Factors Affecting Science Teaching Efficacy of Preservice Elementary Teachers

177Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(3): 177-192, 2003©2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands

Factors Affecting Science Teaching Efficacy of PreserviceElementary Teachers

Pamela CantrellEducational Specialties, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 89557-0214, U.S.A.

Suzanne YoungAlan MooreEducational Leadership, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, U.S.A.

Preservice elementary teachers entering the specialized coursework designedto prepare them for science teaching responsibilities have a broad range of efficacybeliefs about their success as future science teachers. As they progress throughscience methods and practicum courses, and on to complete their student teaching,their efficacy beliefs may change. Knowing the variables that affect the developmentof positive efficacy beliefs of preservice teachers and how they change over timemay be useful in planning for coursework and practicum experiences that enhanceteaching efficacy throughout the teacher preparatory years.

Teacher efficacy has emerged as an important construct in teacher educationover the past 25 years. Teacher efficacy is grounded in Bandura’s social cognitivetheory (1977; 1986; 1997), which roots human agency in a sense of self-efficacy.According to Bandura, self-efficacy beliefs motivate people toward specific actionsin all aspects of their lives, and therefore have predictive value. Bandura identifiedtwo dimensions of self-efficacy: personal self-efficacy and outcome expectancy.Personal self-efficacy is the “belief in one’s capabilities to organize and executethe courses of action required to produce given attainments, whereas outcomeexpectancy is a judgment of the likely consequence such performances will produce”(Bandura, 1997, p. 3).

Personal self-efficacy is a future-oriented belief about the level of competencea person expects to display in a given situation. When applied to teaching, thisself-efficacy factor is generally known as Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE). Teacherswith a high level of PTE have confidence that they have adequate training orexperience to develop strategies for overcoming obstacles to student learning.Such teachers will expend great effort to reach goals, will persist longer in the faceof adversity, and rebound from temporary setbacks to a greater degree than teacherswith low PTE (Bandura, 1997).

Bandura’s second factor, outcome expectancy, is the notion that an intentionto undertake some action is based on the expected success of that action. Whenapplied to teaching, this factor is most often called General Teaching Efficacy(GTE), and it extends beyond an individual teacher’s view of his or her owncapabilities to a view of teachers in general. Teachers with low GTE may believethat a teacher really cannot do much about a student’s motivation and performancebecause of the influence of home environment. When both PTE and GTE are applied

178

to teaching, we might predict that “…teachers who believe student learning can beinfluenced by effective teaching (GTE) and who also have confidence in their ownteaching abilities (PTE) should persist longer, provide a greater academic focus inthe classroom, and exhibit different types of feedback than teachers who havelower expectations concerning their ability to influence student learning” (Gibson& Dembo, 1984, p. 570).

Bandura (1981; 1997) defined self-efficacy as a situation-specific constructand states that science teaching efficacy “is of particular concern, given theincreasing importance of scientific literacy and competency in the technologicaltransformations occurring in society” (1997, p. 242). When applied to elementaryscience teaching, this theory may help explain elementary teachers’ thought patterns,affective reactions, and behaviors regarding science teaching (Enochs & Riggs,1990). Elementary teachers often teach many subjects but may not be equallyeffective in teaching all of them. Thus, a specific measure of science teachingefficacy beliefs may predict future science teaching success of preservice teachersand the degree to which they will positively influence student achievement inscience in their classrooms.

Research on teacher efficacy continues to examine and clarify the correlatesand factors related to the development of teaching efficacy in preservice teachers,but few studies have focused on the interplay of these factors over time. The purposeof this study was to examine the efficacy beliefs of a sample of elementary preserviceteachers at three stages of their program starting with the introductory methodsseminar courses, followed by the advanced methods course, and finally, at the endof their student teaching, and then to explore the relationships between the levelsof efficacy beliefs and various factors such as gender, prior science experiences,and science teaching time. Specifically, we sought answers to the followingquestions:

1. What are the specific variables related to science teaching efficacy at eachstage of the teacher education coursework?

2. Do efficacy beliefs increase significantly over time following coursework?

Teacher Efficacy

During the past twenty-five years, numerous researchers have studied anddescribed teacher efficacy (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Bandura, 1997; Guskey &Passaro, 1994; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Saklofske,Michayluk, & Randhawa, 1988; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998) andinstruments for its measure have been designed and refined (Enochs & Riggs,1990; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000; Guskey, 1987; Hoy &Woolfolk, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Teacher efficacyhas been linked to teacher effectiveness and appears to influence students in theirachievement, attitude and affective growth (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988;Ashton & Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992; Tschannen-Moranet al., 1998; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990).

