Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ role identity development in respect to the use of curriculum materials for science</titl= e> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"date"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"country-region"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"PlaceType"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"place"/>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple style=3D'tab-interval:.5in'> <div class=3DSection1> Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ role identity development in respect to the use = of curriculum materials for science<= o:p></o:p> <sp= an style=3D'mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'><o:p> </o:p> Cory T. Forbes, <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType w:s= t=3D"on">University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Michigan</st1:PlaceName></st1:place><o:p></o= :p> Elizabeth A. Davis, <= st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:P= laceName w:st=3D"on">Michigan</st1:PlaceName></st1:place><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Abstract This mixed-methods study = examines preservice elementary teachers’ development of curricular role identi= ty for science teaching through their use of science curriculum materials. Fifty-three preservice elementary teachers in two sections of an elementary science methods course were studi= ed over the course of one semester. D= ata include survey results from preservice teachers in both course sections and interviews, observations, and course artifacts from a small group of 8 preservice teachers studied in-depth. Results suggest preservice teachers articulate differences between t= heir own and more experienced elementary teachers’ curricular role identity for science teaching and can make progress towards appropriating the latter. Implications for scie= nce teacher educators and science curriculum developers are discussed. <o:p>= </o:p> Introduction and Theoretical Framework<o:p></o:p> </s= pan>While systemic reform of science teaching practice is a daunting challenge, the current emphasis of science education reform on standards-based, inquiry-or= iented teaching (AAAS, 1993; NRC, = 1996) has been advanced in a = range of contexts and through a variety of methods, including preservice teacher education, professional development, and the development of science curricu= lum materials. Of all these vario= us means of translating science education reform in classroom practice, howeve= r, it is arguably curriculum materials that can have the greatest effect (Brown & Edels= on, 2003) on day-to-day classroom practice. </= span>As Shulman noted over twenty years ago, these materials represent the ‘pharmacopia for teaching’ (Shulman, 1986)<!-= -[if supportFields]><![endif]--> and act as an essential= tool with which teachers craft teaching practice. Curriculum materials can be defined broadly as including both the physical tools used in science classrooms (su= ch as lab apparati, instruments, and technology) and the representational tools (such as text and graphics) around which the use of physical tools is structured. It is the latter = of these two that is the focus of this study and has been the focus of recent research on teachers and curriculum materials (Davis & Krajc= ik, 2005; Remillard, 2005). &n= bsp; Unfortunat= ely, just as the national science curriculum development projects in the 1950s a= nd 1960s failed to bring about intended science education reforms (DeBoer, 1991; Dus= chl, 1994), so too have more recent curriculum development efforts (Brown & Edels= on, 2003; Cohen & Ball, 1999). </sp= an>One explanation for the apparent lack of influence curricular reforms have had = on teachers’ practice is that, historically, the materials have been designed to speak through teachers rather than to them (Remillard, 2000)<= !--[if supportFields]><![endif]-->. Teachers have, by and large, been = viewed as passive users of curriculum materials rather than as active agents in in situ curriculum design. It is often the case that teachers= adapt and mobilize curriculum materials in light of their own unique needs, those= of their students, and the contexts in which they work (Barab & Luehm= ann, 2003; Enyedy, Goldberg, & Welsh, 2006; Pinto, 2004; Schneider, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2005). The ability to engage in curriculum design at a classroom level, or pedagogical design capacity (Brown, 2002), is a function not only= of context, however, but also the nature of the curriculum materials themselves and individual teacher characteristics, including their knowledge and belie= fs (Remillard & B= ryans, 2004; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005; Schneider, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2005= ). However, the influence= of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs on their use of curriculum materials = may not tell the whole story (Brown, 2002; Enye= dy, Goldberg, & Welsh, 2006). Teachers’ orientations toward curriculum materials (Remillard & B= ryans, 2004), defined as a set of perspectives and dispositions toward salient, curriculum materials-specific dimensions of teaching practice, is a more general const= ruct that includes knowledge and beliefs. It is in these orientations toward curriculum materials and science teaching that identity is foregrounded as an important dimension of teachers’ use of curriculum materials. Given the = calls for research on the relationship between these teacher characteristics, inc= luding identity, and teachers’ use of curriculum materials (Remillard, 2005)<= !--[if supportFields]><![endif]-->, we undertook research = aimed at better understanding how preservice elementary teachers construct a teac= hing identity as they learn to use science curriculum materials. <ol style=3D'margin-top:0in' start=3D1 type=3D1> <li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'color:black;line-height:200%;mso-list:l5 le= vel1 lfo8; tab-stops:list .5in'>How do preservice elementary teachers conceptuali= ze their role identity in respect to curriculum materials?<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'color:black;line-height:200%;mso-list:l5 le= vel1 lfo8; tab-stops:list .5in'>How does their curricular role identity (CRI) dev= elop through their use of science curriculum materials at this early stage along the teacher professional continuum?<o:p></o:p></li> </ol> While a substantial amount of research has been focused on inservice teachers’ use of science and mathematics curriculum materials (Collopy, 2003; Enyedy & Goldberg, 2004; Fishman,= Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003; Lloyd, 1999; Pinto, 2004; Remillard, 1999; Remillard & Bryans, 2004; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005; Schneider, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2005), a more limited body has only begun to emerge recently focused on preservice elementary teachers’ use of and learning from science curr= iculum materials (Davis, 2006). The results presented here extend = this research by examining preservice elementary teachers’ relationships w= ith science curriculum materials through the lens of identity.