The influence of student teaching on preservice elementary teachers' science self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs.

This investigation, examined the impact of the student teaching semester on preservice elementary teachers' personal efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs in science teaching. Quantitative data were gathered from the Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (STEBI-B)--which was administered to determine the personal science teaching efficacy and science teaching outcome expectancy for each subject. Involvement in the student teaching semester did not appear to have influenced the subjects' sense of personal science teaching self-efficacy; however, the significance of the change in outcome expectancy scores suggests that during the student teaching semester specific influences deteriorated the confidence of these student teachers.

**********

Preservice elementary teachers arrive at their student teaching semester with established values, attitudes, and beliefs. They carry with them a lifetime of experiences as learners which strongly influence the way they think about teaching and learning (Ball, 1988; Lortie, 1975). In particular, the beliefs they have about science play a critical role in shaping their patterns of instructional behavior (Thompson, 1992; Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994). The pedagogical knowledge that they have garnered from methods classes and field work in classrooms also influences their teaching philosophy in regards to science. Many preservice teachers enter their student teaching semester with limited conceptual understandings of scientific ideas regardless of how many previous science classes they have had (Riggs, 1991). This can lead to apprehensions about their ability to teach and their effectiveness as teachers in the area of science. The issue of how to alter preservice teachers' beliefs about science and their ability to teach this subject during their student teaching semester is of considerable interest in the field of science education. In a situation-specific context such as the teaching of science in elementary schools, any concerns that student teachers have about their adequacy as science educators may ultimately result in the implementation of poorly conceptualized and ineffective learning experiences in science that involve little more than a perfunctory commitment of effort and time (Ginns & Watters, 1990). This certainly seems to be the case as over the past several decades the condition of science education in elementary schools has been questioned and concerns have been stated about the quality and amount of instruction in science (eg. Tilgner, 1990; Gee, 1996). "Although one could increase the amount of science in preservice courses, this action would not necessarily lead to increased commitment to the teaching of science by teachers" (Ginns & Watters, 1990, p. 4). Any one of these factors may be the cause of problems in elementary science education. Research into self-efficacy and related science teaching behaviors may provide solutions to these and other problems (Riggs, 1991).

Much of the recent research and thought on efficacy is based upon the social cognitive theory of Bandura (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1986; Bandura, 1989; Bandura, 1995). Bandura considers self-reflection the most uniquely human capability, for through this form of self-referent thought people evaluate and alter their own thinking and behavior. These self-evaluations include perceptions of self-efficacy, that is, "beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations" (Bandura, 1986, p. 389). In his theory, Bandura (1986) pronounced, "Among the different aspects of self-knowledge, perhaps none is more influential in people's everyday lives than conceptions of their personal efficacy" (Bandura, 1986, p. 390). Even though individuals may possess certain skills, there is a distinct difference between possessing such skills and being able to perform them. Self-beliefs of efficacy mediate the relationship between knowledge and action. Therefore, to perform specific actions effectively requires knowledge, skills, and efficacy beliefs. People who view themselves as efficacious set challenges for themselves and are more likely to persist in their efforts until they succeed. People who recognize themselves as inefficacious are more likely to evade difficult tasks and even abandon them in the face of obstacles.

The examination of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in relation to teaching has been the foci of studies by several researchers (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Enochs & Riggs, 1990; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Guskey, 1988; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Personal teaching efficacy has been defined as a belief in one's ability to teach effectively and teaching outcome expectancy as the belief that effective teaching will have a positive effect on student learning. Research on efficacy of teachers suggests that behaviors such as persistence at a task, risk taking, and use of innovations are related to degrees of efficacy (Ashton & Webb, 1986). Highly efficacious teachers have been found to be more likely to use inquiry and student-centered teaching strategies, while teachers with a low sense of efficacy are more likely to use teacher-directed strategies, such as didactic lectures and reading from the textbook (Czerniak, 1990).

Bandura (1981) defines self-efficacy as a situation-specific construct. Thus, when this theory is applied to preservice elementary science teaching, it may help to explain preservice teachers' thought patterns, affective reactions, and behaviors in regard to science teaching. Specificity is especially necessary when studying elementary science teaching beliefs and behavior, since elementary teachers teach all subjects and may not be equally effective in teaching all of them. Whether or not teachers believe they have the ability to teach elementary science is central to effective science teaching and, consequently, student learning.

Statement of the Problem

"While various reform efforts may focus initially on different parts of the science ... education system, e.g., curriculum, assessment, or in-service teacher education, there is a consensus that having a well-prepared teaching force is essential for effective science ... education" (Horizon, 2001, p. 7). The literature abounds with research depicting elementary science education as lacking in areas that will equip and entice preservice teachers to effectively and consistently teach science to elementary students once they enter the inservice teaching realm. The reasoning behind the concern stems from the dismal results reflected in national and international science performance assessments from elementary and secondary students in the United States. Also, based on survey data collected in 1993 and 2000 funded by the National Science Foundation with a probability sample of approximately 6,000 teachers throughout the United States, in self-contained elementary classes, grades 1-6, an average of only about half an hour per day (28 minutes in 1993 and 27 minutes in 2000) was spent on science instruction compared to almost an hour per day (52 minutes in 1993 and 60 minutes in 2000) on mathematics instruction and roughly 70 minutes in 1993 and over 105 minutes in 2000 on reading/language arts instruction (Weiss, Matti, & Smith, 1994; Weiss, Banilower, McMahon & Smith, 2001). Arguments supporting the need for science education in elementary schools have been based on the desire to develop in students the knowledge, reasoning, and problem solving skills required for a rapidly changing and technology based society (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Science Teachers Association, 1996).

Nevertheless, a sizable proportion of teachers reported instructional emphases that ran counter to current reform recommendations. For example, approximately 20 percent of science classes give heavy emphasis to preparing students for standardized tests, which have been shown to focus on lower level knowledge and skills (Madaus, West, Harmon, Lomax, & Viator, 1992). Furthermore, classes at all levels are much less likely to emphasize having students learn to explain ideas in science or learn to evaluate arguments based on scientific evidence, two skills essential to scientific inquiry (Weiss, Banilower, McMahon & Smith, 2001). Since the elementary grades are where all children receive their initial formal training in the area of science, the teachers in the elementary grades must be prepared to inspire their students. However, less than a third of elementary teachers feel well qualified to teach science (Weiss, 1997), many classroom teachers feel uncomfortable and unqualified when asked to teach science (Abell & Roth, 1991), and "many experienced teachers, along with beginning teachers who have recently completed their preservice education, expressed a lack of confidence in their ability to teach science" (Ginns & Watters, 1998a).

At the elementary level, where most teachers are assigned to teach science, math, and other academic subjects to one group of students, 76 percent of teachers reported feeling very well qualified to teach reading, roughly 60 percent felt very well qualified to teach math and social studies, while only 29 percent felt very well qualified to teach life science and fewer than 18 percent felt very well qualified in the physical sciences--an average of 24 percent for science overall (Weiss, Banilower, McMahon & Smith, 2001). Empowering elementary teachers to fulfill the daunting task of teaching science in the elementary school cannot be accomplished through hit-or-miss inservice science workshops or administrative coercion. The preparation of elementary science teachers in colleges of education is currently under reform to address this situation (Akin, 1985).

Purpose of the Study

Many studies have focused upon the link, or lack thereof, between preservice and inservice elementary teachers' implementation of the teaching of elementary science (Ginns & Watters, 1998b; Crowther, 1998; Ginns & Watters, 1990). However, the research literature does not have ample documentation as to the student teaching factor. Granted, first and second year inservice teachers, with all of the pressures and nuances of school life, will not exhibit the influences of the university science methods class, even if that class was instrumental for the preservice teacher at the time it was taken (Ginns & Watters, 1998b; Weiss, 1997; Tilgner, 1990). A longitudinal study of the preservice to inservice transition would be interesting, but it would only prove what is already known: that no matter what is taught at the college of education level, inservice elementary teachers are not teaching science to their children effectively (Ginns & Watters, 1998b; Weiss, 1997; Tilgner, 1990). More specifically, some teachers teach science to elementary students more often and effectively than others. The reality of the problem is to explore the barriers for the teachers who are not teaching science effectively. It is known statistically that this is a major problem with science education, but it has not been systematically analyzed as to why this is.

This study took a step back and followed a group of preservice teachers (n = 59) from the end of their third semester in the College of Education through their student teaching semester. For background, these students' science methods class focused on standards and constructivist pedagogy, instituting lessons within a field based environment. Also, the students were participating in elementary classrooms during the time of the methods class. The class evaluations from the participants resounded with enthusiasm and joyful anticipation towards the teaching of science to elementary students. The more positive the impact on preservice teachers' efficacy during their teacher preparation program, including the student teaching semester, the more likely it is that these individuals will engage in effective teaching behaviors in the future (Ginns & Watters, 1998).

This study was unique in garnering an early view of how the deterioration of science education begins. The controlling of the science methods class variable allowed for the window of opportunity to view the genesis of the process of teachers "forgetting" what they learned in their science methods class. It was like getting a glimpse at reverse metamorphosis; instead of the lowly caterpillar metamorphosising into a beautiful butterfly, these enthusiastic and energetic student teachers, with a zeal to teach science to elementary students were being transformed into the ineffective inservice science teachers who are thoroughly high-lighted in the research literature.

The explicit research question shaping this investigation was: What is the impact of the student teaching semester on preservice elementary teachers' personal efficacy beliefs and outcome expectancy beliefs in science teaching? Specifically, the objectives of the study were to determine if personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and/or science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE) beliefs would have statistically significant changes in the four months of student teaching for a group of student teachers.

Theoretical Background

Bandura (1977, 1986, 1995, 1997), Fullan (1993), and other self-efficacy researchers have concluded that the genesis of deep change in the educational system is the individual teacher and that a teacher's behaviors, values, beliefs, and ambition to act may be cultivated or inhibited during his / her early experiences as a student teacher. Therefore, this paper examined the experiences of student teachers, utilizing the theoretical framework of self-efficacy, to determine if their science teaching self-efficacy beliefs changed during this crucial early stage of their prospective teaching careers.

Student teachers' persistence in utilizing the teaching methods grounded in current science education theory may depend on the presence or absence of feelings of success with the planning and implementation of science programs. When student teachers initially have successful experiences in teaching science, Bandura (1986) claims that they should develop high levels of self-efficacy regarding their ability to teach. Therefore, Bandura's self-efficacy theory provides a suitable framework for examining the general beliefs and behaviors of student teachers and interpreting the nature of experiences which may cause changes in those beliefs and behaviors (Greenwood, Olejnik, & Parkay, 1990; Ginns & Watters, 1998). Student teachers' personal beliefs about their ability to teach science and their beliefs about the general effectiveness of teaching science are two factors which can be derived from Bandura's work (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1986; Bandura, 1989; Bandura, 1995; Bandura's, 1997).

Based on Bandura's work on self-efficacy, Riggs and Enochs (Riggs, 1991) have proposed two factors, personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE), as a result of a study into preservice teacher self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in the domain specific area of science. The factors identified by Riggs and Enochs, plus the domain specificity of those factors, are in agreement with Bandura's definition of self-efficacy.

Methods

Science teaching efficacy beliefs were examined through a pretest-posttest one-group research design, immediately prior to and directly following the student teaching semester, to collect quantitative data through the use of a teaching efficacy beliefs instrument.

Three cohorts of preservice elementary teachers (n = 59) were the subjects of this study. Each cohort began its student teaching semester (fourth and final semester) at a large university in the western United States. Ethnicity and gender of all subjects were derived from their surveys.

All 59 subjects completed both the pretest STEBI-B at the beginning of their student teaching semester and the posttest after their student teaching soloing period was finished. The treatment can be considered the student teaching semester along with the experiences of the soloing period. The study is limited by its method of selecting a sample. Census sampling was utilized where all members of the population were included. Even a complete census of all known members of a population is subject to random error or potential measurement error. Therefore, generalizability must be contained to the three cohorts of student teachers (n=59).

The Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (STEBI-B) for preservice teachers (Enochs & Riggs, 1990), administered at the beginning and again at the end of the student teaching semester, consists of 23 Likert items. Each item has five response categories--strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, and strongly disagree. STEBI-B is comprised of two subscales, personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE). Possible scores on the PSTE subscale range from 13 to 65; STOE scores may range from 10 to 50. STEBI-B is reported as a valid and reliable instrument. Reliability analysis produced an alpha coefficient of 0.90 for the PSTE subscale and an alpha coefficient of 0.76 for the STOE subscale.

Results

Means and standard deviations for pretest and posttest scores on STEBI-B for the entire population (n = 59) are presented in Table 1. A t-test was applied to determine if there was significant difference between the means of the pretest and the posttest. Mean scores on STEBI-B for Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE) changed from 49.29 (range 30 - 64) to 50.15 (range 30-63), an increase of 0.86. There was no significant difference for PSTE (t (116) = 0.56, p > .05) between the pretest (before student teaching) and the posttest (after student teaching).

Mean scores on STEBI-B for Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE) changed from 36.14 (range 29-48) to 33.93 (range 26-48), a decrease of 2.21. There was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest means on the STOE scale (t (1 1 6) = 2.30, p < .05). The t-test produced a calculated t-value of 2.30. The t critical value for a two-tailed test (p < .05) with 116 degrees of freedom is 1.98. The two tailed test was utilized because the null hypothesis was rejected as the results were significant in one of the two possible directions. Since the obtained t value (t = 2.30) was larger than the tabled t value (t = 1.98), there was statistical significance. It was statistically significant at the probability level of five hundredths (p < .05). This meant that the probability was fewer than 5 times out of 100 that the obtained results were due to chance or error. In other words, if this study were conducted 100 times, the same differences between pretest and posttest scores would be obtained at least 95 times.

Discussion

The important treatment for the cohort groups (n = 59) involved their participation in the student teaching semester, January through May. This experience was specifically arranged to draw upon the background knowledge, science teaching strategies, and general pedagogical knowledge of these preservice teachers. Their background knowledge was garnered from each students' personal experiences in and out of the educational arena, including the beneficial courses offered at the College of Education. The science teaching strategies were constructed from the science methods course and mentor teachers willing to share their expertise. General pedagogical knowledge and personal teaching philosophy were attributed to the many educational classes completed at the College of Education, but also from a lifetime of interactions with children, parents, teachers, peers, and societal influences. The student teaching semester provided opportunities for students to apply their content and pedagogical knowledge with children and to further develop personal teaching philosophies. It supplied experiences which should have contributed to changes--either positive or negative--in the student teachers' STEBI-B scores.

However, the intervention occurred in a broader context than simply a classroom of children. The entire school milieu was experienced including interplay with mentor teachers, other grade level teachers, parents, administrators, classroom management, time constraints, the availability of materials and supplies, and curricular concerns. Furthermore, the preservice teachers' content and pedagogical knowledge, including knowledge of the purposes, history and philosophy of education; of children as learners; and of educational environments were additional influences which had substantial impact. Competent teaching practice requires an integration of this knowledge (Shulman, 1987); therefore, it could be predicted that the sum of the student teachers' experiences during the student teaching semester would impact more on outcome beliefs (STOE) than on personal self-efficacy (PSTE).

The results were consistent with this prediction. A comparison of pretest and posttest means indicated that only outcome beliefs (STOE) were significantly affected. The mean scores of the preservice teachers' personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) changed slightly in a positive degree, but not enough to deem them statistically significant. The lack of significance could be attributed to their beliefs and attitudes regarding the teaching of science which were set firmly prior to entry into the preservice program as a result of their science-related experiences in elementary and high schools (Ginns & Watters, 1995). Consequently, the immersion in the student teaching semester did not have a significant impact on their attitudes and beliefs. The antecedents of these preservice teachers' beliefs and attitudes regarding the teaching of science may well have resided in their experiences prior to their entry into the profession, preceding their preservice student teaching semester.

The statistically significant negative changes in pretest and posttest scores for outcome expectancies suggests that during the student teaching semester, specific influences deteriorated the confidence of these student teachers that elementary student learning, in the area of science, could be influenced by effective teaching. These changes may be attributed to the barriers to effective science teaching, especially while student teaching: the lack of sufficient time, insufficient materials and supplies, inadequate collegial support, unstructured curriculum and resources, and the ever present concern of classroom management. While these barriers may have attributed to the negative perceptions of the outcomes expected by these particular student teachers, they are also the specific deterrents ascribed by inservice teachers as to their inadequate science teaching.

Behavior is enacted when people not only expect specific behavior to result in desirable outcomes (outcome expectancy), but they also believe in their own ability to perform the behavior (self-efficacy). If Bandura's theory of self-efficacy is applied to this study of student teachers, it might be predicted that the student teachers who believed student learning could be influenced by effective teaching (outcome expectancy beliefs) and who also had confidence in their own teaching abilities (self-efficacy beliefs) would persist longer, provide a greater academic science focus in the classroom, and exhibit effective teaching strategies compared to student teachers who had lower expectations concerning their ability to influence student learning. In cases where both self-efficacy and outcome expectancies vary, behavior can be predicted by considering both factors. It can be conjectured that a student teacher rating high on both factors would behave in an assured, confident manner, and hence, become an efficacious teacher once entering the teaching profession.

This study has confirmed that, for this group of student teachers, the influences of the student teaching experience had a negative effect on their beliefs that the teacher can make a positive influence for children in the area of elementary science education. Therefore, in can be recommended that further research in this area focus more acutely on the student teaching experience as it seems that this is the genesis of the ineffectual teaching of elementary science.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Figure 2. Elementary teachers considering themselves "very well
qualified" to teach the subject.
                   Percent

Language             76
Arts/Reading
Mathematics          60
Social Studies       52
Life Science         29
Earth Science        25
Physical Science     15

Table 1
PSTE Scores and STOE Scores on STEBI-B

     PRETEST               POSTTEST
                 PSTE
               standard               standard
n     mean     deviation     mean     deviation   mean difference

59    49.29      6.68        50.15       6.21           0.86
                  STOE
59    36.14      4.57        33.93       4.99           2.21

References

Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1991, April). Coping with constraints of teaching elementary science: A case study, of a science enthusiast student teacher. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.

Akin, J. N. (1985). Teacher supply and demand. Association for School, College, and University Staffing.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Science for all americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.

Ball, D. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8, 40-48.

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

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

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy at a glance. [Online]. Availablehttp://education.indiana.edu/~cep/courses/p540/bandbio.html.

Crowther, D. T. (1998). Metamorphosis of preservice teachers. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 2(4), 1-10.

Czerniak, C. M. (1990, April). A study of self-efficacy, anxiety, and science knowledge in preservice elementary teachers. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990, April 8-11). Further development of an elementary, science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

Fullan, M. (1993). The complexity of the change process. Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform (pp. 19-41). London: The Falmer Press.

Gee, C. J. (1996). Preservice elemental, teachers: Their science content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, Missouri.

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

Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1990). A longitudinal study of preservice elementary teachers' personal and science teaching efficacy (Reports--Research/ Technical ED 404 127).

Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1995). An analysis of scientific understandings of preservice elementary teacher education students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 205-222.

Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1998a, April 19-22). Beginning elementary school teachers and the effective teaching of science. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science, San Diego, CA.

Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1998b, April 13-17). Beginning teachers' professional growth: Confronting the challenge of teaching elementary, school science. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Greenwood, G. E., Olejnik, S. F., & Parkay, F. W. (1990). Relationships between four teacher efficacy belief patterns and selected teacher characteristics. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23(2), 102-106.

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63-69.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Madaus, G. F., West, M. M., Harmon, M. C., Lomax, R. G., & Viator, K. A. (1992). The impact of mandated standardized testing on minority, students. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy.

National Science Teachers Association. (1996). National science teachers association science standards. Washington.

Riggs, I. M. (1991, April 3-7). Gender differences in elementary science teacher self-efficacy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 625-637.

Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127-146). New York: Macmillan.

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

Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan.

Weiss, I.R. (1997). Comparing teacher views and classroom practice to national standards. National Institute for Science Education Brief 1(3), 1-11.

Weiss, I. R., Matti, M. C., & Smith, P. S. (1994). Report of the 1993 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

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

Lee A. Plourde, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Curriculum and Supervision, Central Washington University--Wenatchee.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Lee A. Plourde, 604 Ringold Street, Wenatchee, Washington, 98801; Email: [e-mail]