Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Development of Self-Efficacy and Confidence to Teach Science: A Case Study

Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Developmentof Self-Efficacy and Confidence to Teach Science:A Case Study

Amanda M. Gunning • Felicia Moore Mensah

Published online: 22 June 2010

� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2010

Abstract This study examines the self-efficacy of one preservice elementary

school teacher (Kasey) during and after her participation in Science in Childhood

Education—a 16-week, elementary preservice science methods course. The case

study of this teacher is situated in the context of the class as a whole. This is

accomplished through interviewing the one teacher and examining artifacts and

observations of the entire class. The results of these experiences are studied to

determine what changes have taken place in the participants’ self-efficacy in science

teaching as well as the one preservice teacher in greater detail. Because self efficacy

is influential to student learning, the results of this study have significant implica-

tions for the design of elementary teacher education programs and the support of

elementary teachers in teaching science.

Introduction

To increase the inclusion of science in the primary grades, frightening national

reports, standards or high-stakes tests will not do the job on their own. Elementary

school teachers are the key to reform. Despite the calls for changes to be made to

A. M. Gunning (&) � F. M. Mensah

Department of Mathematics, Science & Technology, Teachers College, Columbia University,

525 W 120th Street, Box 210, New York, NY 10027, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

A. M. Gunning

115 Woodland Road, Monroe, NY 10950, USA

F. M. Mensah

88 Wegman Parkway, #2, Jersey City, NJ 07305, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Sci Teacher Educ (2011) 22:171–185

DOI 10.1007/s10972-010-9198-8

teacher education programs, very little research is actually devoted to learning how

teachers learn to teach science (Russell and Martin 2007). This study aims to

address that gap by investigating the experiences of a class of preservice elementary

school teachers in a science education methods class. Literature shows that

elementary school teachers generally lack a strong understanding of science and

often have had few or negative science experiences (Lederman 1992; Smith and

Anderson 1999). These factors have resulted in a population of elementary school

teachers without adequate science education experiences (Lederman 1992; Tilgner

1990). Because ‘‘a teacher’s sense of efficacy is likely to be especially influential on

young children’’ (Bandura 1997, p. 242), the outcome of this study has significant

implications for the design of elementary teacher education programs in the future

and the support of elementary teachers in teaching science.

Literature Review

As long ago as the 1950s, ‘‘a prototypical picture persist[ed] of preservice

elementary teachers as lacking what it takes to teach science’’ (Howes 2002, p. 846).

Similarly, in a review of literature conducted by Lederman (1992), he found that

‘‘teachers do not possess adequate conceptions of the nature of science’’ and that

this negatively impacts their students’ conceptions (p. 345). This absence of science

knowledge becomes a vicious cycle: Students from kindergarten through college

lack understanding of the content that should be learned at these levels, which

affects students entering the teaching profession. Thus, ‘‘it should come as no

surprise that future elementary teachers arrive in our teacher preparation programs

with insufficient understanding of scientific theories and models’’ (Smith and

Anderson 1999, p. 756). What people may not realize, is how imbedded in the

system this problem is—the people who excel in school science go into hard science

or teach secondary school science. Our elementary teachers are largely not our

scientists and engineers. Many have had negative experiences with science learning

or a lack thereof, and thus shy away from science and science teaching. Because of

these experiences, ‘‘it is unlikely that future elementary teachers will bring

sophisticated understandings of scientific practices and discourses to their teacher

education’’ (p. 757). If elementary teachers are, for the most part, unable to achieve

higher levels of understanding of science in their preservice programs, it does not

appear that they will have much opportunity to get it.

According to Langer and Applebee (1987), teachers need positive experiences to

draw upon in order to change the way they teach. For teachers to develop a new

framework for developing student learning in science, they need more than just to be

told to do so. Just like science students, teachers are learners and need rich experiences

to alter practices and beliefs (Moore 2008). Existing teaching practices are not easily

changed, and are deeply rooted in one’s own educational experience (Sarason 1996).

Despite the calls for changes to be made to teacher education programs, very little

research is actually devoted to learning how teachers learn to teach science (Russell

and Martin 2007). This has resulted in an army of elementary teachers without

adequate science education experiences (Lederman 1992; Tilgner 1990).