The work of several researchers supports the existence of two relatively

PAMELA CANTRELL, ET AL.

179

independent factors of teacher efficacy that relate to Bandura’s two dimensions ofself- efficacy (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Enochs & Riggs, 1990; Gibson & Dembo,1984; Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). According to Ashton andWebb (1986), the two factors of personal teaching efficacy and outcome expectancycan operate independently. Some teachers believe, for example, that teaching canhave a powerful effect on student learning but that they lack the personal ability toimpact their own students. Conversely, some teachers may believe that teachers ingeneral have little influence on students but consider themselves an exception tothis rule.

Sources of Teacher Efficacy

Bandura (1986; 1997) postulated four sources of self-efficacy that maycontribute to teacher efficacy: mastery experiences, physiological and emotionalarousal, vicarious experience, and social persuasion. Mastery experiences are themost powerful source of efficacy information according to Tschannen-Moran et al.(1998). The perception that a performance has been successful can raise efficacybeliefs and provide the source for the belief that future performances in a similarvein will also be successful. The level of physiological and emotional arousal thata teacher experiences with a successful performance can also enhance efficacybeliefs. Social persuasion can provide information about the nature of teaching,give encouragement and strategies for overcoming obstacles, and provide specificfeedback on a teacher’s performance. Bandura (1997) suggests that the socialframing of verbal persuasion is a critical factor that can influence efficacy. Evaluationthat highlights personal capabilities may raise efficacy beliefs, whereas evaluationthat focuses on shortcomings brings deficiencies into the spotlight and efficacybeliefs may be deflated.

The Measurement of Teacher Efficacy

Efforts to measure teacher efficacy have become more systematic over the pasttwo decades, and several reliable efficacy scales have been developed based onspecific theoretical models, and in some cases, in specific disciplines (Enochs &Riggs, 1990; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Goddard et al., 2000; Guskey, 1981, 1987;Rose & Medway, 1981). Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed a scale to measurethe two factors of teacher efficacy. Their Teacher Efficacy Scale asked respondentsto rate 30 items on a six-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Agree to StronglyDisagree. Factor analysis yielded two factors, which the authors identified aspersonal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy. The presence of these twofactors using variations of the Gibson and Dembo instrument has been confirmedby other researchers (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993; Woolfolk &Hoy, 1990). Additionally, Enochs and Riggs (1990) modified the Gibson Demboinstrument, creating the Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (STEBI)Form A for inservice teachers and Form B for preservice teachers (Enochs & Riggs,1990), and again confirmed the two factors.

FACTORS AFFECTING SCIENCE TEACHING EFFICACY

180

Researchers using the STEBI have found Personal Science Teaching Efficacy(PSTE) to be positively related to early field experiences for preservice teachers,(Cannon & Scharmann, 1995) teaching performance (Riggs et al., 1994), andpreservice teachers’ success in and enjoyment of student-centered instructionalstrategies (Watters & Ginns, 2000). Riggs and Jesunathadas (1993) found thatteachers who exhibit high PSTE are more likely to spend the time needed tothoroughly develop science concepts in their classrooms. Few researchers havefound correlates to Science Teaching Outcome Efficacy (STOE) (Cannon &Scharmann, 1995).

Methods

This study was conducted at a university in the Rocky Mountain West wherepreparation to teach elementary science involves three successive levels ofcoursework: seminars, advanced methods, and student teaching. The study examinedpossible effects on efficacy beliefs at each level of coursework. Participantscompleted the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument From B and ademographic questionnaire that elicited background information about their currentcoursework and past science experiences. A total of 268 undergraduates in theelementary teacher preparation program participated in our study. Data were collectedat the end of three consecutive semesters in an attempt to include the same studentsacross all three semesters if possible. However, due to course scheduling, only 12 ofthe students appeared in all three data sets and are referred to hereafter as theembedded group. Data for154 seminar students, 84 methods students, and 54 studentteachers were collected across the three semesters with the embedded groupappearing in each data set.

Students at the seminar level must take nine semester-hours of science contentfrom the Science Department in the College of Arts and Sciences while concurrentlyenrolled in three one-semester hour seminar courses in the College of Education.These seminar courses are introductory methods courses specific to the threebranches of science: physical, life, and earth. All students enrolled in the seminarcourses during the first semester of our study agreed to participate and completedthe questionnaires on the last day of their course. This group is identified as theseminar group in the study.

