Exploring the Use of Cases and Case Methods in Influencing Elementary Preservice Science Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Journal of Science Teacher Education (2006) 17: 15–35DOI: 10.1007/s10972-005-9005-0 c© Springer 2006

Exploring the Use of Cases and Case Methods in InfluencingElementary Preservice Science Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Susan YoonGraduate School Education, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, U.S.A.

Erminia Pedretti, Larry Bencze, Jim Hewitt, Kirk Perris,& Roland Van OostveenThe Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario,Canada M5S 1V6

Published Online: 1 June 2006

In this study, we hypothesize that cases demonstrating exemplary practice in thescience classroom can be used as a source for learning content and pedagogicalskills that will improve teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Twelve preservice elemen-tary science teachers are followed as they participate in a case and case methodactivity illustrating the Grade 7 topic of robotics and fluids. While there was littleevidence to show improvements in content knowledge, results indicate that thecase acted as a boundary object for brokering between individual experiencesand those found in the science teaching community by scaffolding for multiplepoints of entry, bridging the theory practice gap and offering beginning teachersmore immediate access to the community of already practicing teachers.

Introduction

Several recent studies (Harlen & Holroyd, 1997; Mulholland & Wallace, 2001;Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990) examine teachers’ self-efficacy and its relationship to sub-ject matter content and pedagogical content knowledge in the context of creatingenvironments conducive to effective learning. In general, science teachers’ self-efficacy influences their over-all ability and confidence to implement successfullearning programs, as well as their choice of specific instructional practices. Thosewith low self-efficacy resulting from a lack of subject matter knowledge use com-pensatory strategies. These include teaching as little science as possible and a heavyreliance on such authoritative knowledge sources as textbooks, science kits, and“experts” (Harlen & Holroyd, 1997). By contrast, teachers with high self-efficacyemploy instructional strategies that favor academic self-directedness (Woolfolk &Hoy, 1990) and open-ended problem solving (Mulholland & Wallace, 2001). Lowself-efficacy can also affect how teachers view their capacity to help students learn.For example, they may (a) give up readily on students who are having difficulties,rather than provide them with the learning experiences they need to succeed; (b)criticize students for not understanding the material, rather than praise them for their

16 YOON ET AL.

efforts; and (c) ignore problems and move on, rather than reteach the material in away that would be more accessible to students (Bandura, 1993; Schunk 1991).

The need to develop a more robust understanding of the nature of teachers’self-efficacy is underscored by the fact that only one fourth of elementary teach-ers in the U.S. feel adequately prepared to teach science, especially the subject ofphysics. This state of affairs is attributed, in part, to failure on the part of teacherpreparation program to improve confidence levels (Czerniak & Haney, 1998). In across-cultural study by Lloyd et al. (1998) in which elementary teacher candidates inthe U.K. and Singapore were tested on their scientific knowledge and their ability toapply that knowledge, only 10% of students demonstrated acceptable scores in theformer category, while scoring only marginally better in the second category. Theseresults suggest that difficulties exist at an international level. Thus, it seems imper-ative that teacher educators search for and implement strategies that will improveunderstanding of both subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman,1986; Wallace & Louden, 1992) to raise self-efficacy levels. This is not, however, asimple task.

Research in educational reform suggests that teaching is highly idiosyncratic,complex, and multidimensional (Fullan, 1991; Polman & Pea, 2001; Rosebery &Puttick, 1998). Moreover, teacher knowledge is thought to be largely experiential,implicit, and best learned in classroom contexts (Beijaard, Verloop, & Vermunt,2000; Clement & Vandenberghe, 2000). This combination has serious implicationswhen considering how best to help teachers prepare for the classroom. Indeed,numerous school reform theorists state that teacher development has been limitedby the lack of understanding of how teachers think and learn (see Lieberman, 1995;Wood & Bennett, 2000).

Recently, research on the use of cases and case methods 1 has offered promis-ing possibilities for teacher development. In the latest edition of the Handbook ofResearch on Teacher Education, Merseth (1996) outlines three streams of empiri-cal work in this field: (a) cases used as exemplars to illustrate a model, theory, orinstructional technique or to showcase best practice; (b) cases used to promote op-portunities for decision making and problem solving; and (c) cases used to stimulatepersonal reflection. Other recent foci in the educational arena include (a) studies thatengage teachers in such higher order processes as reflective thinking, higher orderreasoning, strategic inquiry, and collaboration (Abell, Bryan, & Anderson, 1998;Barnett, 1998; Bencze, Hewitt, & Pedretti, 2001; Harrington, 1995; Herbert, 1999);(b) studies that examine variables influencing the success rate of case-based profes-sional development activities, such as the role of discussion and teacher experience(Levin, 1995); and (c) studies that report on the construction and implementationof new technologies that support case-based learning (Cognition and TechnologyGroup at Vanderbilt, 1997; Ewald, 1997; Herbert, 1999; Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik,& Soloway, 1998).

1An educational case method is a set of activities designed to engage learners (for various purposes and

in different ways) in a “case” that, in turn, is a representation of a real educational phenomenon (e.g., a

teaching and learning event).

