• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

An extended examination of preservice elementary teachers' science teaching self-efficacy

Posted on: Tuesday, 8 July 2003, 06:00 CDT

The purpose of this study was to examine programmatic factors that positively impact changes in elementary preservice teachers ' teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Specifically, it examined the impact of science methods courses, student teaching, and science content courses on elementary preservice teachers ' science teaching self- efficacy. The Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument Form B was administered, using a pre/post design, to undergraduate elementary education majors in specific education and science content courses. A total of 399 responses were collected, of which 172 had matching pre/post surveys suitable for analysis. Students in the science content courses and student teaching seminar showed no significant change in either the Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE) or the Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy scales during the time they were enrolled in the classes. Significant gains in PSTE were found for students enrolled in the science methods course. The specific design of the education program and methods course may be responsible for these changes.

Strategies for improving science teaching at the elementary level have been the focus of many recent studies. Resultant suggestions include improving science content training, implementing specific science teaching methods courses, moving curriculum in more inquiry and constructivist based directions, and incorporating state and national science standards in classrooms. Additionally, researchers have found positive relationships between a variety of productive teacher behaviors and high self-efficacy ratings (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). These behaviors include increased persistence with students in failure situations, tendencies toward less didactic instructional strategies, higher professional commitment, and a desire to find better ways of teaching. There is considerable evidence that self-efficacy is a predictor of behavior.

Bandura (1977) described self-efficacy as a belief that a person could do something to produce a specific outcome and "a person's estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes" (p. 79). As with most motivational and attitudinal concepts, self- efficacy is considered to be context specific (Bandura, 1982; Pajares, 1996). Thus, to measure teaching self-efficacy, scales need to focus directly on teaching and learning outcomes. In addition, locus of control from Rotter's ( 1996) social learning theory has been coupled with Bandura's (1977) social cognitive theory to produce a more complete view of teaching self-efficacy.

Bandura (1986) presented four potential sources that may impact self-efficacy-mastery experiences, physiological and emotional cues, vicarious experiences, and verbal persuasion. Mastery experiences are considered the most powerful source of self-efficacy information, although all may contribute significantly to perceptions of self-efficacy if presented appropriately (see Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Research into the application of experiences based on the impact of these sources has demonstrated improvements in self-efficacy in a variety of contexts (Center for Positive Practices, 2000).

Applied to preservice teacher training, this research would suggest programs designed with peer modeling by teachers whom the students perceive as similar to themselves, opportunities for mastery teaching, verbal persuasion from credible trustworthy sources, and program experiences intended to allow students to be in a positive frame of mind. In an integrated model of teaching self- efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998), analysis of the teaching task and assessment of personal teaching competence are both central to teacher perceptions of self-efficacy. Since these are essentially reflective processes, self-reflection skill development is also likely to be necessary in ideal programs.

The original scales designed to determine teaching self-efficacy are based on items measuring respondents' belief about what they are capable of doing (Personal Teaching Efficacy-PTE) and items measuring respondents' belief of what the outcome of their efforts will be (General Teaching Efficacy-GTE). Most current forms of teaching self-efficacy scales are derived from Gibson and Dembo's (1984) Likert scale survey.

Because investigation of self-efficacy makes most sense in terms of perceived abilities related to narrowly defined activities (Pajares, 1996), subject matter specific self-efficacy instruments have been developed. A widely used measure specific to science is the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument-STEBI (Riggs & Enochs, 1990). This instrument was later adapted to assess science teaching efficacy beliefs in preservice teachers-STEBI-B (Enochs & Riggs, 1990).

Even though there have been almost 25 years of research in this area, questions regarding how to measure self-efficacy and what interventions are likely to affect self-efficacy still remain. There is some evidence (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990) that self-efficacy beliefs can change during preservice teaching experiences but that changes are much harder to effectuate for inservice teachers. Specifically, not much is known about what kinds of experiences have the greatest effect and what those effects might be. In general, content area training by itself has not produced increases in science teaching self-efficacy. Methods instruction has shown varied results (Cronin- Jones & Shaw, 1992; Ginns & Watters, 1994). Impacting teaching self- efficacy may be inherently problematic because self-efficacy is a construct that develops over time and with experience (Henson,2001).

Purpose

This study was designed to identify programmatic factors that positively effectuate changes in preservice elementary teachers' teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Specifically, this research examines the impact of science methods courses, student teaching, and science content courses on preservice elementary teachers' science teaching self-efficacy.