Students at the methods level enroll in a six-semester-hour advanced methodscourse in science, mathematics and technology in the College of Education. Athree-week practicum experience is included in this course wherein students areexpected to prepare and teach a lesson based on content determined by theirpracticum lead teacher. While most of the students are able to teach a sciencelesson, some are required by their lead teachers to teach in another subject area. Allstudents enrolled in four sections of the advanced methods course during the secondsemester were surveyed for our study on the last day of class. These students areidentified as the methods group in the study.

Students at the third level are completing their semester of student teachingexperience. At the end of the third semester, 87 intern students were contacted by


181

letter and invited to participate in the study. After two mailings, completed formswere returned by 54 of the students for a 62% response rate. This group is identifiedas the student teacher group in the study.

Instrumentation

The Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument Form B (STEBI-B) developedby Enochs and Riggs (1990) for use with preservice elementary teachers was usedto assess science teaching efficacy in this study. The STEBI-B is based on theGibson and Dembo (1984) instrument and consists of 23 questions using a fivechoice Likert scale with responses ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.The STEBI-B measures the two subscales that reflect Bandura’s two factors. Theauthors refer to the two factors as Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE) andScience Teaching Outcome Efficacy (STOE). Enochs and Riggs reported aCronbach’s coefficient alpha of 0.92 for the PSTE scale, and 0.77 for the STOEscale using a sample of preservice elementary teachers. Factor analysis by Enochsand Riggs confirmed the two factors.

A factor analysis performed on our data also supported the two dimensions ofteacher efficacy as described in the literature, with PSTE loadings ranging from.322 to .727 and a Cronbach’s alpha of .87. Loadings for STOE were somewhatlower, ranging from .165 to .662 and a Cronbach’s alpha of .69. Hoy and Wolfolk(1993) recommend eliminating items on the Gibson and Dembo instrument that donot load on the outcome efficacy scale before data analysis. Because the STEBI isbased on the Gibson and Dembo instrument, we eliminated the three items on theSTOE scale for our data with loadings below the .320 cut point suggested byStevens (1996). The seven items remaining on the STOE scale produced aCronbach’s alpha of .73.

A demographic questionnaire designed to tap antecedent sources of efficacywas also used. Ramey-Gassert, Shroyer, and Staver (1996) describe antecedentfactors related to science teaching efficacy as science activities in and out of school,teacher preparation, and science teaching experiences. The formulation of thequestions for this instrument was also guided by the four sources of self-efficacypostulated by Bandura (1986, 1997). Students were asked to report gender, highschool and college GPAs and the number of high school and college science coursestaken. Students also indicated whether or not they had participated in extracurricularhigh school science activities such as science fairs, science clubs, or being mentoredby a scientist. Students enrolled in the methods course and student teachers wereasked to report the amount of time they spent teaching science per week inelementary school classrooms.

Results

The seminar group (n = 154), methods group (n = 84), and student teachergroup (n = 54) data sets were analyzed separately to determine the effects at eachlevel, then together to examine the effects over time. The embedded group (n = 12)


182

was included in each group analyses above, but was removed from the combineddata set and examined separately for effects over time using repeated measuresanalysis. Mean comparisons were made using one and two factor ANOVAs, withsignificant effects followed up by use of effect size as a measure of the magnitudeand practical difference between means. Effect sizes reported in this study are in ageneralized form as the ratio of the difference between the group means divided by theestimated standard deviation of the population (Cohen, 1988). All effect sizes werecalculated by using the weighted standard deviation as the estimated standard deviationof the population. According to Cohen (1988), effect sizes of approximately .20 areconsidered to be small, while .50 is moderate and .80 is large.

Seminar Group

Descriptive statistics for the seminar group are found in Table 1. In the seminargroup, PSTE means were significantly different across gender, and sciencebackground. However, no differences were found for STOE means for gender andscience background.