172 A. M. Gunning, F. M. Mensah

123

The ideas, understandings, and attitudes that teachers carry influence their

teaching and must be considered in their teacher professional preparation. Teachers

need to address their preconceptions and biases about science and teaching (Moore

2008). Additionally, ‘‘learning to teach science must model conceptual change

approaches both for teaching fundamental concepts of science and for teaching

fundamental concepts of teaching and learning’’ (Russell and Martin 2007, p. 1153).

Teachers should develop understanding through reflection on experience in order to

improve their practice (Roth 2007). For example, interactions with colleagues and

mentors are powerful ways of learning that should be included in teacher education.

‘‘The attainments of others who are similar to oneself are judged to be diagnostic of

one’s own capabilities’’ (Bandura 1997, p. 87). These experiences are part of

effective preservice preparation.

Furthermore, teachers must gain content knowledge, but that is not enough to

make them successful in their science teaching. ‘‘The concerns are not simply in

knowing something…, but in having a coherent, causal explanation which makes

sense to the teacher such that they feel skilled in teaching the concept’’ (Parker and

Heywood 2000, p. 89). It is not enough for an elementary teacher to possess the

scientific facts; he or she must know how to teach the science. Therefore, ‘‘mere

content knowledge is likely to be as useless as content-free skill’’ (Shulman 1986,

p. 200). If a teacher does not understand how students might approach a concept, or

what misunderstandings they may have with that concept, the teacher cannot

effectively help students construct their knowledge.

Conceptual Framework

Social Constructivism

Preservice teachers taking part in an elementary science methods class were

observed for 16 weeks. During this time, they were exposed to an environment that

challenged their incoming conceptions of science and how to teach it, while

presenting discussions, activities and materials to help them develop new

knowledge and attitudes about science and science teaching. People use their past

and new experiences to construct meaning as they engage in the world around them

(Crotty 1998); thus, one guiding framework for the course was social constructiv-

ism, which views students within a social and cultural context of interactions with

others (O’Loughlin 1992). Students ‘‘actively construct their understandings of the

world and these constructions are significantly influenced by prior knowledge,

beliefs, attitudes, and experiences’’ (Lederman et al. 2004, p. 40). Preservice

teachers cannot be considered tabula rasa; they enter preservice programs with prior

conceptions that should be addressed and acknowledged. Therefore, ‘‘it is the job of

the [science teacher educator] to create a learning environment that encourages

[preservice teachers] to revise their own concepts’’ (Krajcik et al. 1999, p. 37).

In the methods class, students are asked to examine their ideas and decide how

they will move forward in light of the new information being presented through

readings, some lecturing, teaching activities, and small and large group discussions.

Self-Efficacy and Confidence to Teach Science 173

123

The course aims to develop a culture in the classroom that supports the ideals of

constructivist learning theory in order to help preservice teachers develop their

identities as elementary science teachers. In keeping with this goal, this study

approaches the data with a constructivist lens: participants are developing their own

learning and self-efficacy through their prior and current experiences, and this is

done within a sociocultural context.

Self-Efficacy

Teachers’ attitudes toward science may involve self-esteem, interest, past experi-

ence and self-efficacy (Koballa and Glynn 2007). Bandura (1997) stated that,

‘‘Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and

execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments’’ (p. 3). If a

teacher believes he or she will succeed in teaching a subject or lesson, he or she is

more likely to do so. Dembo and Gibson (1985) revealed ‘‘personal teaching

efficacy as the best predictor of teacher behavior’’ (p. 175). Teachers’ perceived

efficacy in teaching plays a role in the activities chosen for instruction and students’

perceptions of the teachers’ competence. Bandura also outlined how teachers’ ideas

about their efficacy affected the activities chosen for student work, classroom

management styles, and effective lesson presentation. His findings lead to the

conclusion that improved teacher self-efficacy will result in improved student

learning.

According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is developed through four modes

(Fig. 1): mastery experiences; vicarious experiences; verbal persuasion; and

physiological and affective states. The first provides the greatest opportunity to

develop efficacy because mastery experiences ‘‘provide the most authentic evidence

of whether one can muster whatever it takes to succeed’’ in the given attainment

(p. 80). Successes and failures can strongly influence a person’s efficacy, but

sustained effort towards a given goal will help produce a ‘‘resilient sense of

efficacy’’ (p. 80). Vicarious experiences are also powerful because they give a

person the opportunity to witness a peer’s experience and visualize him or herself in

the same or similar situation; consequently, ‘‘the attainments of others who are

similar to oneself are judged to be diagnostic of one’s own capabilities’’ (p. 87).