Methods

Respondents in this study were elementary preservice teachers in a 4-year undergraduate teacher education program. The program is delivered from a school of education in a small liberal arts private university (approximately 2,200 undergraduate students) in an urban setting. Students in this program participate in field experiences each semester of the program. Semesters typically run for 16 weeks. Field experiences in the freshman and sophomore years include about 3 hours a week in classrooms; in the junior year, about 6 hours per week. During the fall semester of the senior year, students are in classrooms 12 hours a week, and in their spring semester they have a full-time experience. Classroom responsibilities increase throughout the program. Typically, the first 2 years involve observations, one- on-one tutoring, and small group work. By their junior year, students begin designing and teaching individual lessons. The planning and teaching responsibilities increase greatly in the senior year. During the fall semester, aside from individual content area lessons, the students design and teach at least one 10-lesson unit. In the spring, the seniors have full responsibility for a classroom a minimum of 9 weeks during their student teaching experience.

Elementary teachers in the program are required to take nine semester credit hours of science content courses. These courses are Human Biology, Ideas in Physics, and Introductory Earth Science. Most students take these courses in their freshman and sophomore years. These classes include students from other disciplines and are taught by faculty from the respective discipline areas. The content is not specifically designed for education majors, and there is no separate lab section with any of the courses. The pedagogy experienced by the students in these science classes varies depending on the individual instructor and course. One instructor employs a rather constructivist approach and incorporates hands-on activities, while another is lecture oriented. The third class tends to be taught by various adjuncts.

In the fall semester of their senior year of this program students are enrolled in a three-credit-hour elementary mathematics and science teaching methods course. The course is designed to integrate theory and practice. Assignments for this course are intended to be completed as part of their field experience for the semester (approximately 12 hours per week), and students must complete at least one science related teaching experience in their fieldwork. The actual amount of science taught varies, as some students design their unit plan to focus on a science concept. In the methods course, most pedagogical ideas are modeled with active participation of the students. Students are guided through various inquiry-based science and mathematics activities, with specific aspects being discussed during and following the activities. In large and small groups, students discuss their own field classrooms and reflect on the teaching they are doing in their practica.

To measure the students' science teaching self-efficacy beliefs, students completed the STEBI-B (Enoch & Riggs, 1990) at the beginning and end of each course included in the study. The science content courses measured met in t\he fall of 1998 and 1999. During that time period, the education majors sampled numbered 5 sophomores in Human Biology, 20 mostly sophomores in Ideas in Physics, and 21 freshmen and sophomores in Introductory Earth Science. The methods courses were in the fall of each year from 1997 through 2000. Methods classes had 25, 16, 22, and 35 students, respectively. Student teachers were surveyed in the spring of 2001. There were 29 respondents in this group. The students who completed the survey after student teaching in their final semester of the program also reported the number of times during that experience that they had taught a science lesson.

The STEBI-B is a valid, reliable instrument designed for use by preservice teachers. Of the 23 items in the survey 13 are designed to address preservice teachers' level of belief that they can teach science (Personal Science Teaching Efficacy or PSTE) and 10 assess the respondents' belief that their teaching will have a positive effect on the students they are teaching (Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy or STOE). High scores on the PSTE indicate a strong belief in one's ability to teach science. Scores can range from 13 to 65. High scores on the STOE indicate high expectations in regard to the outcomes of science teaching. Scores on this scale can range from 10 to 50.

Table 1

Mean Scores for PSTE and STOE

Paired t-tests were run on the pre and post survey scores for each course. The PSTE and STOE section scores were analyzed separately. Since the student teaching experience was contiguous with the methods course the previous semester, the posttest scores from the methods course were used as the pretest scores for this group. The sample sizes in the content classes were too small for analysis in some cases (n = 5, 11, 21, 9). Accordingly, all of the responses from participants in content classes were grouped together into a larger group (n = 46) for analysis. It is unclear whether self-efficacy scores should be predicted to rise or fall at different stages of preservice teacher development (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). Therefore, all analyses of group mean differences were done as two-tailed tests. To measure the effect of actual science teaching on self-efficacy scores, the number of science lessons taught during student teaching was correlated with STEBI-B scores.

Results

A total of 399 responses were collected. Of these, 342 had matching pre/post surveys and were suitable for analysis. A number of respondents only completed either the pre or the post, some were completed by individuals who were not part of the study (i.e., non- education majors), and 10 students only completed the front side of the instrument during the pretest. On the student teacher post surveys, 27 of the 29 respondents indicated the number of science lessons they had taught during student teaching. Means and analysis results for the surveys are presented in Table 1. The pretest means for both the PSTE and STOE scales for each of the testing situations were above the scale medians (39 for the PSTE and 30 for the STOE).

