1. Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol (EQUIP): Assessing the Quality of Inquiry- Based Instructional Practice ASTE 2009 Jeff C. Marshall

2. Status of Inquiry-Based Instruction Teachers know it is important Some try However, many find it difficult to implement PD facilitators need formative guide Teachers need way to self-monitor performance

3. Need The Call: Inquiry should be a central tenet of sound instructional practice (AAAS, 1993, 1998; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Llewellyn, 2002; NCTM, 1991, 2000; NRC, 1996, 2000). Teacher Perceptions: Teachers believe that they are spending 38.7% of their time on inquiry-based instruction (Marshall, Horton, Igo, and Switzer, In Press). Teacher Ideals: Teachers see that they should ideally be devoting about 57.3% of their time leading inquiry based instruction (Marshall, Horton, Igo, and Switzer, In Press). Overall Quality: The perception is high yet the quality is low—inquiry is often mistaken for activities (Moscovici & Holdlund-Nelson, 1998).

4. Some Other Protocols Inside the Classroom Observational Protocol (Horizon Research, 2002) Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol, R- TOP (Sawada et al., 2000) Science Management Observation Protocol, SMOP, (Sampson, 2004) Science Teacher Inquiry Protocol, STIR (Beerer & Bodzin, 2003)

5. Development of EQUIP Protocol Began with variation of R-TOP and Inside the Classroom Field Tested Moved away from Likert Scale to Descriptive Rubric Tested Reliability (Inter-rater and Item) Field Tested Conducted Confirmatory Factor Analysis Field Testing Current Version

6. Reliability and Validity Face Validity—seven member team Internal Consistency—n = 102 (  -value ranged from.880-.889 before CFA to.858-.912 after) Inter-rater reliability—16 paired observations (Cohen’s  scores ranged from.55-.61) Content Validity (see paper) Construct Validity—CFA run (  2/ /df  2 indicates reasonable fit (Kline, 2005), RMSEA of.1 is on the threshold of reasonable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), SRMR.90 is considered a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999) )

7. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Began with 3 factors (instruction, curriculum, & ecology) with 26 total indicators CFA showed 4 factors (19 total indicators) loaded better (instruction, discourse, assessment, & curriculum)

8. Sample to Illustrate Time Usage Factors

9. Sample of Instructional Factors Associated with Inquiry-Based Instruction

10. Sample of Discourse Factors Associated with Inquiry-Based Instruction

11. Sample of Assessment Factors Associated with Inquiry-Based Instruction

12. Sample of Curriculum Factors Associated with Inquiry-Based Instruction

13. EQUIP Summary Reliable and valid measure Valuable measure of inquiry-based instruction –Instruction –Discourse –Assessment –Curriculum Useful for practitioners, PD facilitators, and in- service preparation

14. More Information Jeff C. Marshall Email: marsha9@clemson.edumarsha9@clemson.edu Website: www.clemson.edu/iimwww.clemson.edu/iim