Others can also promote self-efficacy by providing encouragement and support on

one’s ability to succeed at the task at hand. Thus, ‘‘people who are persuaded

Mastery Experiences

Vicarious Experiences

Verbal Persuasion

Physiological and Affective States

Self-efficacy

Outcome Expectancy

Teacher Performance

Fig. 1 Four modes of self-efficacy with outcome expectancy


123

verbally that they possess the capabilities to master given tasks are likely to

mobilize greater effort and sustain it’’ (p. 101). The last experience that is

considered for development of self-efficacy is the role of physiological and affective

states. A person’s level of stress or feelings about a given activity will play a role in

whether one believes he or she will be effective, such that ‘‘people are more inclined

to expect success when they are not beset by aversive arousal than if they are tense

and viscerally agitated’’ (p. 106).

Self-efficacy alone does not effectuate outcomes of behavior. The perceived self-

efficacy influences the behavior chosen by the person, but the behavior is also

informed by the person’s idea of what the outcome of his or her behavior will be.

Bandura (1997) states that ‘‘the outcomes people anticipate depend largely on their

judgments of how well they will be able to perform in given situations’’ (pp. 21–22).

Outcome expectancy and self-efficacy work together to result in the outcome of a

person’s actions, but they are distinct. ‘‘Perceived self-efficacy is a judgment of

one’s ability to organize and execute given types of performances, whereas an

outcome expectation is a judgment of the likely consequence such performances

will produce’’ (p. 21). In Fig. 1, by considering both self-efficacy and outcome

expectancy, researchers have a better way of predicting behavior (Dembo and

Gibson 1985).

Because Bandura’s (1997) theory of self-efficacy emphasizes the importance of

the individual’s perception of his or her abilities, it was important for us to speak

directly with the teacher to determine her beliefs regarding her ability to teach

science. Further, observing the class as a whole during the course of the semester

also provided clues to the elementary preservice teachers’ self-perceptions based on

their comments and discussions in class as well as the topics they chose for their

class projects, or microteaching lessons.

Research Questions

There are two primary research questions for this study. The first question serves to

provide background for the second question. This first research question and sub-

questions were answered through examination of surveys (initial & final), written

observations of class sessions, and the second researcher’s reflective journal:

How does the science teacher self-efficacy of the group (the whole class) changeover the course of the semester?

a. How do participants describe themselves as science teachers at the start and end

of the course?

b. What changes in attitudes towards science and themselves as science teachers

over the course of the semester are noted?

Next, the second research question and sub-questions focused on one preservice

teacher, Kasey,1 who participated in two interviews outside of class time. These

questions were answered through semi-structured interviews and by examining this

1 All names are pseudonyms.


123

participant’s surveys, the first researcher’s written observations of class sessions,

and the second researcher’s journal:

How does the science teacher self-efficacy of one participant (Kasey) changeover the semester?

a. What attitudes does the participant first have towards science?

b. How does the participant describe herself as a science teacher at the beginning

of the course?

c. After the course, how does the participant see herself as a science teacher?

Methods

Case Study

This qualitative study draws a general picture of how group and individual change

occurred over time using a case study approach. The methodological approach to

this study is based on ‘‘description, interpretation’’ and ‘‘identif[ication] of recurrent

patterns in the form of themes’’ (Merriam 1998, p. 12). The case being studied was

of one individual participant within the context of a whole class. Several methods of

data collection were employed to draw the case, which was constructed using

multiple data sources and artifacts that were also used for triangulation. The purpose

for collecting these sources of the data collection was to ascertain experiences,

practices and attitudes of the participants through their own lens and through the

observations of the researchers.

Setting and Participants

This study took place in an elementary science methods course—Science in

Childhood Education, over 16 weeks during fall 2007 semester, which enrolled 23

preservice teachers (and 3 doctoral candidates as participant observers). For some of

the participants, this was one of their first graduate education courses. Many of the

participants had no formal teaching experience or background in science teaching.