Analysis of surveys from content classes indicated no significant pre/post shifts on PSTE or STOE scores. Roberts, Henson, Tharp, and Moreno (2001) suggested that self-efficacy instruments may suffer from a ceiling effect-that the instrument may not provide sufficient range for respondents who score relatively high initially on the instrument to demonstrate improvement after an intervention. In order to assess the possible influence of a ceiling effect, we followed the lead of Roberts et al., (2001) and ran an additional comparison of the responses from those who scored below 50 on the PSTE portion of the survey for the content courses. This analysis did show a significant increase in PSTE scores (p < .05) but not the STOE scores. However, given the small difference between actual mean scores (1.7 points), the practical significance of this finding is questionable.

Significant increases appeared for PSTE in all methods courses (p ranging from < .0001 to < .05). No significant differences occurred in the STOE, with one exception: significant increases in STOE did appear for the 2000 methods course (p < .05). Again, because of small actual mean difference (1.5 points), this does not seem to be of practical significance.

For the student teaching experience, no significant differences appeared. Analysis of the relationship of STEBI-B scores and number of science lessons taught during student teaching shows no significant correlation between the two: the r values were -.09 for the PSTE score and .09 for the STOE score. Students reported from 0 to 17 science lessons taught during the student teaching experience.

Discussion

In this study, it would appear that the methods course positively impacted the elementary preservice teachers' PSTE. The scores on this scale significantly increased over the duration of each methods course. The methods courses were all taught by the same instructor and, upon reflection, included all of the components identified by Bandura (1986), discussed earlier, that contribute to perceptions of self-efficacy. Mastery experiences were gained through their work in K-12 classrooms. Vicarious experiences were achieved by watching other students teach science lessons in virtual situations, by experiencing the modeling of the course instructor who had considerable K-12 experience, and by observing their cooperating and other teachers at their field school. Social persuasion was delivered by the course instructor, cooperating teachers, and university supervisors with whom the students were working closely. The methods course, coupled with the education program of study, provided the students with a supportive physiological and emotional state. Students had all spent considerable time in K-12 schools before the methods experience and had some weeks with their K-12 cooperating instructors and students before they were required to teach lessons. The students also did group microteaching presentations to their college peers in the methods class. These support the likelihood of a more comfortable setting for the students by reducing their initial fears of teaching science in their field placements.

It should be noted that these same students were simultaneously enrolled in a language arts/social studies methods course and an art/ music/physical education methods course. Even though the instrument used in this study focuses on science teaching specifically, the fact that students are having multiple similar experiences may indicate that the instrument is actually measuring an improvement in teaching self-efficacy more generally.

At initial glance, it does not appear that taking science content courses affected the students' teaching self-efficacy. By looking only at the students in the content classes who scored below 50 on the PSTE portion on the pretest, a significant improvement in that scale appeared (p < .05). It would seem that students with low science teaching self-efficacy may be positively affected by science content classes. Although, given the low practical significance of the group mean differences, this interpretationmustbe viewed cautiously.

The student teachers in the final semester of their program did not show significantly higher self-efficacy scores. That group, however, had the highest scores at the pretest of any other group studied. If a ceiling effect does exist, this group would be the least likely to demonstrate improvement. Another possible explanation for a lack of increase is that the student teaching experience did not include the same level of vicarious experience or verbal persuasion as the methods course, providing an overall experience less likely to improve self-efficacy. In addition, since self-efficacy had shown a significant increase the previous semester, it would be unlikely to see another significant increase without further intervention.

No group, except the final methods section, demonstrated significantly higher scores on the outcome expectancy portion (STOE) of the post surveys. Concerns over this scale have been voiced by other researchers (Roberts et al., 2001 ). Most of the instruments designed to measure teaching self-efficacy, including the STEBI-B, share similar interpretations of PTE or what teachers believe themselves capable of doing. How GTE is interpreted has been more problematic. On the STEBI-B, the STOE scale corresponds to the GTE. Concerns over the GTE focuses on the distinction between expected outcomes being perceptions of what will occur based on how a teacher performs or expected outcomes being perceptions of what will occur based on external influences-the locus of control issue (Pajares, 1996; Tschannen-Moran,Hoy&Hoy, 1998). Enochs, Scharmann, and Riggs (1995) described the STEBI outcome expectancy items as "reflect[ing] teachers' beliefs in students' ability to learn, given effective teaching" (p. 67). Riggs and Enochs (1990) acknowledged that outcome expectancy is a difficult construct to measure because of the myriad of variables it envelopes. While teachers tend to view the construct of PTE rather consistently, teachers view the complexities of the GTE construct with greater variability. As reported in Roberts et al. (2000), only one study has found a difference in the STOE scale of the STEBI-B. Two studies, as noted in Henson (2001), have found a change in the STOE scale of the STEBI-A-the version used with in- service teachers-but this occurred only after interventions lasting 8-12 months. Further study is needed to determine how GTE should be best defined and measured.