Table 1Descriptive Statistics for PSTE and STOE for Seminar Group

N PSTE Mean SD STOE Mean SD

GenderMale 28 51.14 6.78 26.54 3.77

Female 126 48.12 5.78 25.29 3.31

Years of HS Science1 14 45.21 5.42 27.14 3.352 36 46.58 5.88 25.50 2.823 43 48.67 4.78 25.47 2.304 49 50.06 6.23 25.00 3.79

5* 10 53.90 7.42 25.40 5.10

Participation in HSExtracurricularScience Activities

No 96 47.57 5.68 25.27 3.42Yes 58 50.48 6.28 25.51 3.40

Semester Hoursof College ScienceBeyond Requirement

No 101 48.33 6.28 25.57 3.06Yes 48 49.42 5.84 25.44 4.02

*Note: Several participants reported doubling up on science courses resulting in the equivalent of five years of high school science.


183

Male students’ PSTE mean was found to be significantly higher than that offemale seminar students (F

(1,152) = 5.88, p = .016) with a moderate effect size of .51.

A 2 x 5 ANOVA was used to examine the effects on PSTE of participation inextracurricular high school science activities (yes or no), and the number of years(1-5) of high school science students had taken. Several participants reporteddoubling up on science courses resulting in the equivalent of five years of highschool science. A significant interaction was found (F

(4,142) = 2.58; p = .040) as

shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Interaction of years of High School experience and participation inextracurricular science activities on PSTE.

The nature of this interaction is that the relationship between participation inextracurricular activities and PSTE score depended on the number of years of highschool science a student had taken. Among those reporting one year of high schoolscience, those reporting no extracurricular science activities had higher PSTE scores.But this relationship is reversed among those reporting 2 or more years of highschool science, where those reporting extracurricular science activities had higherPSTE scores. Furthermore, among those reporting 5 science courses, this differenceis more extreme than for those in the Seminar group reporting 2-4 years of highschool science. Effect sizes for the comparison of cell means are shown in Table 2.


184

The results shown in Table 2 for the Seminar group PSTE were further analyzedby calculating effect sizes for selected contrasts. Since most states require a minimumof two years of high school science, including the state in which this university islocated, we contrasted those who reported taking the required two years of sciencewith those who took three years, four years, and five years of science by whether ornot they participated in extra-curricular science activities during high school.Results are shown in Table 3. For students who participated in extracurricularscience activities, there was a very large effect on PSTE when those who reportedthey had taken two years of science were compared to those who had taken four andfive years of science. We also contrasted those who reported taking two years ofhigh school science with those who had taken three years, four years, and five yearsof science but did not participate in extracurricular science activities. Withoutparticipation in extracurricular science activities, the effect sizes are moderate,even for students who took four and five years of science.

Table 2Seminar Group: PSTE Effect Sizes for Number of High School Science Coursesby Participation in High School Extracurricular Science Activities

Years Participation of HS Yes No Effect Cohen’sScience N M SD N M SD Size Categories

1 5 42.60 5.32 9 46.67 5.20 .78 Large

2 11 47.82 4.75 25 46.04 6.33 .28 Small

3 14 49.64 4.14 29 48.21 5.05 .28 Small

4 22 52.09 5.77 27 48.41 6.20 .59 Medium

5 5 59.00 6.36 5 48.80 4.27 2.37 Large

Table 3Seminar Group: Contrasts for Number of High School Science Courses byParticipation in High School Extracurricular Science Activities

Years of Participation Effect Cohen’sHS Science Size Categories

2 vs. 3 Yes .38 Medium

2 vs. 4 Yes .89 Large

2 vs. 5 Yes 2.33 Large

2 vs. 3 No .34 Medium




185

Methods Group

In the Methods group, PSTE means differed significantly by sciencebackground and current teaching variables, but not by gender. Also, no differenceswere found between STOE means for the same variables. The means and otherdescriptive statistics for the Methods group are shown in Table 4.

Table 4Descriptive Statistics for PSTE and STOE for Methods Group


GenderMale 7 51.57 9.09 24.86 1.77

Female 77 52.04 5.99 25.35 3.39


5* 5 52.60 6.99 25.31 3.29

Participation in HS Extracurricular Science ActivitiesNo 71 51.32 6.40 25.21 3.40Yes 13 55.69 3.52 25.85 2.64

Semester Hours of College Science Beyond RequirementNo 61 51.48 5.56 25.18 3.22Yes 23 53.39 7.72 25.65 3.29

Hours Per Week of Science Teaching in Elementary School SettingNone 15 50.07 7.59 25.73 3.811-3 44 50.82 5.78 25.39 3.29

More than 3 24 55.29 5.13 25.24 2.82


The effect of the number of years of high school science on PSTE scores wasstatistically significant (F