The environment engendered by the professor (second author) was constructivist

with an emphasis on science teaching through inquiry, multiculturalism, social

justice, and the relevance of science to everyday life in the city and to urban school

students.

Data Collection & Analysis

Data was collected through open-ended surveys at the beginning of the semester,

field notes taken by the first researcher acting as a participant-observer throughout

the semester, a reflective journal of the second researcher, and interviews with one

participant, Kasey. This participant was chosen based on her interest in science and

in participating in this study through sharing her experiences. The first author

conducted the first interview with Kasey at the mid-point of the semester. The


123

interview lasted approximately 40 minutes. At the end of the semester, both authors

conducted the interview, and this lasted for more than 45 minutes. Both transcripts

were transcribed and coded by the first author, followed by peer debriefing sessions

with the second author to confirm codes and themes.

Data was analyzed for trends for the group and individual, first through open

coding and axial coding (Strauss and Corbin 1998), and then by sifting these codes

through the conceptual framework. A matrix was developed to aid in sifting the data

through the framework (Fig. 2). First, the data was coded from reading all of the

data sources and assigning initial codes, which were then grouped to generate

categories and themes. Second, the themes that were generated from the various

sources were compared to each other. Finally, after examining the data from the

initial coding, it was confirmed that Bandura’s self-efficacy scheme was an

appropriate choice for another level of analysis. The four modes of self-efficacy

were used to compare initial codes and themes. For instance, examples from the

data sources were placed into the framework of the four modes. This analysis

provided insights into how the science teachers’ self-efficacy developed over the

semester for the whole class and individually for the one teacher, Kasey. Elements

of rigor consisted of prolonged engagement with the participants, member checking,

peer debriefing, and triangulation of multiple data sources and data analysis (Guba

and Lincoln 1989).

Findings and Discussion

Participant observations, surveys, interviews and reflective journals provided a

picture of the whole group and the individual’s journey through the course. The

Research Questions and Data Source

1) How does the science teacher self-efficacy of the group (the whole class) change over the course of the semester?

a. How do participants describe themselves as science teachers at the start/end of the course?

b. What changes in attitudes towards science and themselves as science teachers over the course of the semester are noted?

2) How does the science teacher self-efficacy of one participant (Kasey) change over the semester?

a. What attitudes does the participant first have towards science?

b. How does the participant describe herself as a science teacher at the beginning of the semester?

c. After the course, how does the participant see herself as a science teacher?

Field notes from Researchers

Interview Transcripts

Initial & Final Surveys

Mastery Experiences Comfort with science content Referring to the micro-teaching or Family Science Night projects in a positive way Recounting positive experiences working with students in science classroom

Vicarious Experiences Citing other teachers’ science experiences as positive reinforcement Expressing feelings of confidence after hearing of other teachers’ experiences

Verbal Persuasion Affirmation of confidence of ability to teach science based on:

Readings from class Class discussion Professor discourse

Physiological And Affective States

Feelings of stress will indicate a negative development of self-efficacy Feelings of relief, comfort or ease with science teaching will indicate a positive development of self-efficacy

Expectancy Outcome Expressions of confidence towards science teaching Explanations of future plans as a science teacher

Self-efficacy Conceptual Framework/Examples From the Data

Fig. 2 Overview of theoretical framework and methods


123

science methods class provided opportunities for the preservice teachers to develop

self-efficacy through the four modes as well as provided an opportunity for all of the

preservice teachers to express their expectancy outcome. The course requirements

included three possible mastery experiences for preservice teachers—the Science in

the City Photo Album, The Family Science Night, and the Microteaching Unit.

These activities provided an opportunity for the creation of hands-on lab activities

and science lessons, as well as implementation with students in authentic urban

classrooms. The other three modes of self efficacy development and expressions of

expectancy outcome were fostered by the classroom environment. Specifically, the

preservice teachers were often given opportunities to discuss their experiences and

ideas during large group, small group, and individual conversations. This created a

community of learners of science teaching where preservice teachers shared advice,

recounted classroom experiences, asked questions and even confessed fears about

teaching science. All of the preservice teachers participated in this discussion aspect

of the course. In the findings section below, the whole class collective understand-

ings of self-efficacy are presented. This section is followed by an emphasis on one

of the preservice teachers from the class, Kasey, and her self-efficacy over time

from participating in the course and this study.