THE USE OF CASES AND CASE METHODS 17

Although previous research supports the use of cases and case methods inteacher development, these studies have not explicitly explored how this approachaffects teachers’ self-efficacy. Bandura (1986) stated that there are four fundamentalsources of information that can change self-efficacy and ultimately influence behav-ior: (a) mastery experiences—based on first-person authentic engagement in ac-tivities or enactive performance, (b) vicarious experiences—acquired by observingother similar actors as they model situational competencies, (c) social persuasion—praise communicated by peers or more knowledgeable others, and (d) physiologicalstates—determined by monitoring their somatic responses to optimal and subop-timal situations. While mastery experiences, social persuasion, and physiologicalstates require immediate firsthand involvement of the actor (e.g., in teaching), vicar-ious experiences, such as ones acquired through case and case method investigation,can play an important role in changing self-efficacy without the need for direct par-ticipation. As Bandura (1986) wrote, “Although vicarious experiences are generallyweaker than direct ones, vicarious forms can produce significant, enduring changesthrough their effects on performance” (p. 400). Studying cases of exemplary prac-tice may offer several benefits in this regard. First, preservice teachers who lacksubject matter knowledge may use cases as a source of learning scientific concepts.Second, where cases demonstrate successful implementation of teaching strategiesin real-world contexts, preservice teachers’ understanding of pedagogical contentknowledge may also be strengthened. It is further conjectured that case methods pro-vide opportunities for students to acknowledge and work through their perceiveddifficulties. The act of drawing from their own experiences and the experiences ofpeers during case discussion may serve as momentum for improving self-efficacy.This study seeks to investigate the extent to which cases and case methods influ-ence self-efficacy about teaching science amongst a group of elementary preserviceteachers. An additional goal lies in identifying possible mechanisms that enhanceteachers’ self-efficacy implicit in this specific case method approach.

Case and Case Method Context

The case and case method examined a unit taught by a 16-year veteran inter-mediate science and technology teacher, Mr. Hamilton, who displayed particularexpertise in the integration of technological concepts within a science focus. Theteacher recently completed a Master’s of education degree and was, thus, familiarwith current educational theory and research. The multimedia case was constructedusing seven videotaped sessions of teacher interviews and classroom footage fo-cusing on a unit entitled “Robotics and Fluids” in the Grade 7 Ontario provincialcurriculum (Ministry of Education and Training, 1998). This topic was specificallyselected because elementary teachers find physics teaching to be particularly prob-lematic. By exposing preservice teachers to a case built around this content area, itwas hoped that student teacher anxiety would lessen and confidence would improve.The unit depicted in the case spanned a total of 2 months of in-class time. The videofootage of classroom activities captured lessons at the beginning, middle, and endof the unit. Using principles of hydraulics, the main task assigned to students was to

18 YOON ET AL.

design and construct a robotic arm that could move an object from point A to pointB with at least two possible directional moves built into the mechanism. Studentshad access to syringes, plastic tubing, wood, glue guns and a number of machinestypically found in a design and technology classroom, such as a band-saw and adrill press. Metacognitive reflections and pedagogical beliefs of the teacher wereelicited through pre- and postunit interviews. The raw video footage was vettedby the team of researchers (the authors) and the following key pedagogical areasof interest were selected for exposition in the video case: structuring learning topromote student autonomy, creating teacher-student rapport, employing exemplaryclassroom management techniques, demonstrating the importance of safety within atechnology environment, using multiple methods of assessment, and crafting a bal-anced science and technology curriculum. These pedagogical areas of interest werethen organized into the following four educational themes: (a) Contextualization,(b) Learning Networks, (c) Design Challenges, and (d) Science and TechnologyRelationships. The video case was presented to preservice students in a 30-minuteMicrosoft PowerPoint slideshow format. Table 1 shows a full description of thethemes, instructions, and questions presented in the slideshow. The case methoditself spanned a total of 3 h.

Table 1

Description of Themes, Instructions, and Questions Presented in the Case and Case MethodSlideshow

Theme Description Instructions

Contextualization Learn how Mr. Hamilton

arranges the unit to ensure

students are able to develop a

robotic arm that, while it

must move an object from

one place to another, can do

so in ways he cannot

precisely predict. That is, the

design each group of students

develops depends on many

interacting factors and the

context relating to the

particular situations in which

they work.

Read the following questions

and then view the video

footage:

(1) Describe some of the

assessment practices Mr.

Hamilton has in place.

(2) How do his assessment

practices benefit students?

The teacher uses a number of

strategies to foster student

autonomy. We believe that

this is important to student

learning.

(3) How would you define

student autonomy?

(4) Identify some of the

strategies he uses and explain

why student autonomy is

important.

(Continued on next page)


Table 1

(Continued )


Learning networks Any social learning system, like

a school, may have several

“communities of practice”

(CP) within it. Subsets of

communities could include

working groups of students.

In this community, students

cooperate with each other,

learn from the teacher, and

learn from those who have

worked before with robots.

Students in the this class

demonstrate signs of being a

learning community, that is,

through shared activities,

they build up a repertoire of

skills and ways of

communicating and working

together.

(1) How did Mr. Hamilton

attempt to ensure safety in

the classroom?

As a classroom teacher,

you will inevitably encounter

conflicts and dilemmas. In

this clip, there are several

issues that Mr. Hamilton

deals with effectively.

(2) Identify two issues in this

clip.

(3) How did Mr. Hamilton

mediate the issue with his

students?

(4) What are some alternative

strategies that you might use?

We would like you to pay

particular attention to how

Mr. Hamilton ends his class.

(5) Describe any of the

strategies he uses to bring

closure to the lesson.

Design challenges In completing their design and

building project, Mr.

Hamilton and students may

have to deal with several

limitations on challenges on

the products that result from

their collaborative problem

solving.

