Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research
Abbreviation: EPASR | ISSN (Print): 1949-4270 | ISSN (Online): 1949-4289 | DOI: 10.29329/epasr

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2020, Vol. 15(4) 367-388

The Effect of Teacher Evaluation and Self-Evaluation on Pre-service Teachers' Inquiry-Based 5E Lesson Plan Design and Teaching Practice

Seda Çavuş-Güngören, Funda Yeşildağ-Hasançebi & Günkut Mesci

pp. 367 - 388   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.323.20

Published online: December 28, 2020  |   Number of Views: 28  |  Number of Download: 99


Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of teacher evaluation and self-evaluation on the experience of designing and applying lesson plans according to the 5E inquiry model and pre-service teachers views regarding the 5E inquiry lesson planning and teaching practice. It was designed as the embedded mixed method. Total of 60 pre-service science teachers participated in this study. The data collected by the 5E Lesson Plan rubric for inquiry-based teaching which developed by Goldston et al., (2013), self-evaluation form, and interviews. In the analysis of quantitative data, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test and Spearman’s Rank Correlation, which are among the nonparametric tests, were used. Content analysis was performed in the analysis of qualitative data. Results showed that the average score of pre-service teachers’ lesson plans is higher in the second plans. It has been determined that self-evaluation contributes to better planning of the process. The pre-service teachers stated that the 5E inquiry model was particularly strong / effective and their lesson plans’ phases of explain and explore were weak. In line with the results obtained in the research, suggestions were made to evaluate and develop the lesson planning and teaching practice according to the 5E inquiry model.

Keywords: 5E lesson plan evaluation, inquiry-based lesson plan, teacher evaluation, self-evaluation


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Cavus-Gungoren, S., Yesildag-Hasancebi, F. & Mesci, G. (2020). The Effect of Teacher Evaluation and Self-Evaluation on Pre-service Teachers' Inquiry-Based 5E Lesson Plan Design and Teaching Practice . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(4), 367-388. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2020.323.20

Harvard
Cavus-Gungoren, S., Yesildag-Hasancebi, F. and Mesci, G. (2020). The Effect of Teacher Evaluation and Self-Evaluation on Pre-service Teachers' Inquiry-Based 5E Lesson Plan Design and Teaching Practice . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(4), pp. 367-388.

Chicago 16th edition
Cavus-Gungoren, Seda, Funda Yesildag-Hasancebi and Gunkut Mesci (2020). "The Effect of Teacher Evaluation and Self-Evaluation on Pre-service Teachers' Inquiry-Based 5E Lesson Plan Design and Teaching Practice ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 15 (4):367-388. doi:10.29329/epasr.2020.323.20.

