Focus/Problem (Theoretical Framework)

IMPROVING ELEMENTARY PRESERVICE TEACHERSR= 17; SELF-EFFICACY IN AN EFFORT TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF INSTRUCTIONAL TIME DEV= OTED TO THE TEACHING OF SCIENCE AS INQUIRY.

&nb= sp;

Lori Dira Smolleck, Bucknell University=

Abstra= ct

The purpose of this study was to investigate the critical incidents within a science methods course that influenced the self-efficacy beliefs of preserv= ice teachers. Because self-efficacy is associated with behavior, improving self-efficacy could lead to an increase in the amount of instructional time devoted to the teaching and learning of science as inquiry. Both quantitati= ve and qualitative data sources were utilized. Findings revealed that participati= on in the science methods course produced an increase in self-efficacy beliefs related to the teaching of science as inquiry. Furthermore, the specific components of the course that were most useful for improving the self-effic= acy beliefs of the preservice elementary teachers are discussed.

<= /o:p>

Introduction

Currently, science is given a low priority within our elementary schools. According to research, teachers sp= end an average of only 25 minutes per day teaching science compared to 114 minutes= per day teaching reading and language arts concepts (Fulp, 2002). Of this 25 minutes, it is unclear how much time is devoted to inquiry instruction. Although many teachers give the illusion that inquiry teaching is taking pl= ace, their practices usually include very structured experiences where results a= re typically provided through the textbook or the teacher (Drayton & Falk, 2001; Schwab, 1962). One possible reason for the lack of inquiry teaching and learning may be attrib= uted to the relationship between beliefs and practices. As a result, the purpose= of this research was to investigate the ways in which preservice teachers̵= 7; self-efficacy can be improved as a result of experiences within a science methods course.

Self-Efficacy

Much of what is understood about self-efficacy can be credited to Bandura (1977; 19= 81; 1982; 1986; 1997). The construct of self-efficacy is grounded in social learning theory and is said to be a good indicator of future instructional behavior (Ashton & Webb, 1986a, 1986b; Bandura 1986; Riggs, 1998). Social learning theory states that “the strength of peoples’ convictions in their own effectivenes= s is likely to affect whether they will attempt to cope with given situations; hence, perceived self-efficacy influences choice of behavior settings” (1977, p. 193). As such, the situations people place themselves in are a di= rect result of their beliefs. In f= act, behaviors are “based more on what they believe, rather than on what is objectively true” (Bandura, 1997, p. 2).

The construct of self-efficacy is comprised of two dimensions: personal self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Personal self-efficacy can be defined as “a judgment of one’s ability to organize and execute given types of performancesR= 21; (Bandura, 1977, p. 21). Outcome expectancy on the other hand, relates to the “judgment of the likely consequence such performances will produce= 221; (p. 21). When attempting to understand and/or predict behavior, it is most effective to consider both of these dimensions. Furthermore, although self-efficacy is said to have implications for virtually all behaviors and circumstances, it is a situation specific construct. For this reason, “self-efficacy is most appropriately measured within context regarding specific behaviors” (Henson, 2001, p. 7). Hence, self-efficacy in one area must not be generalized to another.

Research indicates = that self-efficacy can be changed as a result of experience (Henson, 2001). In f= act, there are four specific principles that can influence self-efficacy beliefs: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states (Bandura, 1997). Mastery experiences are= the most powerful for increasing self-efficacy. As substantiated by social lear= ning theory, if individuals are able to experience success in handling a given situation, they will be more likely to attempt and persist with such situat= ions in the future.

Inquiry=

Science Education reform promotes i= nquiry as a way to teach and learn science (National Research Council, 1996; 2000). Although there are many ways to describe inquiry, the National Science Education Standards provide a clear account of what is involved with inquiry teaching and learning. At the heart of this description lie the essential features of classroom inquiry. These five essential features apply across all grade levels and include:

1.&n= bsp;     2.&n= bsp;     3.&n= bsp;     4.&n= bsp;     5.&n= bsp;     These features draw attention to important aspects of science and capture the true essence of inquiry. They require students to develop knowledge about specific science concepts, but = at the same time, require students to learn something about how science is actually done. For the purposes of this research, my definition for inquiry draws upon these essential features of classroom inquiry.