Being creative in engineering

design is not always easy.

There are many challenges to

how a group of people can be.

(1) What might some of the

limits be in having students

design and construct a

technological innovation?

How would you overcome of

the limits (both physical and

conceptual)?

(Continued on next page)

20 YOON ET AL.

Table 1

(Continued )


Mr. Hamilton is an experienced

and confident teacher who

has exemplary control of his

class.However, it appears that

he is not perceived by his

students as an authoritarian

figure. What we see here is

an example of the interplay

between structure and

freedom, which can be a

challenge for teachers to

effect.

(2) What is your thinking about

the relationship between

structure and freedom?

(3) How does Mr. Hamilton

create an environment in

which freedom and structure

coexist?

Science

and technology

relationships

Science and technology interact

with one another in various

ways. Watch how Mr.

Hamilton structures his class

to reflect different science

and technology interactions.

The relationship between

technology and science can

be viewed in several different

ways: (a) science is

necessary for technology, (b)

technology is necessary for

science, (c) technology and

science are independent, and

(d) science and technology

are codependent.

(1) To what extent are each of

the four relationships

represented in the case?

(2) Do you agree with Mr.

Hamilton’s philosophy about

the relationship between and

science and technology?

How would you describe your

position?

Methodology and Participants

Twelve preservice elementary teachers in the 1st year of a 2-year Master’s-levelteacher certification program at the University of Toronto participated in the study.


This all-female class spanned a range of ages, cultural backgrounds, and experiences.The majority of students were liberal arts majors in their undergraduate studiesand had little-to-no postundergraduate experience in science, as either students orteachers. The exceptions were 3 students who had degrees in environmental scienceand 1 who had a minor in psychology. All students were undergoing certificationat the primary (grades K–3), junior (grades 4–6), or intermediate (grades 7–10)levels. The study occurred as part of their regularly scheduled elementary sciencecurriculum and methods course. It was a nongraded course in which the instructorwas also one of the researchers on the project. The 12 participants in this conveniencesample constituted an entire class. The case method occurred in two parts. The firstpart consisted of a series of activities that occurred during their 3-hour class. Duringthis time, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire, designed by theresearch team, to elicit information about preservice teachers’ perceived level ofcontent knowledge and their beliefs about science and technology teaching. Thistook place prior to the viewing of the case. They were then required to respond toa set of questions while viewing the case that focused on the previously definedpedagogical areas of interest and educational themes. Figure 1 gives a sampleslide from the PowerPoint presentation in which case themes and case methodactivities were embedded. The class concluded with small-group reflections. In thesecond part of the case method, students participated in an online discussion boarddesigned to support further investigation and reflection after class time. In addition,science lessons taught by 2 of the study participants were observed during their firstpractice-teaching round. A follow-up interview was conducted with 2 participantsduring their first practice-teaching round to glean some preliminary insight into thepotential influences that cases and case methods have on actual classroom practice.

Data Collection and Analysis

Study questions and designated data-collection techniques were constructedto maintain as naturalistic (Lincoln & Guba, 2000) a methodology as possible.

Theme #1: Contextualization

Read the following questions and then view the video footage relating to Contextualization: Theme #1:

(A) Describe some of the assessment practices Mr. Hamilton has in place.

(B) How do his assessment practices benefit students?

The teacher uses a number of strategies to foster student autonomy; we believe this is important to student learning:

(A) How would you define student autonomy?

(B) Identify some of the strategies he uses and explain why student autonomy is important.

Figure 1. Sample slide on the theme of Contextualization from the slideshow with whichparticipants in the study worked.

22 YOON ET AL.

Therefore, the patterns surrounding the use of the case and case method were ex-pected to emerge from the data. For triangulation, multiple data-collection tech-niques were used. Sources for analysis included the following:

1. A precase questionnaire completed by all participants: The questionnaire beganwith a brief outline of the video case teaching scenario and then posited ques-tions aimed at ascertaining comfort levels in terms of content knowledge andpedagogical content knowledge. The following questions were used for analysis:

� Having gone through the introduction and the four themes we briefly identified,what concerns and reactions do you have in thinking about teaching this unit?

� How comfortable do you feel about teaching science and technology? Explain.� If you were designing a unit in fluids, what would you use as guiding principles

to construct the unit? Explain.

2. Case method activity sheets: In dyads, participants read a short description ofeach video clip, watched the video clip, discussed reactions and answers to casequestions, and recorded their thoughts on an activity sheet. Two inquiry questionsfrom the activities were used for analysis:

� What are the three most important things you learned from this case?� Having viewed the entire case, what are some of the ideas that have emerged

about effective student learning and effective teaching?

3. Audiotaped discussions of two pairs of participants as they worked through thecase method activity sheets: As audiotaped discussion were not considered tobe one of the main data sources, only two pairs were selected to be recorded.Each pair was selected based on their perceived self-efficacy in teaching science(i.e., one pair with relatively low self-efficacy and one pair with relatively highself-efficacy).

4. Postcase, small-group reflections: In groups of four, participants discussed andrecorded answers to the following questions:

� What were some things you found interesting in the case?� How do you feel this activity (using cases and case methods) differs from

other forms of teaching and learning methods you have encountered in yourpreservice program?

5. Audiotaped, postlesson interviews of two participants in the field: Selection ofparticipants to observe was based on degree of comfort and experience levelswith respect to teaching science and their willingness to participate.

6. Discussion-board contributions: Participants collectively contributed ideas to anonline discussion board after completing the case activity.