(4,83) = 2.57; p = .044). Post hoc tests using Tukey HSD

showed that students taking four years of high school science scored significantlyhigher than those taking only two years, and the effect size was .77. Those whoparticipated in extracurricular high school science activities scored significantlyhigher on PSTE than those who did not (F

(1,83) = 5.70; p = .019), with a moderate

effect size (.68).An important, but not surprising finding to emerge from analysis of the Methods

group data was the significant effect on PSTE of teaching science to children in an


186

actual classroom (F(2,77)

= 3.87; p = .025). The teaching hours were categorized intothree levels using natural breaks in the frequencies: zero, 1-3, and more than 3hours. Follow-up pairwise comparisons using Tukey HSD showed that studentswho taught science for more than 3 hours during the three-week practicumexperience had significantly higher PSTE scores than the other students, and theeffect size was large (.80).

Student Teacher Group

Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics for the student teacher group Nosignificant differences were found for any variables in this group for PSTE. However,science background was found to relate to STOE. Students who had taken morethan the required number of science content courses scored significantly higher onSTOE than those who took only the required nine hours (F

(1,54) = 6.26; p = .015),

with an effect size of .79 .

Table 5Descriptive Statistics for PSTE and STOE for Student Teacher Group


GenderMale 6 54.83 6.11 27.00 1.41

Female 48 52.60 6.52 25.63 3.65


5* 2 60.00 7.07 25.64 3.36

Participation in HS Extracurricular Science ActivitiesNo 39 52.31 6.61 25.59 2.47Yes 14 56.21 4.06 26.50 5.54

Semester Hours of College Science Beyond RequirementNo 14 53.00 7.22 23.79 4.30Yes 41 52.78 6.13 26.27 2.76

Hours Per Week of Science Teaching in Elementary School Setting

None 7 53.29 7.89 23.57 6.051-15 14 50.21 7.89 25.21 3.21

More than 15 34 54.41 4.62 26.44 2.70

*Note: Several participants reported doubling up on science courses resulting in the equivalent

of five years of high school science.


187

Changes over Time

To answer the question of whether or not science teaching efficacy beliefschanged over the course of the three semesters, we combined the three data sets intoone and removed the embedded group for separate analysis. Table 6 shows thedescriptive statistics for the combined group and for the embedded group.

Table 6Descriptive Statistics for Embedded Group and Combined Groups


Embedded Group

Seminar Semester 12 46.33 6.53 25.42 3.55

Methods Semester 12 53.58 8.59 26.00 3.25

Student Teaching Semester 12 52.50 8.35 26.92 3.12

Combined Seminar, Methods & Student Teacher Groups Excluding Embedded Group

Seminar Students 141 48.91 6.01 25.53 3.43

Methods Students 72 51.54 5.79 25.19 3.30

Student Teachers 43 52.91 5.90 25.46 3.28


No significant changes in STOE were observed for the combined group acrossthe three semesters; however, scores on PSTE did increase significantly (F

(2,253) =

10.10; p < .001). Post Hoc tests using Tukey HSD showed that the methods groupand student teacher group had significantly higher PSTE than the seminar group.The effect size for the methods group compared to the seminar group was .47, whilethe effect size for the student teacher group compared to the seminar group was .67.The difference between the means of the methods group and the student teachergroup was not significant.

Repeated Measures ANOVA was used to analyze the embedded group withsimilar results. Their STOE scores did not increase significantly, but their PSTEscores did show a significant increase (F

(2,22) = 7.56; p = .003). Tests of within-

subject contrasts for the embedded group indicated that mean PSTE scores weresignificantly higher for the group’s methods semester and student teaching semesterthan for the seminar semester. The effect size comparing the means for the methodssemester with the seminar semester was large (1.12), as was the effect size comparingthe means the student teaching semester with the seminar semester (.82). Nosignificant difference was found between the means when students were in themethods semester compared to the student teaching semester.


188

Discussion

Our study indicates that there was a moderate gender effect on PSTE beliefs inthe seminar group, with males scoring higher. This may be due in part to the factthat 59.3% of the males in our sample reported taking 4 or 5 years of high schoolscience courses compared to only 33.3% of the females. Also, a slightly higherpercentage of males (42.9%) participated in extracurricular science activitiescompared to females (38%).