<o:p></o:p> Identity and Role Identi= ty<o:p></o:p> Identity, = while a useful perspective through which to better understand teachers’ learn= ing and practice, is often difficult to articulate and operationalize. It can, however, be thought of as = an all-encompassing representation of, as Lemke (Lemke, 2000) notes, “a person’s evaluative stance toward interaction…cast in the roman= tic folk language of ‘who we are’” (pg. 283). For teachers, identity is a functio= n of their knowledge, beliefs, self-efficacy, and general dispositions toward teaching practice and its evolution over time (Collopy, 2003; Dr= ake, Spillane, & Hufferd-Ackles, 2001). Identities= are multidimensional in that they originate and develop across contexts and time. Gee (2000-2001) describes four ways to = view identity: as nature-based, institutionally-based, discursive, and affinity-based. Especially in= the case of the latter three, identities are often fashioned around particular roles - "the self is reflexive in that it can take itself as an object= and can categorize, classify, or name itself in particular ways in relation to other social categories or classification" (Stets & Burke= , 2000, pg. 224). Role identity is concerned, then, primarily with how teachers fashion a sense of self around the role of teac= her (Bullough, Knowles, & Crow, 1992). Its development relies on a role standard or designated identity (Burke, 1981; Coll= ier, 2001; Sfard & Prusak, 2005). Furthermore, role identities are differentiated (Collier, 2001)<!-= -[if supportFields]><![endif]--> in that various practic= es, and the meanings associated with those practices, constitute any particular role, including that of teacher. However, certain individuals have a disproportionately significant influence on role identity development – who Sfard & Prusak (2005= ) call ‘significant narrators’. Identities= are shaped in communities where “identity, knowing, and social membership entail one another” (Lave & Wenger= , 1991, pg. 53). In constructing an identity, an individual is both shaped by, and in turn shapes, the practices of the community through processes of identification and negotiability <= /i>(Wenger, 1998). Important in this notion is that individuals do not merely identify = with and appropriate existing roles or categories, but they also actively work to negotiate their meaning. Ther= efore, identity also exists in the actions that constitute activity in a given community (Enyedy, Goldberg, & Welsh, 2006; = Lemke, 2000; Sfard & Prusak, 2005). One’s participation in a particular community reflects his or her perspective on the norms and pract= ices of the community itself, or life-world (Kozoll & Osbo= rne, 2003) or figured world (Graue, 2005; Holl= and, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998). Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Development of Curricular Role Identity<o:p></o:p> Science and mathematics classrooms can be thought of as figured worlds (Boaler & Gree= no, 2000; Kozoll & Osborne, 2003) for which preservice teachers are being prep= ared (Graue, 2005). Preservice teachers’ role id= entity formation is most heavily influenced by experiences in three domains: their= own history as students, the nature of the teacher education program, and their limited classroom experiences (Mahlios, 2002)<!-= -[if supportFields]><![endif]-->. However, due to preservice teachers’ limited experience in the role of teacher, their ideas about teaching are largely based their own past experiences as students (Lortie, 1975). At the preservice stage of the professional continuum, identity development is heavily influenced by these powerful notions of self which, even for inservice science teachers, are of= ten deeply personal (Helms, 1998). The salience of these entrenched i= deas about teaching has provided fodder for criticisms of formal teacher educati= on (Zeichner & Go= re, 1990). Sandwiched between the exceedingly powerful influences of past experience a= nd classroom practice, preservice teacher education is often seen as a weak intervention (Richardson, 1996)= . Just as pr= eservice teachers can learn to teach inquiry-oriented science (Crawford, 1999)<!= --[if supportFields]><![endif]-->, so too can they learn = to critique and adapt science curriculum materials (Davis, 2006). However, in order to put these abi= lities to use and develop substantial pedagogical design capacity, preservice teac= hers must develop a teaching identity in which the active use of science curricu= lum materials is valued. We defin= e this particular dimension of teachers’ role identity involving their orientations toward the use of curriculum materials as curricular role iden= tity (CRI). Through our work as sc= ience teacher educators and science curriculum developers, we have learned much a= bout how preservice elementary teachers use and learn from science curriculum ma= terials (Davis, 2006; Forb= es & Davis, 2007; Smithey & Davis, 2004). In undertaking this st= udy, we sought to further explore how teacher characteristics, in this case curricular role identity, influence preservice teachers’ use of scien= ce curriculum materials and development as elementary science teachers. This research helps further illuminate the field’s understanding of preservice elementary teachers’ unique needs and learning at this stage of the teacher professional continuum. Methods<o:p></o:p> </s= pan>This complementary mixed-methods study involved 53 preservice elementary teacher= s in two sections of an undergraduate elementary science teaching methods course. A survey instrument, developed by the authors to measure preservice teachers’ developing curricular role identity for science, was administered to students in both sections of the course at the beginning and end of the term. From this whole group, 8 preservice teachers were chosen to be studied qualitatively over the course of the semester in an effort to better understand how they constructed a curricular role identity for science and illuminate trends in the survey data. Participants and Context= <o:p></o:p> This study= took place during the third semester of an undergraduate elementary teacher preparation program at a large, Midwestern university in the <st1:place w:s= t=3D"on"><st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place>. The four-term, cohort-based program leads to a B.A. degree in education as well as recommendation for elementary teaching certification in the state. It is designed to promote the developm= ent of preservice teachers’ pedagogical, subject-matter, and pedagogical content knowledge, and is aligned with foundational tenets of teacher educa= tion reform (INTASC, 1992; NCA= TE, 1987) and standards documents (AAAS, 1993; NCSS,= 1994; NCTM, 1991; NRC, 1996). During each of the first three sem= esters of the program, students undertake relevant university coursework and spend= at least six hours per week in k-6 classrooms under the tutelage of an experie= nced mentor teacher. The final ter= m is centered around a traditionally-structured, full-time, 14-15 week student-teaching experience. During the= third semester, the preservice teachers are enrolled in the elementary science teaching methods course. Ther= e were two sections of the course, each taught by one of the authors. The elementary science teaching me= thods course is organized around three explicit goals. First, the course aims to = help preservice elementary teachers develop an understanding of scientific inqui= ry and inquiry-oriented science teaching, including three essential features: questioning and predicting, explaining using evidence, and communicating and justifying findings. Second, preservice teachers learn to anticipate and address students' ideas, includ= ing their prior knowledge and alternative (non-scientific) ideas. Third, a considerable portion of t= he course is devoted to interactions with science curriculum materials through which they develop the ability to critique and adapt them for science teaching. The preservice teac= hers in the elementary science methods course studied here were representative of the population of elementary teachers in the <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:co= untry-region w:st=3D"on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place> – most were female= and most were Caucasian. All were traditional fourth-year seniors (about 21 years old) in their final year of college. Data Sources and Collect= ion<o:p></o:p> The data reported he= re are both quantitative and qualitative, all collected over the course of the ter= m in which the elementary science teaching methods course was taught. At the beginning of the term, stud= ents from both sections of the course were asked to participate in the study.<sp= an style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> 47 of the 53 preservice teac= hers in the two sections consented to later analysis of their survey responses a= nd coursework. As a result, surv= ey data was collected on 47 individuals. Additionally, 11 of these 47 students were invited to participate in= the study subsample which involved a commitment to two interviews as well as in-class observations by the first author.= Of the initial 11 initially asked, 9 students agreed to participate.= Incomplete data was collected for = one of the 9 preservice teachers so the data reported here is drawn from 8 student= s. The preservice teachers were reass= ured that they could withdraw their consent for participation at any time, though none of them opted to do so. <o:p></o:p> A survey instrument was developed to assess preservice elementary teachers’ conception of the teacher’s role in respect to curriculum and curricu= lum materials. This instrument went through a number of iterative cycles of exp= ert review and this study represents its first pilot test. It was administered to students in= both sections of the course (n=3D53) at the beginning and end of the fall 2005 t= erm and was composed of 34 actions statements.= These actions statements began with the generic phrase ‘compar= ed to all elementary teachers who teach science…” and for each statement students were asked to respond to this prompt in respect to a role standard (‘effective science teachers’) and self-descriptively (‘I’). For example: “Compared to all elementary teachers who teach science...” <![if !supportLists]>- = <![endif]>…effective science teachers are ___ to reflect on their use of curriculum materials in order to improve their practice. <![if !supportLists]>- = <![endif]>…I am ___ to reflect on my use of curriculum materials in order to improve my practice. <o:p> </o:p> A five-point Likert scale w= as employed (5 =3D much more likely; 1 =3D much less likely) for scoring. Drawing on Remillard’s (2005= ) model of the teacher-curriculum relationship, we identified four dimensions of teachers’ curricular role identity into which the 34 questions were organized. These dimensions included teachers’ planning for and enactment of curricula in which t= hey interpret, evaluate, and adapt curriculum materials, use of curriculum materials for inquiry-oriented teaching, accounting for context in their in= teractions with, planning for, and enactment of curriculum, and the teacher’s learning from interactions with curriculum materials. The primary purpose of the survey = was to obtain a measure of role identification which illuminated preservice teachers’ conceptions of their own curricular role identities and tho= se they attributed to experienced elementary teachers, a comparison of the two, and any changes that occurred in them over the course of the semester. In the results that follow, the sc= ores for the preservice teachers’ self-described role identity are referre= d to as ‘self’ scores while the curricular role identity they attrib= uted to more experienced elementary teachers are referred to as ‘role̵= 7; scores. In additio= n to survey data, 8 students were followed more closely over the course of the t= erm by the first author. Data fro= m this subsample includes course assignments, reflective journal entries, intervie= ws, and observations of science lessons taught in their school placements. Two formal, semi-structured (Patton, 2001) interviews were conduct= ed with each student, one at the beginning and one at the end of the course.<s= pan style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The first interview was primarily focused on students’ past experiences with and individual orientations towards science, science teaching, and science learning, as well as their i= deas about curriculum materials for science.&nb= sp; The second interview involved a discussion of their response to a fictional teaching scenario, critique of a sample science lesson plan, reflection on their use of science curriculum materials in practice over the course of the term, and a more general discussion as to the nature of curriculum and curriculum materials and characteristics of effective instructional materials for science. In completion of a major course assignment, each preservice teacher = was required to teach two science lessons in their placement classrooms over the course of the term. This assi= gnment entailed identifying an existing science lesson, critiquing and modifying it for use in their instructional setting, teaching the lesson, and completing= a follow-up reflective journal entry. In addition to these components, each of the 8 teachers’ were observed by the first author enacting science lessons in their classroom placement and participated in a post-enactment interview. Data Analysis<o:p></o:p>= The analys= is of the survey and qualitative data involved a complementary mixed methods appr= oach so as to allow us to characterize how preservice teachers conceptualize the= ir roles as teacher in respect to curriculum, identify critical factors that mediate the development of curricular role identity, and illuminate the influence of curricular role identity and its development on fundamental elements of teacher learning and science teaching. The survey was designed to provide= a measure of preservice teachers’ conceptions of curricular role identi= ty in respect to themselves (‘I’ survey items) and a role standard (“effective science teachers” survey items). This design allows= us to compare students’ responses to self and role survey items (16 each= ), as well as how they change over time. For the su= rvey data, we constructed frequency tables and obtained descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, etc.). </= span>A Cronbach’s alpha reliability test of the entire survey yielded an <sp= an style=3D'font-family:Symbol'>a value of 0.91 and, for each of the dimensions measured, no a value l= ower than 0.71. What this suggests= is that the instrument possesses high internal reliability, as a whole and within e= ach dimension measured, and that each of the questions contributes relatively equally to the overall variance – no single question or group of questions has a disproportionate affect on the survey results. We also examined intercorrelations between the four dimensions for both self and role scores. Positive, significant correlations= were found among all dimensions for both self and role scores, as shown in Appen= dix A. Finally, all survey items = except for one loaded positively on one factor in principal components analysis (s= ee Appendix B). This question was dropped and was excluded from the analysis. Paired-samples t-tests were undert= aken to compare self and role scores from both pre- and post- administrations of= the survey, as well as to compare changes in self and role scores over time.<sp= an style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There were no statistically-signif= icant differences on any of the dimensions measured between the two sections of t= he course. Qualitative analysis involved an iterative process of coding, reduction, displaying, and verification of data (Miles & Huber= man, 1994). The initial coding scheme was orga= nized around the four categories of the teacher-curriculum relationship derived f= rom the Remillard model (2005). Within each of these categories, additional subcodes relevant to science teaching were employed to capture the teachers’ talk about inquiry-oriented teaching and learning. As analy= sis progressed, additional codes were added to account for emergent themes and,= as definitive patterns emerged, the data was reduced to isolate and illustrate= key factors. This process continu= ed until dominant themes had been refined and substantiated. Our final coding = key is presented in Appendix C. Pseudonyms have been used for the preservice teachers in the results that follow. Results<o:p></o:p> Overview of results<o:p>= </o:p> As a gross= measure of the preservice teachers’ curricular role identity development for science teaching over the course of the semester, we first present aggregate results from the survey. Stat= istics for ‘self’ and ‘role’ scores are presented in Table= 1. <o:p></o:p> Table 1: Changes in Self and Role Scores over the seme= ster (Whole Survey) <table class=3DMsoTableGrid border=3D1 cellspacing=3D0 cellpadding=3D0 style=3D'border-collapse:collapse;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowt= ext .5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook:480;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;mso-border-inside= h: .5pt solid windowtext;mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext'> <tr style=3D'mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes'> <td colspan=3D2 rowspan=3D2 valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext= 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> <o:p> </o:p> </td> <td colspan=3D2 valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;borde= r-left: none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windo= wtext .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Beginning of the semester </td> <td colspan=3D2 valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;borde= r-left: none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windo= wtext .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> End of the semester </td> <td colspan=3D2 valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;borde= r-left: none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windo= wtext .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> <o:p> </o:p> </td> </tr> <tr style=3D'mso-yfti-irow:1'> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Mean </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Standard Deviation </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Mean </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Standard Deviation </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> t-test </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Effect size </td> </tr> <tr style=3D'mso-yfti-irow:2'> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none; mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext = .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Self </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> <o:p> </o:p> </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> 2.8247 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> .42059 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> 3.0858 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> .43139 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> -4.346* </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> 0.6128 </td> </tr> <tr style=3D'mso-yfti-irow:3'> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none; mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext = .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Role </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> <o:p> </o:p> </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> 3.0589 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> .38804 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> 3.2087 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; paddin

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01C796E3.4CE4BCB0" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer. ------=_NextPart_01C796E3.4CE4BCB0 Content-Location: file:///C:/475B1A37/ForbesDavisASTE07.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ role identity development in respect to the use of curriculum materials for science</titl= e> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"date"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"country-region"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"PlaceType"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"place"/>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple style=3D'tab-interval:.5in'> <div class=3DSection1> Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ role identity development in respect to the use = of curriculum materials for science<= o:p></o:p> <sp= an style=3D'mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'><o:p> </o:p> Cory T. Forbes, <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType w:s= t=3D"on">University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Michigan</st1:PlaceName></st1:place><o:p></o= :p> Elizabeth A. Davis, <= st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:P= laceName w:st=3D"on">Michigan</st1:PlaceName></st1:place><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Abstract This mixed-methods study = examines preservice elementary teachers’ development of curricular role identi= ty for science teaching through their use of science curriculum materials. Fifty-three preservice elementary teachers in two sections of an elementary science methods course were studi= ed over the course of one semester. D= ata include survey results from preservice teachers in both course sections and interviews, observations, and course artifacts from a small group of 8 preservice teachers studied in-depth. Results suggest preservice teachers articulate differences between t= heir own and more experienced elementary teachers’ curricular role identity for science teaching and can make progress towards appropriating the latter. Implications for scie= nce teacher educators and science curriculum developers are discussed. <o:p>= </o:p> Introduction and Theoretical Framework<o:p></o:p> </s= pan>While systemic reform of science teaching practice is a daunting challenge, the current emphasis of science education reform on standards-based, inquiry-or= iented teaching (AAAS, 1993; NRC, = 1996) has been advanced in a = range of contexts and through a variety of methods, including preservice teacher education, professional development, and the development of science curricu= lum materials. Of all these vario= us means of translating science education reform in classroom practice, howeve= r, it is arguably curriculum materials that can have the greatest effect (Brown & Edels= on, 2003) on day-to-day classroom practice. </= span>As Shulman noted over twenty years ago, these materials represent the ‘pharmacopia for teaching’ (Shulman, 1986)<!-= -[if supportFields]><![endif]--> and act as an essential= tool with which teachers craft teaching practice. Curriculum materials can be defined broadly as including both the physical tools used in science classrooms (su= ch as lab apparati, instruments, and technology) and the representational tools (such as text and graphics) around which the use of physical tools is structured. It is the latter = of these two that is the focus of this study and has been the focus of recent research on teachers and curriculum materials (Davis & Krajc= ik, 2005; Remillard, 2005). &n= bsp; Unfortunat= ely, just as the national science curriculum development projects in the 1950s a= nd 1960s failed to bring about intended science education reforms (DeBoer, 1991; Dus= chl, 1994), so too have more recent curriculum development efforts (Brown & Edels= on, 2003; Cohen & Ball, 1999). </sp= an>One explanation for the apparent lack of influence curricular reforms have had = on teachers’ practice is that, historically, the materials have been designed to speak through teachers rather than to them (Remillard, 2000)<= !--[if supportFields]><![endif]-->. Teachers have, by and large, been = viewed as passive users of curriculum materials rather than as active agents in in situ curriculum design. It is often the case that teachers= adapt and mobilize curriculum materials in light of their own unique needs, those= of their students, and the contexts in which they work (Barab & Luehm= ann, 2003; Enyedy, Goldberg, & Welsh, 2006; Pinto, 2004; Schneider, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2005). The ability to engage in curriculum design at a classroom level, or pedagogical design capacity (Brown, 2002), is a function not only= of context, however, but also the nature of the curriculum materials themselves and individual teacher characteristics, including their knowledge and belie= fs (Remillard & B= ryans, 2004; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005; Schneider, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2005= ). However, the influence= of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs on their use of curriculum materials = may not tell the whole story (Brown, 2002; Enye= dy, Goldberg, & Welsh, 2006). Teachers’ orientations toward curriculum materials (Remillard & B= ryans, 2004), defined as a set of perspectives and dispositions toward salient, curriculum materials-specific dimensions of teaching practice, is a more general const= ruct that includes knowledge and beliefs. It is in these orientations toward curriculum materials and science teaching that identity is foregrounded as an important dimension of teachers’ use of curriculum materials. Given the = calls for research on the relationship between these teacher characteristics, inc= luding identity, and teachers’ use of curriculum materials (Remillard, 2005)<= !--[if supportFields]><![endif]-->, we undertook research = aimed at better understanding how preservice elementary teachers construct a teac= hing identity as they learn to use science curriculum materials. <ol style=3D'margin-top:0in' start=3D1 type=3D1> <li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'color:black;line-height:200%;mso-list:l5 le= vel1 lfo8; tab-stops:list .5in'>How do preservice elementary teachers conceptuali= ze their role identity in respect to curriculum materials?<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'color:black;line-height:200%;mso-list:l5 le= vel1 lfo8; tab-stops:list .5in'>How does their curricular role identity (CRI) dev= elop through their use of science curriculum materials at this early stage along the teacher professional continuum?<o:p></o:p></li> </ol> While a substantial amount of research has been focused on inservice teachers’ use of science and mathematics curriculum materials (Collopy, 2003; Enyedy & Goldberg, 2004; Fishman,= Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003; Lloyd, 1999; Pinto, 2004; Remillard, 1999; Remillard & Bryans, 2004; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005; Schneider, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2005), a more limited body has only begun to emerge recently focused on preservice elementary teachers’ use of and learning from science curr= iculum materials (Davis, 2006). The results presented here extend = this research by examining preservice elementary teachers’ relationships w= ith science curriculum materials through the lens of identity.<o:p></o:p> Identity and Role Identi= ty<o:p></o:p> Identity, = while a useful perspective through which to better understand teachers’ learn= ing and practice, is often difficult to articulate and operationalize. It can, however, be thought of as = an all-encompassing representation of, as Lemke (Lemke, 2000) notes, “a person’s evaluative stance toward interaction…cast in the roman= tic folk language of ‘who we are’” (pg. 283). For teachers, identity is a functio= n of their knowledge, beliefs, self-efficacy, and general dispositions toward teaching practice and its evolution over time (Collopy, 2003; Dr= ake, Spillane, & Hufferd-Ackles, 2001). Identities= are multidimensional in that they originate and develop across contexts and time. Gee (2000-2001) describes four ways to = view identity: as nature-based, institutionally-based, discursive, and affinity-based. Especially in= the case of the latter three, identities are often fashioned around particular roles - "the self is reflexive in that it can take itself as an object= and can categorize, classify, or name itself in particular ways in relation to other social categories or classification" (Stets & Burke= , 2000, pg. 224). Role identity is concerned, then, primarily with how teachers fashion a sense of self around the role of teac= her (Bullough, Knowles, & Crow, 1992). Its development relies on a role standard or designated identity (Burke, 1981; Coll= ier, 2001; Sfard & Prusak, 2005). Furthermore, role identities are differentiated (Collier, 2001)<!-= -[if supportFields]><![endif]--> in that various practic= es, and the meanings associated with those practices, constitute any particular role, including that of teacher. However, certain individuals have a disproportionately significant influence on role identity development – who Sfard & Prusak (2005= ) call ‘significant narrators’. Identities= are shaped in communities where “identity, knowing, and social membership entail one another” (Lave & Wenger= , 1991, pg. 53). In constructing an identity, an individual is both shaped by, and in turn shapes, the practices of the community through processes of identification and negotiability <= /i>(Wenger, 1998). Important in this notion is that individuals do not merely identify = with and appropriate existing roles or categories, but they also actively work to negotiate their meaning. Ther= efore, identity also exists in the actions that constitute activity in a given community (Enyedy, Goldberg, & Welsh, 2006; = Lemke, 2000; Sfard & Prusak, 2005). One’s participation in a particular community reflects his or her perspective on the norms and pract= ices of the community itself, or life-world (Kozoll & Osbo= rne, 2003) or figured world (Graue, 2005; Holl= and, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998). Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Development of Curricular Role Identity<o:p></o:p> Science and mathematics classrooms can be thought of as figured worlds (Boaler & Gree= no, 2000; Kozoll & Osborne, 2003) for which preservice teachers are being prep= ared (Graue, 2005). Preservice teachers’ role id= entity formation is most heavily influenced by experiences in three domains: their= own history as students, the nature of the teacher education program, and their limited classroom experiences (Mahlios, 2002)<!-= -[if supportFields]><![endif]-->. However, due to preservice teachers’ limited experience in the role of teacher, their ideas about teaching are largely based their own past experiences as students (Lortie, 1975). At the preservice stage of the professional continuum, identity development is heavily influenced by these powerful notions of self which, even for inservice science teachers, are of= ten deeply personal (Helms, 1998). The salience of these entrenched i= deas about teaching has provided fodder for criticisms of formal teacher educati= on (Zeichner & Go= re, 1990). Sandwiched between the exceedingly powerful influences of past experience a= nd classroom practice, preservice teacher education is often seen as a weak intervention (Richardson, 1996)= . Just as pr= eservice teachers can learn to teach inquiry-oriented science (Crawford, 1999)<!= --[if supportFields]><![endif]-->, so too can they learn = to critique and adapt science curriculum materials (Davis, 2006). However, in order to put these abi= lities to use and develop substantial pedagogical design capacity, preservice teac= hers must develop a teaching identity in which the active use of science curricu= lum materials is valued. We defin= e this particular dimension of teachers’ role identity involving their orientations toward the use of curriculum materials as curricular role iden= tity (CRI). Through our work as sc= ience teacher educators and science curriculum developers, we have learned much a= bout how preservice elementary teachers use and learn from science curriculum ma= terials (Davis, 2006; Forb= es & Davis, 2007; Smithey & Davis, 2004). In undertaking this st= udy, we sought to further explore how teacher characteristics, in this case curricular role identity, influence preservice teachers’ use of scien= ce curriculum materials and development as elementary science teachers. This research helps further illuminate the field’s understanding of preservice elementary teachers’ unique needs and learning at this stage of the teacher professional continuum. Methods<o:p></o:p> </s= pan>This complementary mixed-methods study involved 53 preservice elementary teacher= s in two sections of an undergraduate elementary science teaching methods course. A survey instrument, developed by the authors to measure preservice teachers’ developing curricular role identity for science, was administered to students in both sections of the course at the beginning and end of the term. From this whole group, 8 preservice teachers were chosen to be studied qualitatively over the course of the semester in an effort to better understand how they constructed a curricular role identity for science and illuminate trends in the survey data. Participants and Context= <o:p></o:p> This study= took place during the third semester of an undergraduate elementary teacher preparation program at a large, Midwestern university in the <st1:place w:s= t=3D"on"><st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place>. The four-term, cohort-based program leads to a B.A. degree in education as well as recommendation for elementary teaching certification in the state. It is designed to promote the developm= ent of preservice teachers’ pedagogical, subject-matter, and pedagogical content knowledge, and is aligned with foundational tenets of teacher educa= tion reform (INTASC, 1992; NCA= TE, 1987) and standards documents (AAAS, 1993; NCSS,= 1994; NCTM, 1991; NRC, 1996). During each of the first three sem= esters of the program, students undertake relevant university coursework and spend= at least six hours per week in k-6 classrooms under the tutelage of an experie= nced mentor teacher. The final ter= m is centered around a traditionally-structured, full-time, 14-15 week student-teaching experience. During the= third semester, the preservice teachers are enrolled in the elementary science teaching methods course. Ther= e were two sections of the course, each taught by one of the authors. The elementary science teaching me= thods course is organized around three explicit goals. First, the course aims to = help preservice elementary teachers develop an understanding of scientific inqui= ry and inquiry-oriented science teaching, including three essential features: questioning and predicting, explaining using evidence, and communicating and justifying findings. Second, preservice teachers learn to anticipate and address students' ideas, includ= ing their prior knowledge and alternative (non-scientific) ideas. Third, a considerable portion of t= he course is devoted to interactions with science curriculum materials through which they develop the ability to critique and adapt them for science teaching. The preservice teac= hers in the elementary science methods course studied here were representative of the population of elementary teachers in the <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:co= untry-region w:st=3D"on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place> – most were female= and most were Caucasian. All were traditional fourth-year seniors (about 21 years old) in their final year of college. Data Sources and Collect= ion<o:p></o:p> The data reported he= re are both quantitative and qualitative, all collected over the course of the ter= m in which the elementary science teaching methods course was taught. At the beginning of the term, stud= ents from both sections of the course were asked to participate in the study.<sp= an style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> 47 of the 53 preservice teac= hers in the two sections consented to later analysis of their survey responses a= nd coursework. As a result, surv= ey data was collected on 47 individuals. Additionally, 11 of these 47 students were invited to participate in= the study subsample which involved a commitment to two interviews as well as in-class observations by the first author.= Of the initial 11 initially asked, 9 students agreed to participate.= Incomplete data was collected for = one of the 9 preservice teachers so the data reported here is drawn from 8 student= s. The preservice teachers were reass= ured that they could withdraw their consent for participation at any time, though none of them opted to do so. <o:p></o:p> A survey instrument was developed to assess preservice elementary teachers’ conception of the teacher’s role in respect to curriculum and curricu= lum materials. This instrument went through a number of iterative cycles of exp= ert review and this study represents its first pilot test. It was administered to students in= both sections of the course (n=3D53) at the beginning and end of the fall 2005 t= erm and was composed of 34 actions statements.= These actions statements began with the generic phrase ‘compar= ed to all elementary teachers who teach science…” and for each statement students were asked to respond to this prompt in respect to a role standard (‘effective science teachers’) and self-descriptively (‘I’). For example: “Compared to all elementary teachers who teach science...” <![if !supportLists]>- = <![endif]>…effective science teachers are ___ to reflect on their use of curriculum materials in order to improve their practice. <![if !supportLists]>- = <![endif]>…I am ___ to reflect on my use of curriculum materials in order to improve my practice. <o:p> </o:p> A five-point Likert scale w= as employed (5 =3D much more likely; 1 =3D much less likely) for scoring. Drawing on Remillard’s (2005= ) model of the teacher-curriculum relationship, we identified four dimensions of teachers’ curricular role identity into which the 34 questions were organized. These dimensions included teachers’ planning for and enactment of curricula in which t= hey interpret, evaluate, and adapt curriculum materials, use of curriculum materials for inquiry-oriented teaching, accounting for context in their in= teractions with, planning for, and enactment of curriculum, and the teacher’s learning from interactions with curriculum materials. The primary purpose of the survey = was to obtain a measure of role identification which illuminated preservice teachers’ conceptions of their own curricular role identities and tho= se they attributed to experienced elementary teachers, a comparison of the two, and any changes that occurred in them over the course of the semester. In the results that follow, the sc= ores for the preservice teachers’ self-described role identity are referre= d to as ‘self’ scores while the curricular role identity they attrib= uted to more experienced elementary teachers are referred to as ‘role̵= 7; scores. In additio= n to survey data, 8 students were followed more closely over the course of the t= erm by the first author. Data fro= m this subsample includes course assignments, reflective journal entries, intervie= ws, and observations of science lessons taught in their school placements. Two formal, semi-structured (Patton, 2001) interviews were conduct= ed with each student, one at the beginning and one at the end of the course.<s= pan style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The first interview was primarily focused on students’ past experiences with and individual orientations towards science, science teaching, and science learning, as well as their i= deas about curriculum materials for science.&nb= sp; The second interview involved a discussion of their response to a fictional teaching scenario, critique of a sample science lesson plan, reflection on their use of science curriculum materials in practice over the course of the term, and a more general discussion as to the nature of curriculum and curriculum materials and characteristics of effective instructional materials for science. In completion of a major course assignment, each preservice teacher = was required to teach two science lessons in their placement classrooms over the course of the term. This assi= gnment entailed identifying an existing science lesson, critiquing and modifying it for use in their instructional setting, teaching the lesson, and completing= a follow-up reflective journal entry. In addition to these components, each of the 8 teachers’ were observed by the first author enacting science lessons in their classroom placement and participated in a post-enactment interview. Data Analysis<o:p></o:p>= The analys= is of the survey and qualitative data involved a complementary mixed methods appr= oach so as to allow us to characterize how preservice teachers conceptualize the= ir roles as teacher in respect to curriculum, identify critical factors that mediate the development of curricular role identity, and illuminate the influence of curricular role identity and its development on fundamental elements of teacher learning and science teaching. The survey was designed to provide= a measure of preservice teachers’ conceptions of curricular role identi= ty in respect to themselves (‘I’ survey items) and a role standard (“effective science teachers” survey items). This design allows= us to compare students’ responses to self and role survey items (16 each= ), as well as how they change over time. For the su= rvey data, we constructed frequency tables and obtained descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, etc.). </= span>A Cronbach’s alpha reliability test of the entire survey yielded an <sp= an style=3D'font-family:Symbol'>a value of 0.91 and, for each of the dimensions measured, no a value l= ower than 0.71. What this suggests= is that the instrument possesses high internal reliability, as a whole and within e= ach dimension measured, and that each of the questions contributes relatively equally to the overall variance – no single question or group of questions has a disproportionate affect on the survey results. We also examined intercorrelations between the four dimensions for both self and role scores. Positive, significant correlations= were found among all dimensions for both self and role scores, as shown in Appen= dix A. Finally, all survey items = except for one loaded positively on one factor in principal components analysis (s= ee Appendix B). This question was dropped and was excluded from the analysis. Paired-samples t-tests were undert= aken to compare self and role scores from both pre- and post- administrations of= the survey, as well as to compare changes in self and role scores over time.<sp= an style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There were no statistically-signif= icant differences on any of the dimensions measured between the two sections of t= he course. Qualitative analysis involved an iterative process of coding, reduction, displaying, and verification of data (Miles & Huber= man, 1994). The initial coding scheme was orga= nized around the four categories of the teacher-curriculum relationship derived f= rom the Remillard model (2005). Within each of these categories, additional subcodes relevant to science teaching were employed to capture the teachers’ talk about inquiry-oriented teaching and learning. As analy= sis progressed, additional codes were added to account for emergent themes and,= as definitive patterns emerged, the data was reduced to isolate and illustrate= key factors. This process continu= ed until dominant themes had been refined and substantiated. Our final coding = key is presented in Appendix C. Pseudonyms have been used for the preservice teachers in the results that follow. Results<o:p></o:p> Overview of results<o:p>= </o:p> As a gross= measure of the preservice teachers’ curricular role identity development for science teaching over the course of the semester, we first present aggregate results from the survey. Stat= istics for ‘self’ and ‘role’ scores are presented in Table= 1. <o:p></o:p> Table 1: Changes in Self and Role Scores over the seme= ster (Whole Survey) <table class=3DMsoTableGrid border=3D1 cellspacing=3D0 cellpadding=3D0 style=3D'border-collapse:collapse;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowt= ext .5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook:480;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;mso-border-inside= h: .5pt solid windowtext;mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext'> <tr style=3D'mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes'> <td colspan=3D2 rowspan=3D2 valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext= 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> <o:p> </o:p> </td> <td colspan=3D2 valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;borde= r-left: none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windo= wtext .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Beginning of the semester </td> <td colspan=3D2 valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;borde= r-left: none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windo= wtext .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> End of the semester </td> <td colspan=3D2 valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;borde= r-left: none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windo= wtext .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> <o:p> </o:p> </td> </tr> <tr style=3D'mso-yfti-irow:1'> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Mean </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Standard Deviation </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Mean </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Standard Deviation </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> t-test </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Effect size </td> </tr> <tr style=3D'mso-yfti-irow:2'> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none; mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext = .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Self </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> <o:p> </o:p> </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> 2.8247 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> .42059 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> 3.0858 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> .43139 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> -4.346* </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> 0.6128 </td> </tr> <tr style=3D'mso-yfti-irow:3'> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none; mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext = .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> Role </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> <o:p> </o:p> </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> 3.0589 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> .38804 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> 3.2087 </td> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:= solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .= 5pt; mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext= .5pt; paddin