7. Researcher field notes.

All audiotaped and videotaped activities were transcribed. Codes, categories,and themes for a content analysis of the data were negotiated among the membersof the case methods team (Strauss & Corbin, 1998); and a categorization scheme


was constructed for all written materials. Each preservice teacher was assigned apseudonym for reporting purposes.

Findings and Discussion

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy

To understand the interactions and effects of the case and case method, it wasimportant to ascertain participant feelings and confidence levels related to scienceteaching prior to the lesson. Based on responses in the precase questionnaire to thequestion, “How comfortable do you feel about teaching science and technology?”one half of the participants recorded feelings of low self-efficacy and low self-confidence stemming from a perceived lack of content knowledge. The followingexamples illustrate the general orientation in this category:

I think teaching these subjects will require a lot of reading/preparatorywork on my part (before I’ll feel ready to teach these subjects). I feel readyto teach some aspects of science and technology; however, in compari-son to the other subjects, I feel least comfortable with teaching science.(Heather)

Right now, I don’t feel comfortable about teaching science and technologybecause I feel poorly equipped. I was interested in science during myschool life; however, I’ve forgotten many of the details about it. . . . onceI get accustomed to seeing and learning about science again, then I’llbecome more confident in my ability to teach it. (Lisa)

Not very comfortable. This goes back to my experiences as a sciencestudent, where I started to believe that I was not really good at science. Iwas able to memorize and reproduce concepts, but I knew deep down thatI did not really know them (i.e., they were never internalized) and I couldnot apply them. (Kim)

Five of the 12 participants recorded mixed responses where the intonationwas somewhat positive toward certain grade levels or subjects. They were, however,cognizant of the limitations or barriers to their overall confidence in teaching science.Again, all of their concerns were related to a lack of content knowledge.

I feel comfortable to teach science/tech at the primary grade levels becauseI am familiar with the concepts to be taught. However, I do not feel thatI have a “good grasp” on the sci/tech concepts outlined for the juniorgrades and would, therefore, feel unprepared and uncomfortable teachingin this subject area at the junior level. (Sherry)

24 YOON ET AL.

I would feel quite comfortable teaching science at the elementary level aslong as I have adequate preparation and resources. I have to admit thatI don’t have a strong philosophy; therefore, I would probably rely on thetextbook for guidance. (Annie)

I feel fairly comfortable because I am familiar with much of the content. Iam less confident in such content areas as the more physics-focused onesbecause I have less background. (Lori)

Only 1 of the 12 participants recorded a positive response. This student hadextensive knowledge of science concepts and experience in science-related fields ofstudy. Her response was as follows:

I have a very positive attitude toward science based on an enjoyableexperience as a field scientist and museum science teacher. I look forwardto learning many strategies for teaching science and technology although,at present, I am at an early stage in my teaching experience. (Penny)

Responses to the question concerning pedagogical content knowledge: “If youwere designing a unit in fluids, what would you use as guiding principles to constructthe unit?” elicited similar feelings of uncertainty. Four of the 12 participants wrotethat they were unsure or didn’t have any ideas. Five responses indicated that theywould use either hands-on experimentation or scientific methods of inquiry, such asobservation and measurement, or the textbook or curriculum expectations to obtainguiding principles. Only 3 participants provided responses that displayed an under-standing of constructivist forms of instruction that had been previously investigatedin other preservice courses (e.g., connecting activities to prior knowledge, employ-ing real-world examples, and using discursive modes of inquiry). Collectively, thesedata suggest that this group of elementary preservice teachers demonstrated—priorto interaction with the case—a low sense of self-efficacy based largely on a weakunderstanding of both subject matter content and pedagogical content knowledgeprior to viewing the case. Having established a baseline understanding of participantself-efficacy, subsequent analysis focused on investigating whether or not the caseand case method influenced their beliefs and, if so, in what ways?

Influences of the Case and Case Method on Improving Self-Efficacy

In general, with respect to the goals outlined for the study, the data showed thatthe case and case method provided several enabling mechanisms for participantsto gain confidence in their understanding of content knowledge and pedagogicalcontent knowledge, which, in turn, is thought to have positively influenced self-efficacy in two ways. First, it was found that by interacting with the case, studentsbegan to negotiate and apply previously learned teaching principles to the teachingscenario presented in the case. In this way, the case acted in what Wenger (1998)described as a “boundary object” (p. 105) for brokering understanding between


theory and practice and between students’ personal experiences and the scienceteaching culture. Second, an important outcome emerged in how the case and casemethod provided opportunities for multiple points of entry for students with varyingdegrees of knowledge. This kind of scaffolding is considered an important tool forinitiating and advancing novices in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991).Each of these ideas is discussed in greater detail in the following section.

Negotiation and Alignment of Previous Experience: The Case and CaseMethod as Boundary Object for Brokering Understanding

One area in which the cased method appeared to foster positive links is bothin how participants used the case to apply theoretical constructs in real-world class-room contexts and in how the case method allowed students to discuss and aligntheir personal experiences with the science teaching community. Wenger (1998)stated that communities can be thought of as “shared histories of learning” (p.86), where emerging forms of mutual engagement, aligning understanding, and de-veloping shared repertoires and discourses contribute over time to the structuralformation of boundaries. These boundaries are not socially isolated entities, but areinterconnected and constantly informed by myriad outer relations. To facilitate com-munication between boundaries and the outside world, Wenger discussed two typesof connections (p. 105): boundary objects (i.e., forms of reification around whichcommunities of practice organize relationships) and brokering (i.e., coordination,translational, and aligning effects provided by people between practices). Throughparticipation in the case activity and engagement with each other, we suggest thatstudents were crossing boundaries by applying terminology and pedagogical activ-ities learned in previous workshops, cross-referencing theoretical constructs fromclass readings, and relating personal experiences to the case scenario. The case itselfrepresented an important boundary object around which meaning was constructedand shared, while the case method provided the necessary brokering mechanism.

