J. (1981). The roles of inquiry in science

education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65(1), 3350.Worthingtong, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research. A content analysis and

recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806838.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, 2129.Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of

components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432442.



26/26

Copyright of Journal of Science Teacher Education is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

a psychometric approach to the development of a 5e

Documents