Conclusion

Based on the students in this study, it appears that the science teaching self-efficacy of preservice elementary teachers can be improved. An increase in science content does not automatically result in an increase in efficacy. It may be possible, however, that for students whose efficacy is low, \an increase in science knowledge may have a positive impact on how they view their abilities to teach science.

For this study, student teaching, in and of itself, did not seem to have any impact on students' self-efficacy. It must be noted, however, that this sample was small and the students already possessed a fairly high sense of self-efficacy. Additionally, these students had logged over 450 hours of field experience prior to their fulltime student teaching experience. Although some prior research has been done in the area of student teaching and self- efficacy (Hoy & Wolfolk, 1990), this study uggests that additional investigation is warranted.

An encouraging outcome of this study was the finding that methods courses can positively impact preservice teachers' self-efficacy. Previous studies (Cannon, 2001; Wingfield & Ramsey, 1999) have shown that increased time in field classrooms seem to have a positive impact on science teaching self-efficacy. However, while Wingfield & Ramsey (1999) found that methods courses did enhance self-efficacy, Cannon (2001 ) did not find that adding field experiences to the methods courses caused an additional impact on self-efficacy. Although this study supports the position that methods courses have a positive impact on self-efficacy, it was not designed to investigate how methods courses should be structured and what components of those courses are most likely to impact teaching self- efficacy. A more in-depth examination of the methods courses in this program needs to be undertaken to identify the salient components.

The question of the degree to which elementary methods courses should be integrated among content areas also remains. King and Wiseman (2001) found that integrated teacher preparation courses were no more effective in improving science teaching self-efficacy than pure science method courses. The methods course in this study is an integrated math/science methods course and, for 1 year, an integrated math/science/art/music/physical education methods course- contradicting what King and Wiseman found. Because the course design and delivery of the methods courses in this study were consistent across methods courses, we believe this to be encouraging evidence that designing methods courses following Bandura's guidelines related to sources of self-efficacy information is likely to produce methods experiences with greater impact on self-efficacy.

Because teaching self-efficacy has been shown to be correlated to teaching behavior, research on this topic should be continued. Measures of teaching self-efficacy are being improved (Henson, 2001 ) and measures of outcomes beliefs are receiving increased attention. If indeed this section should measure the impact teachers feel they can have on students' learning, educators need to be concerned about why these scores are low and typically not changed by what is done in teacher preparation programs. What methods instructors, science content instructors, and teacher preparation programs themselves need to do to encourage positive self-efficacy beliefs inpreservice elementary science teachers needs further illumination, including the systematic study of individuals as they move through preservice teacher preparation into student teaching and eventually into professional practice.

Editors' Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patricia D. Morrell, The University of Portland, School of Education, 5000 N. Willamette Blvd., Portland, OR 97203.

Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to morrell@up.edu

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 27, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cannon, J. (2001). Influence of an extended elementary science teaching practicum experience upon preservice elementary teachers' science self-efficacy [Online]. Available: http://www.ed.psu/ci/ Journals/97pap8 .html

Center for Positive Practices. (2000). Interventions enhancing self-efficacy [Online]. Available: http:// www.positivepractices.com/ Personal/ InterventionsAffecti.html

Cronin-Jones, L., & Shaw, E.L., Jr. (1992). The influence of methods instruction on the beliefs of preservice elementary and secondary science teachers: Preliminary comparative analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 92(1), 14-22.

Enochs, L.G., & Riggs, IM. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(786), 694-706.

Enochs, L.G., Scharmann, L.C., & Riggs, IM. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Teacher Education, 79(1), 375.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. ( 1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

Ginns, I.S., & Watters, JJ. (1994). A longitudinal study of preservice elementary teachers' personal and science teaching efficacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 127).

Henson, R.K. (2001). Teaching self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Exchange. College Station, TX.

Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk, A.E. ( 1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Education Research Journal, 27, 279-300.

King, K.P. & Wiseman, D.L. (2001). Comparing science efficacy beliefs of elementary education majors in integrated and non- integrated teacher education coursework. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(2), 143-153.

Pajares.F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.

Riggs, I.M., & Enochs, L.G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher's science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625-637.

Roberts, J.K., Henson, R.K., Tharp, B .Z., & Moreno, N. (2001). An examination of change in teaching self-efficacy beliefs in science education based on duration of inservice activities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 199-213.

Rotter, J.B. (1996). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement, Psychological Monographs, 80, 1- 28.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A.W., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.

Wingfield, M.E., & Ramsey, J. (1999, January). Improving science teaching self-efficacy of elementary preservice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Austin, Texas.

Patricia D. Morrell and James B. Carroll The University of Portland

Copyright School Science and Mathematics Association, Incorporated May 2003

More News in this Category