Evidence to support these claims appeared to be consistent across several datasources. Prior to the study, for example, the group had participated in intense work-shops focused on the pedagogical themes of cooperative learning, multiple intel-ligences, portfolio assessment, and child-centered instruction. However, much oftheir explorations happened through such secondhand sources as theoretical materi-als, classroom anecdotes, and heuristics that had not been practiced as yet. In morethan half of the responses on the case activity sheets to the questions: “What arethe three most important things you learned from this case?” and “Having viewedthe entire case, what are some of the ideas that have emerged about effective stu-dent learning and effective teaching?” participants made references to terminologyand pedagogical principles explored in those workshops. The responses from threeparticipants are presented here:

� It was a very student-centered approach, an amalgamation of science and tech-nology.

26 YOON ET AL.

� Some very good classroom management strategies for group work (i.e., portfolio,license).

� He has a whole different view with regard to science and technology, not justscience. [It is] very engaging for students.

� Effective teaching through cooperative learning strategies.� Gives tasks with outline and lets them do it. Learning is self-guided in this sense.� Taps into multiple intelligences; all students have a chance to experience lead-

ership and feel valued within the group. (Sarah)� The three most important things I learned [is that] kids are capable(!), set high

standards, and have high expectations for all students.� Teamwork teaches students about many things . . . accepting ideas of others,

discussing and communicating, cooperation, etc.� Learning needs to be student centered to increase motivation, interest, and a

memorable experience.� Effective teaching involves giving some responsibility to your students, not

controlling the learning.� Students must have choice over own learning. Effective student learning can

occur without being “told” about how things “should” be by teachers.� Children need to feel that they are capable of accomplishing tasks that at first

may seem extremely difficult. They need to believe that they can be successfulwhen implementing their own ideas, not simply regurgitating the ideas of theirteacher. (Sherry)

� Three most important things: student-centered approach, student autonomy, andlearning; strategies re: class management in group work; and reinforces sciencewith technology in an interdisciplinary approach.

� Effective teaching: teacher as a facilitator for learning “guide by side,” ratherthan “sage on stage”; effective routines for safety; and effective cooperativelearning strategies continuity between one grade and another.

� Empowerment and ownership gives learners a task, gives them an outline of howto accomplish it, then lets them do the learning, effectively taps the power of thegroup as more intelligent collectively than the individuals involved.

� Reinforces Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences through putting it into prac-tice. (Penny)

It is important to note that such terms as cooperative learning and multi-ple intelligences were not explicitly used in any of the case video footage orcase activity sheets. However, clearly these participants were actively connect-ing previous experiences to negotiate and anchor their understanding of conceptsaddressed in the case—the boundary object. Here, rather than a person provid-ing the brokering mechanism, the case method itself became the broker. Thesefindings were further corroborated in the transcripts of paired case activity dis-cussions. For example, after having viewed the entire case, the following inter-change occurred between one of the pairs in which cooperative learning wasdiscussed:


Lisa: But the main objective is . . .

Kerry: Teamwork.Lisa: Yeah, to encourage teamwork. They have to actively solve problemstogether.Kerry: Every member has their own role. Like designer and builder . . .

Lisa: [It’s like] cooperative learning.

Evidence from the discussion-board contributions also showed that participantswere actively making links between theoretical constructs and the classroom eventspresented in the case. In the preservice science classes leading up to the case study,the group was introduced to Tobin’s (1997) article, “The Teaching and Learning ofElementary Science,” and Brickhouse’s (1990) article, “Teachers’ Beliefs About theNature of Science and Their Relationship to Classroom Practice.” What appearedto emerge was a more coherent and sophisticated understanding of the teachinglandscape. The following notes illustrate this assertion:

With today’s class still fresh in my mind, I revisited Tobin’s article andfound many connections between the coparticipatory approach advocatedby Tobin and Mr. Hamilton’s robotics unit. One aspect of Tobin’s articlethat I particularly enjoyed was his concept of “science as a form of dis-course,” a forum of discussion through which ideas are formulated, testedthrough peer review, and either accepted as worthy or not. This is cer-tainly true at the level of research—witness the defense of the thesis atthe graduate level. Can teachers recreate this level of involvement withthe ideas of science at the elementary school level? I suggest that theycan, through a student-centered, inquiry-based approach as exemplifiedby the Hamilton unit. It was exciting to observe the grade seven learnersinvolved in the process of putting together their robots as a team, to hearthem arguing with one another through the design stage, and presentingtheir results with the vocabulary and enthusiasm of true scientists. Thisis school as it was meant to be! Tobin points out that the social dimen-sion of learning is essential for children to construct their understandingof science; and, indeed, Driver, Squires, Rushworth, and Wood-Robinsonassert that science ideas, constructed and transmitted through the cultureand social institutions of science, will not be discovered by individuallearners . . . learning science involves being initiated into the culture ofscience. (Penny)

Here the student offered a clearly developed and articulated understanding ofthe nature of scientific inquiry. The case activity enabled her to make direct linksbetween what she observed in the case and her previous theoretical learning (i.e., abrokering effect). Further, as this note was publicly displayed on a communal dis-cussion board, her insights also held value in influencing other students’ ideas aboutthe nature of science and its relationship to teaching and learning. The followingnote illustrates that point:

28 YOON ET AL.

Many of Jamie’s [another student in the class] comments echoed thingsthat I had been considering. Like her, I thought about the relationshipbetween science and technology, and I’ve come to consider them code-pendent. I think of it in a circular relationship where an idea in scienceleads to a technological innovation, which then leads to another idea andso on. Yet, at the same time, I still feel nervous when I think that I amgoing to be teaching science and technology.