Whole Class

For the class as a whole (N = 23), the preliminary surveys asked a general question

about their science teacher identity: ‘‘Do you see yourself as a science teacher?’’

The results indicated a reoccurring reason for participants who did not self-identify

as a science teacher—their lack of experience with science, whether it was a lack of

content experience or science teaching experience. In-class observations also

indicated that participants’ lack of experience was a factor in their expressions of

negative self-efficacy and expectancy outcome for science teaching.

Below are some examples:

Yvette: My impression of someone who teaches science full time is they love

science and science was not something I gravitated towards in school… I

am not a ‘science person’… Hopefully by the end of the course I will feel

more confident about teaching something that I am not naturally good at

Anna: My lack of exposure makes me wary

It is therefore not surprising that participants expressed an increase in self-

efficacy and expectancy outcome after taking part in the assignments for the course.

For example, the Science in the City Photo Album activity, one of the first

assignments in the course, presented the opportunity to see science as ‘‘everywhere’’

and ‘‘in everything,’’ as stated from two preservice teachers. In their group

presentation of their albums, preservice teachers noted how the assignment was

‘‘fun’’ and that they were able to make connections to science in the city and in their

lives so that they may do the same for their students. One preserve teacher, Nora,

stated on her final survey that the photo album ‘‘really opened my eyes to how

science is truly everywhere. Even now when I’m walking on the street, I look at


123

things in a different way and see how it’s related to science. In that way, I really

believe that the way I view everything has changed.’’

From other assignments, the preservice science teachers participated in Family

Science Night (Mensah et al. 2009) and the Microteaching Unit. These assignments

provided the teachers with a taste of being a science teacher, while necessitating

participants’ brush up on the science underlying their projects and units. In both

instances, they developed lessons that were taught to elementary students for the

microteaching lessons and for middle school students and their families and friends

for Family Science Night at a local public middle school. To host a station of their

design in the middle school for Family Science Night, groups of teachers planned a

demonstration lesson based on a scientific principle or lead visitors in a short

activity. Some examples of stations were: weather balloons and pressure; oil and

water viscosity, density and polar molecules; making goo; making lava lamps;

doing brain puzzles; and soap racers related to surface tension of water. Two

students summarized their experiences:

Anna: I was actually looking forward to doing our demonstration for the families

at [the middle school] and the entire night seemed to pleasantly surprise me

Matt: The experience of family science night was an interesting and a productive

one. Even though it was a new experience and a bit awkward at moments,

I think we got the message that science is important and can be fun out to a

lot of students and families. We also learned about interacting with students

and what approaches are more successful

Similarly, the microteaching unit proved to be a valuable mastery experience and

was cited by several preservice teachers as integral to transforming their ideas about

teaching science. In the words of one teacher: ‘‘Going into the class I felt like

science was a subject that I could never teach. After the microteaching assignment,

I feel that I could teach science and make it enjoyable for the class.’’ Further,

planning and teaching science was a powerful experience for many of the preservice

teachers, bringing about feelings of accomplishment:

Jamie: The biggest success was realizing that my students both enjoyed and

understood my microteaching lesson

Kelly: I realized that the more I was out there on my own, via microteaching, the

more comfortable I felt

Susan: A lot of my friends were really surprised to hear that I was teaching science

…. I tried to explain my lessons when I said I was teaching science—a lot

of people, at least my friends, think negatively about the subject, so I want

them to see it can be really fun to both teach and learn.

An important aspect of the science methods class was the element of vicarious

experiences. Some of the richest science learning experiences came from teacher

dialogue expressed by the preservice teachers. These dialogues were centered on

science teaching practices. For example, the Interview-a-Child Activity and

elementary science classroom observations (assignments done early in the semester

and prior to microteaching) provided all of the preservice teachers an opportunity to

develop their science teacher voice (Cooke and Mensah 2009) as they commented


123

on and critiqued what they saw in elementary classrooms as well as what they were

doing during their time in their school placements. In response to a final survey

question asking for additional comments about the course, one preservice teacher

responded: ‘‘I also learned a lot from my observations.’’ She related the observations

as preparing her for the microteaching, as did another preservice teacher: ‘‘the

observations helped me greatly.’’

The element of verbal persuasion was evident through the professor’s role as a

mentor and her comments to the class. One preservice teacher explained: ‘‘After

taking this course it has made me feel more comfortable about science and teaching

it to the children…. I was not that interested in this class [taking science], and you,

Professor, [your] lessons and discussions opened my eyes.’’ Also, three doctoral

students as participant observers in the classroom over the semester contributed to

classroom discourse and provided encouragement for participants. These figures, as

well as the participants themselves and the professor, served as a support system for

the whole class, helping participants to deal with their stress and anxiety regarding

science teaching, thereby providing a positive environment for participants’

physiological and affective states.

There was an easily observable difference in participant comments from the

beginning of the semester compared to the end, changing from uncertainty about

how to handle a science class or to teach science to explaining their plans or hopes

for their own science teaching and future students:

Sandy: I describe myself as someone who was initially overwhelmed and

intimidated by the field of science, especially when I thought about

teaching science in the classroom. However, I also tell people that I am

now excited to make science an every day part of my students’ lives, and

to also use science within other subject areas

Overall, at the start of the semester, 15 out of 23 (65%) respondents said they did

not see themselves as a science teacher. In the exit surveys, of these 15, 10 now saw

themselves specifically as science teachers. Three respondents who did not

specifically state that they saw themselves as science teachers said that they did

feel able to teach science as part of their role as teachers of all subjects (two

respondents did not return the survey). One preservice teacher’s response echoed

many other responses: ‘‘I can see myself teaching science. I am no longer stuck in

the mindset that it is a hard subject to teach.’’ As a whole, the class of preservice

teachers displayed an increase in their perception of their ability to teach science,

indicating an increase in science teacher self-efficacy, especially in terms of their

desire to teach science at the elementary level. They also showed a positive change

during the course of the semester in their outcome expectancy. They gained ideas

about how and what to teach in their future classrooms as science teachers.

The Case of Kasey

As a participant in the class, the interviewee (Kasey) had the opportunity to develop

her perception and ability to teach science through the same modes as the whole

class. We were able to get a clearer picture of how this happened through speaking


123

with her in the two interviews—one conducted at mid semester and the other about

one month after the semester had ended.

Kasey was an Asian American student with a background in pharmacy. At the

time of this study, she had not done student teaching, and in fact, she described

herself as having ‘‘no prior science teaching experiences.’’ Kasey was initially

singled out to be interviewed because of her interest in learning how to teach

physical science to elementary students, something the first author had spoken to the

whole class about and was interested in helping the preservice teachers to make

more physical science connections in elementary science teaching. Kasey had

approached the first researcher with skepticism that physical science concepts could

be taught at lower levels and with questions about how to carry it out in an

elementary classroom. She expressed a lack of confidence and self-doubt in her

ability to teach science. However, at the time of the first interview, Kasey had not

done her Microteaching Unit, yet expressed a positive expectancy outcome

regarding it. She was excited about the planning she was doing and hoped the lesson

would feel relevant for the students. At this time, she also explained that the science

content would not be a problem for her because she could fill in any deficiencies by

reading science books. Generally she was positive about teaching science in her

school placement.

Vicarious experiences seemed to be important in Kasey’s development of

perceived self-efficacy in science teaching. She commented frequently in the first

interview regarding how helpful the course readings and in-class discussions had

been for her to develop an idea of how to negotiate science teaching in the

classroom. The course readings, for instance, spanned topics such as gender issues,

urban and multicultural education, student diversity, classroom management, and

curriculum:

I like it - I really like this class a lot…. I think for me it is all about method and

like how am I going to [teach]… content is content but it’s how am I gonna

deliver this. Because I can find out what’s grade appropriate by pulling out any

book, but how am I most effectively to deliver this information to these kids.

And I think the articles have answered a lot of my questions, and our

discussion groups – I like those. But the articles are fantastic. I learned so

much - I learned so much reading those articles. (And you think you can applyit?) I do.

By our mid-semester interview, Kasey had begun to increase her perception of

herself as a science teacher. She was able to critique others, such as her peers and

the teacher whom she was observing. She also became a bit more critical about

science curriculum and its relevancy for elementary students; however, she was not

yet at a point where she knew how to fix problems she pointed out. Kasey cited the

Microteaching Unit as an opportunity for her ‘‘to ease myself into teaching—what

I’m going to be doing in the future.’’ This is a mastery experience that was

instrumental in helping Kasey to develop her sense of what it will be like to be a

science teacher, and this experience turned out to be an instructive one. The mastery

experience of the Microteaching Unit as well as support from others played a

positive role in Kasey’s perception of her science teacher self-efficacy:


123

Yeah! I mean, this is my first time ever [teaching science], but this is different

– I mean the circumstances are so, I mean I have two other people that are my

classmates that I am doing this with – If I had to go in there myself, I don’t

know if I’d be able to do this.

From the start, Kasey sought out others, particularly the first author, who

answered her questions about teaching. She responded positively to suggestions and

asked further questions, not only to the first author but also during class and after

class with the second author. Talking with us about science and physical science

teaching helped Kasey to recall physical science activities she had done while

working in a summer camp. She expressed several times that physical science

concepts would be a challenge for her to teach. She also asked about resources for

teaching physical science, which we provided. These instances represented Kasey’s

development of her ability to teach science through verbal persuasion. By the

second interview—done one month after the semester had concluded—Kasey had

done her Microteaching Unit and completed the course. She now had ideas about

science teaching that she gained from the methods course. For example, she

continued to express critiques of other teachers, but now offered suggestions of what

she would do if she were that teacher. She was also able to think reflectively about

science teaching, even from the Family Science Night demonstration lesson that she

and her group completed:

What I learned that I will bring into the classroom is this: Although you

carefully plan, sometimes unexpected events can occur and when that does, it

is best to try to make the best of the situation for learning. If we had more time

I would of loved to have the four students who came to our demonstration see

the experiment run successfully then share a discussion about what they think

went wrong the first time around. Science Night was a success not just for the

school, parents and students but for me also.

Kasey explained that her participation in the class and course activities afforded

her a measure of ‘‘comfort’’ when it came to entering the science classroom. Her

physiological and affective state was positively influenced by the presence of

classmates and others in the course, and conducting her microteaching lesson was a

source of support that afterwards she felt a bit more ‘‘comfortable’’ teaching

science. She regarded ideas of physical science lessons for lower elementary grades

as ‘‘cool.’’ Kasey seemed to benefit from the course assignments, discussions, and

support.

As Kasey discussed her Microteaching Unit, she was disappointed with it

because she was not sure the students took away ‘‘lasting learning’’, and she did not

feel like she accomplished what she had set out to do. However, this did not seem to

affect her outcome expectancy in a negative way. Kasey was very positive about

teaching science and said that she will ‘‘definitely teach science’’ in her classroom

and discussed the importance of science at the elementary level. Additionally, she

spoke about not needing to ‘‘dumb down’’ the content for students and that she

wanted to help prepare them for high school science, such as physics. These

comments indicate that saw herself as a science teacher, and as an effective one—


123

preparing her second graders for physics, which she had previously expressed

difficulty teaching. Although some self doubts lingered, such as reflecting on her

Microteaching lesson and mentioning being nervous about student teaching the

following year, overall Kasey displayed a positive change in outcome expectancy

during the course of the semester.

Discussion and Implications

The goal of this study was to examine preservice teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in

teaching science at the elementary level during a semester-long science education

course. The study suggests that the types of experiences offered within the course

are valuable for preservice elementary teachers learning to teach science and

increasing their self-efficacy to teach science. This is accomplished in two related

ways: course assignments and the classroom environment.

First, the course offers an environment that fosters development of self-efficacy

for science teaching by providing meaningful assignments and discussions about

teaching elementary science. Specifically, the Microteaching Unit and the Family

Science Night assignments, and course readings/discussions are cited as significant

experiences for both Kasey and the class as a whole. The Microteaching assignment

consists of students developing and teaching two to three lessons that are conducted

in the school where they are placed. While there, they also conduct student

interviews and make weekly observations. The planning, teaching and assessing

student learning and their professional growth from completing these assignments

are supported by reflection and classroom dialogue. The Family Science Night is yet

another opportunity for the preservice teachers teach science, not only to young

learners but also to family members. The Microteaching provides the teachers with

an opportunity to develop confidence in teaching science. Other self-efficacy studies

of preservice teachers in science have also noted the importance of opportunities for

teaching science in preservice programs (Carrier 2009).

Second, prior to these mastery experiences, the preservice teachers complete

Science in the City Photo Albums early in the semester: It is assigned the first day of

class, discussed the second week, and teachers present their albums the third week.

This assignment seems to set the stage for the teachers and provides a relevant and

personal introduction to science. The immediate attention to science in the lives of

teachers and the urban context is important in setting up a classroom environment

that is welcoming to elementary teachers. This too is connected to the personal

connections the instructor makes for the teachers to see the importance of science in

their lives and eases them into the content of science. Taken to the next level, the

digital photos of objects, places, persons in New York City are connected to science

content standards. The teachers acknowledge the science in the world around them

(in fact one student only took photos in his apartment!) as well as an opportunity to

explain science connections to others.

Therefore, the implication of the data collected through this study is that teacher

training experiences for preservice elementary science teachers should include

elements of Bandura’s (1997) four modes that are constructed through course


123

assignments within a mentoring and nurturing environment. The mastery experi-

ences emerge as powerful experiences for the teachers which are supported by

careful and deliberate attention to the preservice teachers’ personal and professional

growth. Even though the preservice teaching time in the elementary classroom is

short (two to three Microteaching lessons and one science night demonstration), it

offers valuable learning experiences, as gathered from the results of this study.

Considering the development of preservice teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in

science teaching, additional supports such as meaningful discussions, time within

urban elementary classrooms, and interactions with others are also critically

important for preservice teachers to develop self-efficacy in teaching elementary

science. Therefore, developing the confidence to teach science early on in the

preservice program is preferable in order to lay the foundation for future behaviors.

However, we argue that the creation of an environment that allows preservice

teachers to be mentored toward the development self-efficacy is worthwhile.

Specifically, the assignments and projects assigned in the methods course (Science

in the City Photo Album, Microteaching, Course Readings, and Family Science

Night)2 can be adopted by other science methods instructors to provide introductory

and mastery experiences for preservice teachers while developing their self-efficacy.

Researchers note that elementary school teachers need adequate and positive

science education experiences (Langer and Applebee 1987; Lederman 1992; Tilgner

1990), and this study offers a few. We argue that these assignments collectively

provide teachers with ample opportunities to build their self-efficacy to teach

science.

References

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

Carrier, S. J. (2009). The effects of outdoor science lessons with elementary school students on preservice

teachers’ self-efficacy. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 35–48.

Cooke, N., & Mensah, F. M. (2009). The emergent teacher voice: Identity development of preserviceelementary teachers. Paper presented at the ASTE Annual International Conference. Hartford, CT.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London: SAGE Publications.

Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in school

improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 173–184.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Howes, E. V. (2002). Learning to teach science for all in the elementary grades: What do preservice

teachers bring? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 845–869.

Koballa, T. R., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In

S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 75–102).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach.

Boston: McGraw-Hill College.

Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning.

Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the

research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.

2 Readers interested in having descriptions of these assignments may contact the second author.


123

Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Bell, R. L. (2004). Constructing science in elementary classrooms.Boston: Pearson Education.

Matsen, B. (2005). Go wild in New York City. Nurture New York’s nature. Washington, DC: National

Geographic Society.

Mensah, F., Catlin, J., O’Neill, T., & Johnson, V. (2009). Initiating school-university science partnershipsfor the preparation of elementary teachers in an urban middle school. Interactive Paper-Poster

presented at the ASTE Annual International Conference. Hartford, CT.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Moore, F. M. (2008). Preparing preservice teachers for urban elementary science classrooms: Challenging

cultural biases toward diverse students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(1), 85–109.

O’Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a

sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8),

791–820.

Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogic

content knowledge in primary teachers’ learning about forces. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 22(1), 89–111.

Roth, K. J. (2007). Science teachers as researchers. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on science education (pp. 1205–1259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2007). Learning to teach science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),

Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting ‘‘The culture of school and the problem of change’’. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher,15(2).

Smith, D. C., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Appropriating scientific practices and discourses with future

elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 755–776.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74(4), 421–431.


123

Documents

Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Development of Self-Efficacy and Confidence to Teach Science: A Case Study