References
  1. Akben, N., & Köseoğlu, F. (2015). Inquiry-based learning and 5E model in laboratory practices: a professional development program for prospective classroom teachers. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 48(1), 161-198. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000001357  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrade, H.L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4(87), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(5), 45–51.  [Google Scholar]
  5. Bayram, Z. (2015). Investigating difficulties that pre-service science teachers encounter while designing guided inquiry activities. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30(2), 15-29. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005) Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72, 30-33. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bozdoğan, A. E., & Altunçekiç, A. (2007). The opinion of pre-service science teachers about the utility of 5E teaching model. Kastamonu Education Journal, 15(2), 579–590. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, Co: BSCS, 5, 88–98. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, R.W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy, Portsmouth, NH: Heineman. [Google Scholar]
  10. Capps, D. K. & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9314-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Cardak, O., Dikmenli M. & Saritas, O. (2008). Effect of 5E instructional model in student success in primary school 6th year circulatory system topic. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 1-12. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ceylan, E., & Geban, Ö. (2009). Facilitating conceptual change in understanding state of matter and solubility concepts by using 5E learning cycle model. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 36(36), 41-50.  [Google Scholar]
  13. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2014). Research methods, design, and analysis. Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  14. Crawford, B. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a pre-service teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009422728845    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Davis, K.S. (2003). “Change is hard”: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3–30. doi:10.1002/sce.10037 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Desouza, J.M.S. (2017). Conceptual play and science inquiry: using the 5E instructional model. Pedagogies, 12(4),340–353.https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1373651 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Devecioğlu Kaymakçı, Y. (2016). Embedding analogical reasoning into 5E learning model: a study of the solar system. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(4), 881-911. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1266a  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Enugu, R. & Hokayem, H. (2017). Challenges pre-service teachers face when implementing a 5E inquiry model of instruction. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 178-209. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ergin, İ., Kanlı, U., & Tan, M. (2007). Fizik eğitiminde 5E modeli’nin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına etkisinin incelenmesi. [To examine the effects of 5E model on the students’ academic success in physics education] GÜ Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(2), 191-209. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldston, M. J., Dantzler, J., Day, J., & Webb, B. (2013). A psychometric approach to the development of a 5E lesson plan scoring instrument for inquiry-based teaching. Journal Science Teacher Education, 24, 527–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9327-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Guler, B. & Sahin, M. (2019). Using inquiry-based experiments to improve pre-service science teachers' science process skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(5), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.212.1  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Kaynar, D., Tekkaya, C., & Çakıroğlu, J. (2009). Effectiveness of 5E learning cycle instruction on students’ achievement in cell concept and scientific epistemological beliefs. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37, 96–105.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Kılıç, S. (2015). Kappa test. Journal of Mood Disorders, 5(3), 142-144. https://doi.org/10.5455/jmood.20150920115439   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Kösterelioğlu, İ. & Çelen, Ü. (2016). Evaluation of the effectiveness of self-assessment method. Elementary Education Online,15(2), 671-681. https://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.44304 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kozcu Çakir, N., & Güven, G. (2019). Effect of 5E learning model on academic achievement and attitude towards the science course: a meta-analysis study. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 48 (2), 1111-1140. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/cuefd/issue/49528/544825  [Google Scholar]
  29. Kumandaş, H., & Kutlu, Ö. (2013). The comparison of trainers and self-assessments regarding presentation skills of preschool teachers candidate. Journal of Educational Sciences & Practices, 12(23), 43–55.  [Google Scholar]
  30. Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C. D., & Karakaya, İ. (2009). Öğrenci başarısının belirlenmesi performansa ve portfolyoya dayalı durum belirleme (2. Baskı). Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakin, J., & Wallace, C. (2015). Assessing dimensions of inquiry practice by middle school science teachers engaged in a professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(2), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9412-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Landis, J, R., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. [Google Scholar]
  33. Marshall, J. C., Smart, J., & Horton, R. M. (2009). The design and validation of EQUIP: an instrument to assess inquiry-based instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9174-y  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. McHenry, N., & Borger, L. (2013). How can teacher-directed professional development lead to the identification, utilization, reflection on and revision of 5E learning progressions. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 17 (1), 1-24.  [Google Scholar]
  35. Mesci, G., Çavuş-Güngören, S., & Yesildag-Hasancebi, F. (2020) Investigating the development of pre-service science teachers’ NOSI views and related teaching practices, International Journal of Science Education, 42(1), 50-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1700316 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Metin, M., & Özmen, H. (2009). Difficulties of pre-service teachers in developing and implementing teaching activities based on 5E model in constructivist approach. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(2), 94– 123.  [Google Scholar]
  37. Meyer, D. Z., Meyer, A. A., Nabb, K. A., Connell, M. G., & Avery, L. M. (2013). A theoretical and empirical exploration of intrinsic problems in designing inquiry activities. Research in Science Education, 43 (1), 57-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9243-4  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  39. Namdar B., & Kucuk M. (2018). Pre-service science teachers’ practices of critiquing and revising 5E lesson plans, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(6), 468-484. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1469188 [Google Scholar]
  40. Namdar, B., Oğuz Namdar, A., & Ursavaş, N. (2017). Investigation of the criteria pre-service science teachers establish and use to evaluate curriculum materials. Ege Journal of Education, 18(1), 174–212. https://dx.doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.328381 [Google Scholar]
  41. National Research Council [NRC] (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. National Research Council [NRC] (2013). The next generation science standards. The National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ozdem-Yilmaz, Y., & Cavas, B. (2016). Pedagogically desirable science education: Views on inquiry-based science education in Turkey. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(4), 506–522. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ozoglu, G., Olina, Z., & Sullivan, H. (2008). Teacher, self and peer evaluation of lesson plans written by pre-service teachers. Education Technology Research and Development, 56 (1), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9012-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Özsevgeç, T. (2006). Determining effectiveness of student guiding material based on the 5E model in force and motion unit. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3(2), 36–48. [Google Scholar]
  46. Perry, V. R., & Richardson, C. P. (2001). The New Mexico tech master of science teaching program: an exemplary model of inquiry-based learning. 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. [Google Scholar]
  47. Plano Clark, V. L., Huddleston-Casas, C. A., Churchill, S. L., O’Neil Green, D., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). Mixed methods approaches in family science research. Journal of Family Issues, 29(11), 1543–1566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X08318251 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Ross, J.A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 11(10), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.7275/9wph-vv65  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Şahin, M.G., & Şahin Kalyon, D. (2018). Investigation of pre-service teachers’ opinions about self-, peer- and teacher assessment. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(4), 1055-1068. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.393278 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Saka, T., Akcanca, N., Kala Aydın, N., & Sungur Alhan, S. (2018). The effects of the inquiry-based teaching on prospective teachers’ planning and practice processes. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12 (1), 180-204. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.437735  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  51. Wang, J., Sneed, S., & Wang, Y. (2020). Validating a 3E rubric assessing pre-service science teachers’ practical knowledge of inquiry teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(2), em1814. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112547 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. Wilson, C. A. (2009). Planning and implementing inquiry-oriented activities for middle grades science. Middle School Journal, 41(2), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2009.11461711 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Wilson, C.D., Taylor, J.A., Kowalski, S.M., & Carlson, J. (2010) The relative effects of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students‟ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation about sleep concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20329  [Google Scholar] [Crossref]