I think my fear stems from something we have been discussing relatedto the Brickhouse article and today in class—the importance we placeon our background content knowledge. I think we need to find a way tobecome comfortable with teaching science. I have concerns about mycontent knowledge—and I studied science in university—so I can imaginehow those of you who have not studied science since high school feel. Per-haps what we need to focus on is the larger objectives from science class,rather than the content-based objectives. Consider how much the studentslearned in the case study. The teacher very consciously gave content alower priority than the cooperative skills and the sense of student owner-ship and empowerment gained from the project. The students really camealive in that class, and their enthusiasm for science was so encouraging.As we made our way through the case study, I was considering my abilityto implement such a program in my future classrooms. At first my lack ofknowledge on robotics caused anxiety, but the bigger objectives have tobe given priority because, in this case, the students learned the contentseemingly automatically as they worked on their robots. More important,they seemed to really internalize the concepts and enjoyed themselves.

After reading the Tobin article, I felt a bit overwhelmed at the chal-lenges we have before us. Not only are we attempting to teach studentsbased on the curriculum expectations, but we must be conscious of stu-dents’ individual needs. Tobin pointed to a lack of science education inelementary schools, and this is a big issue, considering the fact that sci-ence is applicable to everyday life because it has such a firm basis inproblem solving. I think we need to be aware of our own ideas aboutscience, as the Brickhouse article discussed, and somehow gain comfortwith our abilities to teach so that students leave our classrooms with asmuch enthusiasm as the boys left the classroom in the case study. To me,their enthusiasm was one of the best outcomes of the unit. (Lori)

This participant clearly admitted to having concerns about her lack of contentknowledge. While there was no evidence to suggest that the case itself strengthenedher understanding of concepts involved in the study of robotics and fluids (a pointthat is discussed further in the last section of the paper), she reflected on the natureof her anxiety and concluded that other factors, such as student enthusiasm andmotivation, are also important variables of learning to consider. In this way, the case


provided opportunities to negotiate personal efficacy beliefs in relation to real-worldclassroom events.

In their postcase, small-group reflections, participants also identified one of thebenefits of the case method approach as providing opportunities to make connectionsbetween theory and practice:

[This method makes] good use of visualization. Real life experiences showus so much about the dynamics of a classroom, along with ways of inte-grating concepts and presenting ideas. It’s a good way to back up text andtheory. (Jamie, Kerry, and Kim)

It is student centered, at our pace, and feels like we’re in the classroom.The onus is on us to make connections. The enhanced applicability of itis different and very new. (Anne, Sarah, Lisa and Lori)

By implementing the case method, it was suggested that important scaffoldswere structured to initiate a process that allowed students to acquire an understand-ing of the pedagogical skills necessary for effective teaching and learning. Throughparticipation in discussions about authentic classroom scenarios, they were exposedto the language, the decision-making process, and the application of pedagogicalprinciples during daily classroom practice. It is also reasonable to suggest that thecase and case method represented an important conduit (i.e., boundary object forbrokering between learning about and doing effective science teaching), althoughparticipants were not actually participating in the science teaching community. Inthis way, the case method indeed represented a source for potentially changingself-efficacy beliefs through vicariously experiencing (Bandura, 1986) classroompractice. Moreover, as one student remarked in an informal comment between ac-tivities, “So this is what constructivism looks like? I think I can really do this as ateacher,” there appeared to be fundamental value in this kind of strategy in teachereducation for improving self-efficacy beliefs.

Scaffolding for Multiple Points of Entry

Another interesting outcome surfaced in the analysis of the audiotaped paireddiscussions. Whereas many traditional teaching strategies assume the same levelof initial knowledge across learners, the manner in which the case method wasscaffolded appeared to provide multiple points of entry for preservice teachers withdiffering knowledge and ability to participate in the discourse. Thus, there appearedto be potential value for cases to serve as a mechanism to bring novice teacherscloser to the center of the science teaching community from whatever positionthey initially occupied. This idea is an instantiation of the process of legitimateperipheral participation (LPP), first introduced by Lave and Wenger (1991), whoargued for a theory of situated cognition that requires learning to occur in authenticenvironments, doing authentic tasks, where social interactions, the culture, and thecontext are crucial components. They stated that, through LPP, as beginners become

30 YOON ET AL.

involved in communities of practice, they move from the periphery toward the center,becoming more active and assuming the role of expert. Most important (for ourstudy), as learners gain self-confidence and control, they become more autonomousand attain greater self-efficacy within their environment.