The difference in PSTE beliefs between males and females for the methodsgroup was nearly zero. None of the males in this group reported participating inextracurricular science activities in high school, while only 17% of the femalesreported participating. The percentage of males (57.1%) taking more than therequired two years of science was similar to the percentage of females (63.6%).

For the student teacher group, the gender effect was moderately low and onceagain, none of the males reported that they had participated in extra-curriculaactivities, while 32.6% of the females did. A higher percentage of the males (85.7%)reported taking more than the required two years of science compared with 55.4%of the females.

It appears that the males in our sample were more interested in science in highschool as demonstrated by their taking more courses and participating more inextracurricular science activities, and the greatest effects for gender occurred whenmales took more courses while at the same time, reported they had participated inextracurricular science activities. This information could be useful in the recruitmentprocess for elementary teacher education. Prospective students who report takingextra science courses as well as participating in extracurricular science activities inhigh school may be more likely to develop higher science teaching efficacy beliefsover the course of their teacher preparation coursework and thus may be morelikely to have a positive impact on their future elementary students in science.Also, including opportunities for extracurricular science activities during the sciencemethods course could provide additional ways of fostering the development ofscience teaching efficacy for those preservice teachers who were less involved inhigh school science experiences. Such activities could include judging sciencefairs, assisting in a Science Olympiad, or volunteering to advise a science club at anelementary school.

Another factor in our study that seemed to give rise to large effect sizes onPSTE was the amount of time actually spent in teaching science to children in anelementary classroom. Although the preservice teachers had been in the classroomsince early in their college experience, the methods semester was the first time theyhad prepared and taught a lesson to children. The largest increase in PSTE was forstudents in the methods group who were able to teach science to children for morethan 3 hours across the span of their 3-week practicum. This suggests that there maybe a significant increase in PSTE with the first successful science teachingexperiences, which is supported by Bandura’s (1997) suggestion that masteryexperiences help to increase efficacy beliefs. Going through the process of preparingscience lessons with children in mind, and then spending more than one hour per


189

week teaching science lessons to children seems to have a positive effect on PersonalScience Teaching Efficacy. Strategies and skills for developing and teaching sciencelessons are learned in the college classroom, and their successful implementationacts as a performance assessment that feeds into an individual’s efficacy beliefs thatfuture performances will be similar. The implication for teacher educators is toprovide preservice teachers with the opportunity to prepare and teach science lessonsin an elementary classroom consistently over time for a duration of more than onehour per week before the one-semester student teaching experience. The level ofphysiological and emotional arousal that a preservice teacher experiences with asuccessful performance may also enhances efficacy beliefs, as can verbal persuasionthat provides information about the nature of teaching (Bandura, 1997).

The science teaching efficacy beliefs of the student teacher group in our sampledid not differ significantly from those in the methods group. It may be that whenstudent teachers are placed in schools for a longer duration, the school climate andother factors may begin to impact efficacy experiences more than college classroomexperiences, so the methods courses seem to be the most appropriate time to providescience teaching experiences in order to develop efficacy beliefs. It also may bethat a ceiling effect is reached by preservice teachers during their preparatorysemesters, particularly during their first science practicum experience, and furthergrowth in efficacy beliefs does not generally occur until they are experiencedteachers in their own classrooms. Ashton and Webb (1986) postulated that teacherefficacy beliefs increase only over time and within the context of the multifacetedsocial and organizational structure of school life.

It is interesting to note that the only significant effect found for STOE occurredin the student teaching group when students are applying their knowledge andskills to the practice of teaching science to children. The students who had takenmore than the required number of college science content courses had higherScience Teaching Outcome Efficacy beliefs than those who took only the requirednumber of courses. It may be that the practice of teaching science caused thestudent teachers to draw upon their content knowledge and training most recentlycompleted at the university level rather than at the high school level, and bydoing so, their outcome efficacy beliefs were positively impacted. However, thisresult may also be an anomaly since few researchers have found that prior sciencecourses impact science teaching efficacy beliefs (Tarik, 2000). One possibleexplanation for this result could be that 75% of the students in the student teachergroup reported taking more than the required amount of science courses at thecollege level, compared to only 32% of the seminar group and 27% of the methodsgroup reported doing so.

Conclusions

The list of positive outcomes related to a strong sense of teacher efficacy asdescribed in the literature by numerous researchers cited above is impressive. Ifoutcomes such as student achievement, persistence in the face of obstacles, andteacher effectiveness are indeed related to science teaching efficacy, then


190

encouraging the development of teacher efficacy becomes important at all levelsof education. High school guidance counselors and science teachers can encouragestudents, both male and female, who are preparing for careers in elementary and/orscience education to take more science classes and participate in more sciencerelated extracurricular activities. High school and college science courses caninclude a variety of learning experiences related to Bandura’s four strategies forincreasing efficacy.