Teaching science as inquiry “exploits the natural curiosity of children, so that they maintain th= eir motivation for learning not only during their school years but throughout life” (National Research Council, 2000, p. xiii). Inquiry is a powerf= ul way of learning in that it enables the students to “learn to do scien= ce, learn about the nature of science, and learn science content” (p. 1). Furthermore, inquiry teaching and learning has been linked with academic ga= ins as it provides students with opportunities to personally construct meaning = from their learning (Anderson, 1997; Freedman, 1997; Von Secker & Lissitz, 1999). Inquiry allows students to move beyond rote memorization and achieve conceptual understanding of scientific phenomena and concepts. Much evidence has also been reported to reflect that inquiry learning promotes “scientific literacy and understanding of science processes (Lindberg, 1990), vocabulary knowledge and conceptual understanding (Lloyd & Contreras, 1985), critical thinking (Narode et al., 1987), positive attitud= es toward science (Kyle et al., 1985; Rakow, 1986), higher achievement on test= s of procedural knowledge (Glasson, 1989), and construction of logicomathematical knowledge (Staver, 1986)” (as cited in Haury, 1993).

Teaching Science as Inquiry and Self-Efficacy

Although inquiry is a part of state= and national academic standards, current classroom instruction typically fails = to reflect inquiry teaching. One possible explanation for why teachers choose to eliminate inquiry instructi= on may be explained through social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). As substantiated by social learning theory (1977) the combination of improved understanding and self-efficacy may lead to increased instructional time for the teaching of science as inquiry. Specifically, social learning theory purports that people will participate in situations within their self-perce= ived capabilities, but they will avoid situations within their environment that = they perceive to exceed their abilities (1977). Hence, teachers who do not belie= ve in their ability to teach science (low self-efficacy) may avoid science ins= truction whenever possible (Enochs, Scharmann & Riggs, 1995).<= /p>
Because self-efficacy is said to ha= ve strong predictive power over performance and behavior, research on beliefs = and subsequent behavior may explain that the difference between teachers who include inquiry instruction in their practice, and those who do not, could = be related to self-efficacy. “If efficacy is a powerful influence on behavior, then investigation of factors that might influence efficacy are certainly warranted” (Henson, 2001, p. 11). This study employed a mix= ed method design in an attempt to determine the critical incidents within a science methods course that contributed to the improvement of the self-effi= cacy beliefs of preservice elementary teachers in an attempt to increase the amo= unt of time dedicated to the teaching and learning of science as inquiry. =

Method

Participants and Design

Data were collected from preservice elementary teachers during their junior year at a central Pennsylvania university. Participants = were enrolled in a science methods course during the time of data collection. Wi= thin a university classroom setting, the Teaching Science as Inquiry (TSI) Instrument (Dira-Smolleck, 2004) was administered to 26 preservice elementa= ry teachers on August 24, 2006, and then again on December 5, 2006. The goal of administering the TSI = was to measure the self-efficacy beliefs of the participants. In addition, participants were ask= ed to complete two reflections in an attempt to determine student understandings related to the teaching of science as inquiry. These reflective pieces were compl= eted on the same day as the TSI administration.

Data Sources

This study represents both quantita= tive and qualitative research methods. Quantitative data were secured using the Teaching Science as Inquiry (TSI) Instrument (Dira-Smolleck, 2004). This instrument, which addresses each of the 24 variations of the essential feat= ures of classroom inquiry, was developed for use with preservice elementary teac= hers and has been judged to be both valid and reliable for assessing the self-efficacy beliefs of prospective elementary teachers with regard to the teaching of science as inquiry (2004; Smolleck, Zembal-Saul & Yoder, 20= 06).

Qualitative data were collected fro= m the participants in an attempt to gather data concerning student views and understandings related to the teaching of science as inquiry. Qualitative d= ata sources included reflections completed by the participants at both the beginning and end of the semester. The methods of choice for analyzing this data were grounded theory and text analysis (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Reflections at the beginning of the semester required participants to respond to the following prompts:

Wha= t is teaching science as inquiry?

Wha= t are the five essential features of classroom inquiry?
Wha= t is the value of teaching science lessons with inquiry methods?=

Reflections at the end of the semester included the three questions previously mentione= d, as well as the following prompts:

What components of the course were most useful for you in developing an understanding of teaching science as inquiry?

What additional experiences would be useful for you in cultivating a better understanding of teaching science as inquiry?

In an attempt to understand the participants’ experiences, the categories and concepts that emerged from participant responses to these prompts were identified. The researcher then linked these emerging ideas to substantive = and formal theories (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).

Results

Ex= amination of the quantitative data revealed that the mean and median values demonstra= ted a positive change for self-efficacy and outcome expectancy from round one (beginning of the semester) to round two (end of semester). Specifically, d= ata analysis from round one revealed a mean self-efficacy score of 3.75 with a standard deviation of .39. The mean outcome expectancy score from round one= was 3.84 with a standard deviation of .29. Data analysis from round two indicat= ed a mean self-efficacy score of 4.10 with a standard deviation of .36. The mean outcome expectancy score from round two was 3.96 with a standard deviation = of .38 (theoretical score range for both the pretest and the post test was 1 through 5). This data is significant in that it indicates that the participants’ TSI scores increased from round one to round two, there= by demonstrating an increase in preservice teachers self-efficacy over the cou= rse of the semester.

Qu= alitative data analysis revealed participants views and understanding related to the teaching of science as inquiry, the following results were discovered.

= Question #1: What does it mean to teach science as inquiry?

Da= ta secured from reflection question number one allowed the researcher to investigate the growth of participant understanding related to the teaching= of science as inquiry. At the beginning of the semester, the majority of participants could not accurately define science as inquiry. In fact, the i= deas reflected about teaching science as inquiry were very naïve as evidenc= ed by the most common response (80%) consisting of “developing and investigating questions.” Although inquiry does involve developing and investigating questions, this is not the only characteristic of teaching science as inquiry. Specifica= lly, the notion of giving priority to evidence, formulating explanations, connec= ting explanations to scientific knowledge and communicating and justifying explanations were missing from the participants’ responses (National Research Council, 2000). Other common responses for this question were “active learning” (28%), “student centered” (28%), “investigation” (28%), and “discovery learning” (28%).&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   When asked to respond to the identical question at the end of the semester, participants demonstrated a much deeper and more complete understanding of teaching science as inquiry. Participants were able to clearly and accurate= ly define science as inquiry and explain the essential features of classroom inquiry. Specifically, 84% of the participants described the essential feat= ures of classroom inquiry. Additionally 48% of the participants mentioned the no= tion of “investigation” and 40% of the responses reflected the idea = of “asking scientific questions.” These responses indicate that participants had moved beyond their initial notions of inquiry teaching as = simply involving hands-on, active instruction and rather, had come to understand t= he necessary features of teaching science as inquiry.

= Question #2: What are the five essential features of classroom inquiry?

At= the beginning of the semester, data analysis revealed that most participants (7= 6%) could not identify or explain the five essential features of classroom inqu= iry. One interesting finding revealed in this initial analysis, was that many participants (56%) confused the essential features of classroom inquiry with the five E’s of the 5E instructional model. I believe that this confusion stem= s from the fact that many of the participants had recently taken a curriculum cour= se that outlined several instructional models useful for teaching various cont= ent areas, the 5E’s being one of these instructional models. Although the= 5E instructional model and the five essential features of classroom inquiry are inherently different, it is understandable how students might confuse the t= wo.

By= the end of the semester, however, the majority of the participants were able identi= fy and describe the essential features of classroom inquiry. Specifically, 76% mentioned “scientifically oriented questions,” 56% noted “giving priority to evidence,” 36% of the responses reflected the idea of “formulating explanations,” 52% of the participants noted “connecting explanations to scientific knowledge,” and 52% mentioned “communicating and justifying explanations.” Overall, this data analysis reveals significant growth in relation to the essential features of classroom inquiry, which will be helpful when the participants = set out to plan and implement inquiry oriented science lessons.

= Question #3: What is the value of teaching science lessons with inquiry methods?

Wh= en asked to reflect upon the value of teaching science as inquiry at the beginning of the semester, the most common responses among the participants included “long term learning/memory” (52%), increased student “interest and motivation” (44%) and “meaningful/authentic learning” (40%) as benefits to inquiry teaching. Unfortunately, the notion of student learning was glaringly abstract from these initial perceptions of the value of teaching science as inquiry.

At= the end of the course however, participants were able to more clearly and accurately describe the value of teaching science lessons with inquiry methods. Responses included “increased student involvement” (52%), “long term learning/memory” (44%), “promotion of active engagement” (40%), “deeper student understanding” (40%), and “better content mastery/learning” (36%). These last two responses in particular refle= ct the notion of student learning = that was absent from the participants’ original responses. This finding is especially encouraging because it suggests that students have come to a ric= her understanding of the value of teaching science as inquiry.

= Question #4: What components of the course were most useful for you in developing an understanding of teaching science as inquiry?

        &= nbsp;   This particular question was administered to the participants only at the end of= the semester. The goal of asking = this question was to further understand the most useful components of the course= so that the researcher’s own teaching practices as a science educator co= uld be enhanced. Overwhelmingly, = the most notable component of the course mentioned by the participants was the “inclusion and implementation of investigations” (96%). Other important components include “deconstructing lessons” to identi= fy the essential features (36%), “revamping a traditional lesson” = into an inquiry lesson (32%), “constructing a mini-unit” (16%), and “presenting student created inquiry lessons” to their peers (16%). I intend to include th= ese particular features as key elements of future science methods courses in an attempt to further improve the self-efficacy beliefs of preservice teachers= .

= Question #5: What additional experiences would have been useful for you in cultivati= ng a better understanding of teaching science as inquiry?

        &= nbsp;   Like question number four, this particular question was also administered to the participants only at the end of the semester. The goal of asking this question w= as to ascertain from the participants, the additional experiences that would have= been useful for developing a better understanding of teaching science as inquiry. The most common resp= onse was “more practice developing lessons and units” (28%). I found this response to be encour= aging and interesting because it suggests that the participants desired to have m= ore assignments. This desire to have more assignments is usually not a typical request of college students. Other responses included “redoing assignments” (20%), the addition of a “field placement” component to the course (16%) and the inclusion of “more scaffolding” within assignments (12%). I believe that the responses of “redoing assignments” and “more scaffolding” reflec= t of the participants’ desire to receive stellar grades. Throughout the course of the semes= ter, my student’s frequently indicated a desire to resubmit assignments af= ter they had been graded in an attempt to address the comments and suggestions I had provided. Although I believe that this is a good habit for beginning teachers to adopt, I am not sure that it is realistic for a professor to be grading every assignment multiple times.&n= bsp; On the other hand, however, it may be more acceptable for a professo= r to build more scaffolding into course assignments so that students still feel = that they have the ability to develop and refine their planning and teaching ski= lls. Finally, the notion of including a= field placement component to the course is a good idea and something that should = be pursued. Adding this componen= t to the course would be helpful in providing students with the experience of teaching science as inquiry to elementary children. This application to the elementary classroom setting would further assist preservice teachers in cultivating a more comprehensive understanding of teaching science as inquiry.

Conclusion

The data and associated analyses de= monstrate that carefully constructing science methods courses that allow preservice teachers opportunities to experience the teaching and learning of science as inquiry is critical for improving self-efficacy. Considering this encouragi= ng idea of self-efficacy as malleable, science educators should deliberately p= lan for experiences that improve the self-efficacy beliefs of preservice teache= rs. Courses such as these can improve preservice teachers’ self-efficacy related to the teaching of science as inquiry and can assist them in develo= ping more sophisticated understandings about teaching and learning science as inquiry.

The beliefs that teachers hold conc= erning the teaching of science as inquiry are at the core of educational change. As teacher educators, we have the potential to provide preservice teachers with successful inquiry science experiences. Based on the idea of Bandura’s social learning theory (1977), if science education reform is to be successful for our elementary children, preservice teachers must feel confident in their abilities to tea= ch science as inquiry.

In addition, this study supported the notion that self-efficacy can be enhance= d as a result of experience, particularly positive experiences. Because of the relationship between beliefs, attitudes and behavior with regard to element= ary science teaching, efficacy beliefs are potentially powerful variables that = can influence the amount of time provided for science instruction, as well as t= he academic achievement of students in science, at the elementary level. The results of this research provide valuable information pertaining to the education of both practicing teachers and future teachers. Moreover, this project has the potential to lead science educators to a better understandi= ng of how to best approach the issue of self-efficacy when planning and teachi= ng science methods courses to preservice elementary teachers. “Understan= ding teachers’ beliefs, attitudes and priorities, as well as how they are subject to change in relation to a new intervention, is important to explai= ning students’ and teachers’ classroom experience” (Rimm-Kaufm= an & Sawyer, 2004, p. 322). Investigation and attention toward improving the self-efficacy belie= fs of elementary teachers may contribute to the amelioration of the low priori= ty that inquiry science teaching is currently given within our elementary scho= ols.

References

Anderson, O. (1997). A neurocognitive perspective on current learning theory and scie= nce instructional strategies. Science Education, 81. 67-89.

Ashton, P.T. & Webb, R.B. (1986a). Teac= her efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman Inc.

Ashton, P.T. &Webb, R.B. (1986b). Teachers’ sense of efficacy, classroom behavior, and student achievement. In P. Ashton, & R. Webb (Eds.). Maki= ng a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. (p. 125-144). New York: Longman Inc.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191̵= 1;215.

Bandura, A., (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In J.H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.). Social cognitive devel= opment frontiers and possible futures. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, = 37, 122–147.

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

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

Denzin , N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand

        &= nbsp;   Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Dira-Smolleck, (2004). The development and validat= ion of an instrument to measure preservice teachers’ self-efficacy in regard= to the teaching of science as inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, = The Pennsylvania State University.

Drayton, B., & Falk, J. (2001). Tell-tale signs of the inquiry-oriented classroo= m. NASSP Bulletin, 85(623), 24-34.

Enochs, L., Scharmann, L., & Riggs, I. (1995= ). The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Education, 79(1), 63-75.

Freedman, M. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward scien= ce, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 342-357.

Fulp, S. L. (2002). The status of element= ary science teaching. Washington, DC: National Academy Press: = U.S. Department of Education.=

Haury, D. L. (1993).   Teaching science through inquiry (ERIC Digest EDO-SE-93-4), Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from http://= www.ericse.org/digests/dse93-4.html.

Henson, R. K. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement

dilemmas. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Educational Research Exchange, Texas A & M University.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.=

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry a= nd the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">National Academy Press.
Riggs, I.= (1998). The impact of training and induction activities upon mentors as indicated

through measurement of mentor self-efficacy. Paper presented at the annual international

conference of = the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Minneapolis,

MN.=

Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science: The teaching = of science as enquiry. Cambri= dge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Smolleck, L. D., Zembal-Saul, C. & Yoder, E. P. (2006). The development and validation of an =

instrument to measure preservice teachers’ self-efficacy in regard to the teaching = of science as inquiry. Journal of Scie= nce Teacher Education, 17(2), 137-163.

Von Secker, C., & Lissitz, R. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practice on student

achievement in science. Journal of Research in Sci= ence Teaching, 36, 1110-1126.