Several of the data sources in the study presented evidence to suggest thatthe case and case method offered an opportunity for LPP to occur. Specifically,students were able to engage in discussions about authentic classroom experiencesand witness firsthand events as they occurred in daily practice. For those studentswho indicated low self-efficacy and low self-confidence initially, this opportunityserved to improve self-confidence even in the short time that they had been involvedin the study. For example, the following question was posed to students prior toviewing classroom footage: “Having gone through the introduction and the fourthemes we briefly identified, what concerns and reactions do you have in thinkingabout teaching this unit?” A student who felt that she would have difficulties teachingelementary science gave this tenuous response:

I’m going to have to do a lot of background research about robotics. I dounderstand [some of the terms], but I would not be confident at all withwinging it. I would have to definitely have a good solid background andtry to predict what the students’ questions would be . . . or there’s nothingwrong with saying, “I’m not sure. I’m going to have to check back withyou.” But you’d want to have some idea of what’s going on. I can see rightaway that this could be overwhelming. It’s the “where to start” for me. Icould supervise what they’re doing and maybe observe, but I don’t know ifI’d have any input and/or probably answer any difficulties. So the specificconcerns I have is the lack of knowledge about this content. Definitelyinteresting, I’d be motivated to learn more about it. I think it’s a reallygood experience and gives them a lot of self-confidence, self-esteem, andpride to look back and see that they’ve made something; so I’d want to dothe best I could to prepare myself. (Lisa)

As discussions with her partner continued, the transcripts suggested that herconfidence level increasingly grew as she began to see relationships between herown experiences and what she observed in the case. Her own philosophy aboutteaching and learning in science began to crystallize. As she remarked at a latertime:

It was a science and technology room, it’s becoming both, trying to createspaces. My thinking . . . the main goal for effective practice is to strike abalance, and it’s very hard to do. And in this case, it does look like he’s inthe background. . . . Students are facilitating their own learning. . . . He’sthere observing, answering questions and controlling class flow, but he’sdoing it more as a convener than as a teacher. His experience has allowedhim to understand this classroom dynamic. (Lisa)


This crystallization effect was also noted in the postcase exchange on thediscussion board. One student posted this note:

During today’s class when we viewed a robotics and fluid lesson on theInternet, I began to think about what the teacher mentioned about hislesson. The point that really stuck with me was when he discussed hisfeelings around the issue of the relationship of science and technology. Upuntil this time in my life, I don’t think that I had ever really sat down to thinkabout how these two subjects are really connected. Throughout publicschool, science was taught mainly from the text, and students learnedabout technology during our “shop” classes (these were the classes wherewe used saws, lathes, and built things). Anyway, until this point, I hadalways thought of them as separate identities; however, after this classtoday, seeing how much technology the students in his class used andincorporated into their science, I have really thought and reflected onthis idea. I have now changed my initial thoughts of the two subjects asdistinctly separate and now feel that one really depends on the other, thatboth science and technology are codependent. I feel that in most ways,science cannot exist without technology, and vice versa. As well, throughlearning, I feel that children need to build on their past knowledge withboth science and technology to pursue either any farther.

After this reflecting, I began thinking that, really, technology can influenceall subject areas in the same way. . . . For myself, I am going to TRY toincorporate it into all aspects of the curriculum as I feel that childrenthese days are of the technology era. Just something to think about . . . Iknow I am. (Jamie)

Another interesting, emergent characteristic of the discussion-board col-laborations was the ability for more knowledgeable students to facilitate lessknowledgeable students in the construction of teaching epistemologies as a resultof interaction with the case:

Lori helped me see the “big picture” by stating that perhaps we shouldnot focus as directly on content. Rather, we should look at the biggerobjectives. By creating learning situations, such as the Hamilton uniton robotics and fluids, students seem to master the content very well,while much focus is directed toward the concepts of experimentation andcooperation.

I am obviously not as knowledgeable about science as I am about music,but if I were able to present science in a way that focuses on havingstudents use prior knowledge to form a hypothesis/predict a result andthen experiment, I think I could enjoy teaching science at a junior level.I think that my own curiosity about the world around us is what needs to

32 YOON ET AL.

remain fresh. If I can no longer ask engaging questions, how can I piquemy students’ curiosity? (Elizabeth)

In this excerpt, Elizabeth reflected on Lori’s previous note in which she admittedto feelings of uncertainty with respect to content knowledge, even as a personwho took science in university. Although Elizabeth is a music major, with Lori’sprompting, she was able to suggest that “creating learning situations” that can capturethe interest of the students would be a manageable and prudent step in her ownteaching.

Summary and Conclusions

The results obtained in the precase questionnaire with respect to low self-efficacy and low self-confidence substantiated previous research on elementaryteacher attitudes toward teaching science as discussed in Czerniak and Haney (1998).Although, the participants were preservice elementary teachers, it is reasonable tobelieve that their feelings of inadequacy in the area of science content and peda-gogical content knowledge, if not sufficiently addressed, would continue in theirinservice teaching careers.

It is widely recognized that content knowledge and pedagogical content knowl-edge play important roles in the development of a science teacher’s self-efficacybeliefs (Mulholland & Wallace, 2001). This study focused on understanding theinfluences cases and case methods have on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Specifically, it was conjectured that cases demonstrating exemplarypractice could be used as a source for learning content and pedagogical skills, aswell as providing opportunities for negotiating and reconciling previous learningexperiences—through vicarious experience—that could potentially serve to raiseself-efficacy levels. We were also interested in understanding the processes involvedin bringing about these changes.

The study results showed a lack of evidence to suggest that content knowledgein the area of robotics and fluids improved as a result of interacting with the casein this one-off approach. Although several links were provided within the case forstudents to review basic concepts, few visited these Web sites due to time constraints.It is possible, however, that, given ample time and unlimited access, students coulduse the case as a valuable teaching resource when or if they might be required toteach this unit. This potential still remains to be examined.