We conclude with a list of recommendations for teacher education framed bythe results from this study. We also acknowledge the limitations of our study andsuggest further research possibilities.

Teacher education courses in particular can focus on Bandura’s four strategiesfor increasing of efficacy: providing opportunities for mastery experiences,physiological and emotional arousal, vicarious experience, and social persuasion.The following recommendations include opportunities for using those strategiesthat give rise to developing the efficacy beliefs of our future teachers:

1. Provide early field experiences for preservice teachers that include sciencelesson plan development and delivery for a sustained period of time.

2. Survey preservice teachers about their high school science experiences andoffer opportunities for preservice teachers to assist with extra-curricular scienceexperiences in local school districts such as Science Fairs or Science Olympiad ifthey have not done so during their high school years.

3. Provide many opportunities for mastery experiences in teaching science tosmall groups and large groups of colleagues and K-8 students.

4. Develop a community of learners within methods classes that provide a safeclimate for risk-taking and ample opportunities for vicarious experience, positivephysiological and emotional arousal, and social persuasion relative to successfulscience teaching experiences.

One limitation of this study is that only twelve of the participants were in allthree groups. The study would have had more power to detect differences if therewere more in the embedded group. A longitudinal cohort study would havestrengthened our results and minimized the effects of extraneous variables such asdifferences in each group’s prior high school and college experiences.

Possibilities for further research would include a cohort study to examine theeffects of similar variables on science teaching efficacy over time. Because of thelarge effect of prior high school extra-curricular science activities in this study, itmay be worth further investigation as to the specific type of science activities thatmay produce the strongest effects. While we have gained rich understanding ofsome of the factors related to science teaching efficacy in recent years through thework of many researchers, it is an area that continues to offer exciting possibilitiesfor future work.

References

Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ andstudents’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta


191

Journal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165.Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy

and student achievement. New York: Longman.Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy.

In J. H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development frontiers andpossible futures (pp. 200-239). New York: Cambridge University Press.

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

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. (First ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Cannon, J., & Scharmann, L. C. (1995). Influence of a cooperative early fieldexperience on preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy. ScienceEducation, 80(4), 419-436.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary scienceteaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. SchoolScience & Mathematics, 90(8), 694-706.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journalof Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Itsmeaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American EducationalResearch Journal, 37(2), 479-507.

Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of the responsibility teachers assume foracademic success and failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education,32(2), 41-55.

Guskey, T. R. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy.Journal of Educational Research, 81, 41-47.

Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of constructdimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 627-643.

Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and theorgainzational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 356-372.

Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992, April). Teacher efficacy, power, school climateand achievement: A desegregating destrict’s experience. Paper presented atthe American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. R. (1996). A qualitative study offactors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers.Science Education, 80, 283-315.

Riggs, I., Diaz, E., Riggs, M., Jesunathadas, J., Brasch, K., Torner, J., Shamansky, L.,Crowell, S., & Pelletier, A. (1994, April). Impacting elementary science teachers’beliefs and performance through teacher enhancement for science instructionin diverse settings. Paper presented at the National Association for Research inScience Teaching, Anaheim, CA.


192

Riggs, I., & Jesunathadas, J. (1993, April). Preparing elementary teachers foreffective science teaching in diverse settings. Paper presented at the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta.

Rose, J. S. & Medway, F. J. (1981). Measure of teachers’ beliefs in their own controlover student outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 74 185-199.

Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on studentachievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51-65.

Saklofske, D. H., Michayluk, J. O., & Randhawa, B. S. (1988). Teachers’ efficacyand teaching behaviors. Psychological Reports, 63, 407-414.

Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problems as factors inspecial education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66-81.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for social science. (3rd ed.).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tarik, T. (2000). The impact of prior science course experience and achievement onthe science teaching self-efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journalof Elementary Science Education, 12(2), 21-31.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: ItsMeaning and Measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.

Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementaryscience: Effect of collaborative and authentic learning practices in preserviceeducation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 301-321.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy andbeliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81-91.

Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy andtheir beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2),137-148.


Documents

Factors Affecting Science Teaching Efficacy of Preservice Elementary Teachers