With respect to improvements in pedagogical content knowledge, the resultsappear to be more promising. It is proposed that, through negotiation and alignmentof previous experiences and scaffolding for multiple points of entry in a communityof practice (Wenger, 1998), impacts were made on participant self-efficacy beliefs.While viewing the case and in their postcase reflections, there was ample evidencesuggesting that participants were striving to make links between previously acquiredtheoretical information and personal experience and the case scenario presented.Based on these observations, it is proposed that the case acted as a boundary objectbrokering between individual experiences and those found in the science teaching


community. Likewise, by scaffolding for multiple points of entry, the case methodallowed participants with differing levels of science experience to contribute tothe discourse surrounding the case. This served as an opportunity for preserviceteachers to engage in a process of legitimate peripheral participation. By bridgingthe gaps between (a) theory and practice and (b) novice and expert knowledge, caseshave the potential to provide the momentum for improving self-efficacy beliefs.However, these claims are made somewhat tenuously, recognizing that self-efficacyis a complex phenomenon and that the sample of participants was limited in numberand in type (i.e., 12 relatively mature students in a graduate preservice program).Follow-up studies with larger and more diverse populations are necessary to makesubstantive and generalizable claims. In addition, it is not known whether or notteachers actually apply what they learn from cases and case methods and, if it isapplied, how it is translated into practice. As Levin (1995) suggested, the ultimatequestion should be whether or not the use of case-based teaching has an impacton student learning. Thus, we recommend further studies to (a) determine if theapparent benefits persist over the long term and (b) measure actual student-learningoutcomes.

Finally, we offer a note to preservice instructors who are interested in using casestudies in their teacher education programs. Multimedia case studies offer uniqueadvantages over standard print-based case studies as tools for teacher preparation.The sense of presence that video affords is important to new teachers. As one ofthem remarked, “It feels like we’re in the classroom.” In a print-based case study,it can be difficult for readers to gauge the authenticity of a particular situation. Incontrast, video cases allow learners to observe firsthand the teacher’s instructionalmethods and the effect of those methods on students (e.g., “They seemed to reallyinternalize the concepts and they enjoyed themselves.” “It was exciting to observethe grade-seven learners involved in the process of putting together their robots asa team, to hear them arguing with each other through the design phase.”). In short,multimedia cases offer new teachers more immediate access to the community of thepractice of teaching. As such, they can be valuable instructional tools for preserviceinstructors, especially when the goal is to highlight exemplary teaching practicesthat teacher candidates may not encounter while practice teaching.

References

Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preserviceelementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Education,82, 491–509.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and function-ing. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.

34 YOON ET AL.

Barnett, C. (1998). Mathematics teaching cases as a catalyst for informed strategicinquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 81–93.

Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of profes-sional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective.Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 749–764.

Bencze, L., Hewitt, J., & Pedretti, E. (2001). Multimedia case methods in preservicescience education: Enabling an apprenticeship for praxis. Research in ScienceEducation, 31, 191–209.

Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their rela-tionship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53–62.

Clement, M., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachers’ professional development: Asolitary or collegial (ad)venture? Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 81–101.

Czerniak, C., & Haney, J. (1998). The effect of collaborative concept mapping onelementary preservice teachers’ anxiety, efficacy, and achievement in physicalscience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 303–320.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project:Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ewald, J. (1997). Multimedia-based case studies in education: Design, develop-ment and evaluation of multimedia-based case studies. Journal of EducationMultimedia and Hypermedia, 6(1), 23–46.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts ofscience: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 19(1), 93–105.

Harrington, H. L. (1995). Fostering reasoned decisions: Case-based pedagogy andthe professional development of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education,11, 203–214.

Herbert, J. M. (1999). An online learning community. The American School BoardJournal, 186(3), 39–41.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participa-tion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discus-sion and experience in teachers’ thinking about cases. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 11(1), 63–79.

Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transformingconceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 591–596.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,and emerging confluences: In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbookof qualitative research (pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lloyd, J. K., Smith, R. G., Fay, C., Khang, N., Wah, L., & Sai, C. (1998). Subjectknowledge for science teaching at primary level: A comparison of preserviceteachers in England and Singapore. International Journal of Science Education,20, 521–532.


Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1998). New technolo-gies for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education,14(1), 33–52.

Merseth, K. (1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In J. Sikula(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 722–744). New York:Macmillan.

Ministry of Education and Training. (1998). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 1–8:Science and technology. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary scienceteaching: Enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243–261.

Polman, J., & Pea, R. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool forguiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223–238.

Rosebery, A., & Puttick, G. (1998). Teacher professional development as situatedsense-making: A case study in science education. Science Education, 82, 649–677.

Schunk, D. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psycholo-gist, 26, 207–231.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Edu-cational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniquesand procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Tobin, K. (1997). The teaching and learning of elementary science. In G. Phye (Ed.),Handbook of academic learning: construction of knowledge (pp. 369–403). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (1992). Science teaching and teachers’ knowledge:Prospects for reform of elementary classrooms. Science Education, 76, 507–521.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Wood, E., & Bennett, N. (2000). Changing theories, changing practice: Exploringearly childhood teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Educa-tion, 16, 635–647.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefsabout managing students. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137–148.

Documents

Exploring the Use of Cases and Case Methods in Influencing Elementary Preservice Science Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs