Jurnal

Journal of Science Teacher Education (2005) 16: 205–225
c Springer 2005
Feature Article
Success in Science Learning and Preservice Science Teaching

Self-Efficacy
Robert E. Bleicher
California State University Channel Islands, Camarillo, CA 93012, U.S.A.
Joan Lindgren
College of Education, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, U.S.A.
This study examined relationships between conceptual understanding, self-

efficacy, and outcome expectancy beliefs as preservice teachers learned science
in a constructivist-oriented methods class. Participants included 49 preservice el-
ementary teachers. Analysis revealed that participants increased in self-efficacy,
outcome expectancy, and conceptual understanding. Engaging preservice teach-
ers in hands-on, minds-on activities and discussion were important contributors.
Participants reported that they would be inclined to teach from a constructivist
perspective in the future. One implication from this study is that increasing the
quantity of science content courses that preservice elementary teachers are re-
quired to take may not be sufficient to overcome their reluctance to teach science
if some of their learning does not take place in a constructivist environment. In
our teaching, we have tried to integrate pedagogy with learning science content.
Introduction
The teacher shortage first noted by the National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future (1996) has now reached a critical level. In this first decade of the
new millennium, more new teachers will be required than in any previous decade.
Yet nationally, each year, 40% of new graduates from traditional teacher education
programs do not take up teaching positions (Darling-Hammond, 2000). There are a
number of reasons for this. At the elementary level, one factor is a lack of confidence
to teach in unfamiliar subject areas, particularly science and mathematics (Czerniak
& Chiarelott, 1990; Silvertsen, 1993). Furthermore, as Hawkins (1990) suggested,
science teaching is caught in a “loop in history” (p. 97) in which new teachers tend to
repeat the way they were taught science. Elementary preservice teachers frequently
comment that their strongest memories of elementary and middle school science
were textbook-driven lessons and answering questions at the end of chapters. Many
elementary preservice teachers report that they have an inadequate conceptual un-
derstanding of science and, therefore, do not feel confident to teach it (Weiss, 1994).
206 BLEICHER & LINDGREN
While other researchers have examined various factors that contribute to science
teaching self-efficacy (e.g., Balunuz, Jarrett, & Balunuz, 2001; Cakiroglu & Boone,
2002; Jarrett, 1999; Ramey-Gassert, Shroyer, & Staver, 1996; Rice & Roychoudhury,
2003; Schoon & Boone, 1998; Settlage, 2000; Tosun, 2000; Wingfield, Freeman, &
Ramsey, 2000), we are foregrounding conceptual understanding as a critical element.
It is our contention that, if preservice teachers have personal success learning science,
they will then be more confident to teach it.
The setting for this study was an undergraduate science methods course for pre-
service elementary teachers. Based on previous research (Bleicher, 2001; Bleicher &
Lindgren, 2002), this study examined relationships between science understanding,
self-efficacy, and outcome expectancy beliefs as participants developed science un-
derstanding within a constructivist learning environment. Shymansky (1992) noted
that, while methods courses might emphasize teaching strategies, methods, and mod-
els of teaching science that are constructivist in orientation, preservice teachers are
not seeing or experiencing this as they learn science in their content classes. He fur-
ther suggested the idea that learning about how to teach science is a challenge, just as
is learning science itself, and we should be offering our future teachers the best ideas
and ways to teach science. As Shymansky stated, “One long recognized problem is
the lack of integration of content and pedagogy” (p. 53). In this study, we report the
results of our efforts to integrate science content and pedagogy and the relationship
of these to preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs.
Theoretical Framework
In accord with findings from Haney and McArthur (2002), we believe that
a teacher’s beliefs concerning constructivism are strongly influenced by their life
experiences as both teachers and learners. Our combined experience as teacher
educators for more than 15 years has supported our contention that our students’
success in constructing their own science conceptual understanding influences their
self-efficacy (Bleicher, 2002; Lindgren & Bleicher, 2003). We believe there is a
difference in the depth and meaning ascribed to a learning experience if it is learned
using practices consistent with a social constructivist perspective. It is important
that students be provided with the time and opportunity to experience success at
constructing their own conceptual understanding. We hope that having experienced
learning from a social constructivist perspective, preservice teachers will then be
more likely to teach from that perspective. Our research and teaching have been
informed by the literature on constructivist learning theory and self-efficacy beliefs.
Constructivist Learning Theory
This study is framed in a constructivist approach to teaching and learning

science. At the core of constructivism lies the idea that an individual’s own con-
ceptions guide their understanding (Duit & Treagust, 1998; Tobin, 1993). In the
1980s, in what Duit and Treagust called mainstream constructivism, the social as-
pect of constructivism was not widely acknowledged; instead, the emphasis was
SUCCESS IN SCIENCE LEARNING 207
on the individual’s own constructions. In more recent years, the importance of the
social aspect of constructing knowledge has been recognized and has taken hold
(McRobbie & Tobin, 1995; Roth, 1995; Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994).
A common metaphor for the traditional classroom is that of a workplace where
students are rewarded for their productions (i.e., good test scores or successfully
completed assignments). In contrast to this, Wheatley (1991) viewed the construc-
tivist classroom as a learning place where meaning is central, active, and problem
based. In this instructional environment, discussion between and among learners
and the teacher is common, and the teacher is a guide and a resource. The social
interchange of ideas in a constructivist classroom allows knowledge to be held in
common and for shared meanings to arise among group members (Brooks & Brooks,
1999; Edwards & Mercer, 1987).
Constructivist teachers recognize that what the learner already knows is a
critical factor affecting learning and that it is incumbent upon teachers to ascertain the
understandings held by their students (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). In science teaching,
learners’ prior understandings are frequently discounted or neglected, and learning
paths are not well designed to lead to new science understanding for students (Duit &
Treagust, 1998). Teachers with a constructivist orientation believe that the learning
opportunities they plan are the mediating processes that help students move from
their current understanding to a new understanding. Thus, teachers must listen to
their students as they express their understandings and beliefs and provide students
with opportunities to talk about their ideas and what they understand. Constructivist-
oriented teachers reflect on what learning experiences can be provided to encourage
the development of science conceptual understanding.
In summary, an instructional program that claims to be founded on construc-
tivist learning theory should recognize at least the following three elements (Brooks
& Brooks, 1999): (a) A student’s prior knowledge is a key factor affecting future
learning because what a learner already knows or believes interacts with a new
conception to which the learner has been exposed; (b) students construct meaning
through interactions with others, with materials, and by observation and exploration
of interesting and challenging activities; and (c) students should construct under-
standing around core concepts and big ideas. Thus, constructivist teachers ascertain
the understandings of their students, plan mediating events that assist students in
moving from a current understanding to a more scientifically accepted understand-
ing, and provide time for discussion and any needed additional experiences for
students to construct deep conceptual understanding.
Self-Efficacy Beliefs
The connection of beliefs to teaching practice can be captured by the psy-

chological construct of self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Pajares, 2002). Bandura
posited that we are motivated to perform an action if we believe that the action
will have a favorable result (outcome expectation) and if we are confident that we
can perform that action successfully (self-efficacy). Self-efficacy has been studied
from many perspectives (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). However, within
science education, Bandura’s model has been widely taken up due to its utility in
research on science teaching and teacher education.
Self-efficacy and outcome expectations are shaped by four sources of informa-
tion: performance accomplishment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and
emotional arousal (Bandura, 1977). Performance accomplishment is the most po-
tent source, as it derives from personal practical experience. Vicarious experience
involves a person observing another’s performance and gaining confidence from
this in a manner akin to Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of legitimate peripheral
participation involved in craft apprenticeship situations (also, Lave, 1997). Verbal
persuasion from others can influence our self-efficacy either positively or nega-
tively. Finally, the stress of performance relays emotive information that can affect
our self-efficacy beliefs.
For educators, the crucial question is how self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
beliefs are related to teaching performance. From an exhaustive review of the lit-
erature, Bandura (1997) concluded that the evidence across studies is consistent in
showing that perceived self-efficacy contributes significantly to the level of moti-
vation and performance accomplishments. Bandura (2000) embraced an integrated
perspective for human performance in which social influences operate through psy-
chological mechanisms:
People are producers, as well as products, of social systems. By exercis-

ing self-influence, human agency operates generatively and proactively
rather than just reactively. Social structures are created by efficacious
human activity. The structural practices, in turn, impose constraints and
provide resources and opportunity structures for personal development
and functioning. (p. 29)
Enochs and Riggs (1990) developed a valid and reliable instrument, the
Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI-B) that could be easily
administered to measure the two components of Bandura’s theory. They contended
that the early detection of low self-efficacy in elementary science teaching was
critical to any teacher preparation program. Several studies have employed the
STEBI-B to examine self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. For example,
Settlage (2000) examined learning cycles and self-efficacy; Schoon and Boone
(1998) studied alternative conceptions and self-efficacy, and Scharmann and
Hampton (1995) examined self-efficacy in relation to cooperative learning. In our
study, we highlighted the relation of self-efficacy to conceptual understanding,
particularly from a constructivist perspective.
Methodology
Design
This study employed a mixed-method design involving both quantitative and

qualitative research methodologies (Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Greene & Caracelli,
1997). One of the benefits of this design is that validity of results can be strengthened
through triangulation of findings from different data sources (Frechtling & Sharp,
1997).
Several methods were employed to insure quality in data collection, analysis,
and reporting. The researcher in the role of participant observer (the researchers,
Bleicher and Lindgren, were the course professors) allowed for continuous data
collection and prolonged engagement in the field (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). Fi-
nally, peer examination (Merriam, 1998)—and having a colleague to critique results,
assertions, or both—was employed to establish a degree of confirmability (Guba &
Lincoln, 1989). As the course professors and coresearchers, we met regularly to
discuss observations and further research modifications as the study proceeded.
Participants
Participants in this study were 49 preservice elementary teachers enrolled in two

sections of a science methods course offered at a large urban university in South
Florida. The 6-week summer course was offered on the main campus (n = 26)
and a partner campus 35 miles away (n = 23) and was taught by two different
professors (the two authors). The science methods course is a required upper division
3-credit course in a Bachelor’s of Education program usually taken in the junior
year. It precedes the culminating 4th-year science teaching practicum. The intensive
summer class met for longer periods of time and twice as often to make up the time
that would normally be available in a regular semester. Demographic (age, gender,
ethnicity, experience) and other biographical data were collected on a biographical
data form. Participants signed informed consent forms to participate in this research
study. All names used in this manuscript are pseudonyms to protect the privacy of
participants.
Quantitative Data Sources and Analysis
Changes in science conceptual understanding were measured by administering

a science conceptual understanding test on the main concepts covered by the course.
These concepts included mass, volume, density, particulate nature of matter, force
of dynamic pressure, static pressure, temperature, heat conduction, and convection.
The test consisted of multiple choice and short essay questions (e.g., Object A has
a density of 12 grams/cc and Object B has a density of 4 grams/cc. If you drop both
Object A and Object B into a medium with density 8 grams/cc, what do you predict
will happen?). Essay questions were evaluated using a simple rubric that scored for
evidence of a logical procedure, accuracy of calculations, and a reasonable answer
or conclusion to ideas presented. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for reliability was
.85. The test has been administered to 10 different classes of preservice teachers
enrolled in the elementary science teaching methods course over a 3-year period. The
mean (M = 46) and range of scores (23–69) have been consistent across groups and
time establishing a degree of reliability within the population of preservice teachers
at the university where this research has taken place.
Changes in self-efficacy and outcome expectations were measured by admin-
istering Enochs and Riggs’ (1990) Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument
before and after participation in the study. The STEBI-B contains 23 statements
about teaching science. Based on Bandura’s two-component model, the STEBI-B
is composed of two scales. The first scale, Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Be-
lief (PSTE), measures self-efficacy. The second scale, Science Teaching Outcome
Expectancy (STOE), measures outcome expectancy.
Reliability of this instrument is high due to its careful development by Enochs
and Riggs (1990). For the PSTE scale, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .90
(Enochs & Riggs) and .84 for this study. For the STOE scale, the Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient was .76 (Enochs & Riggs) and .72 for this study.
Analysis
The STEBI-B data were analyzed using SPSS (version 10.1 for Windows) to
conduct a comparison of means on the pre- and posttest administrations employing
a two-tailed paired-sample t-test. The biographical information was utilized to ex-
amine any possible effects of demographic variables on the pre- and post-STEBI-B
data. Science conceptual understanding tests were analyzed using SPSS to conduct
descriptive statistical and item analyses, as well as comparison of means (two-tailed
paired sample t-test).
Qualitative Data Sources and Analysis
Participants kept reflective journals during the semester. Students understood

that these journals were not assessed for purposes of grading them for the course
but for the purposes of this research study. Students came to appreciate the value of
reflecting in writing in their journals for their own learning, as well. The protocol
included two parts:
1. Students commented on what science concepts were new and challenging, what
had been confusing, and what curricular materials and instructional strategies
helped them understand these concepts; and
2. Students indicated if they envisioned teaching the same concepts to their future
students and if they would use the same instructional strategies modeled by the
instructor when teaching the concepts to them.
Every 2 to 3 weeks, we requested students to rate their confidence toward learning

science and teaching science on a scale of 1–5, with 5 being very confident and 1
being not confident. From this, we were able to ascertain when and if their confidence
increased.
Focus-group discussions (4–6 students) were conducted at the end of the course
to gain further insight into how students expressed their own awareness of learning
and confidence level in learning and teaching science. Notes of the discussion were
taken and employed to triangulate with other data sources. After teaching, the course
professors (coresearchers) discussed direct observations of classroom interactions,
noting similarities and differences.
Analysis
Grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) techniques were used to analyze the
journals. Journal entries were coded as either positive or negative statements from
students regarding their ability and confidence to learn science, science teaching self-
efficacy, outcome expectancy beliefs, and understanding and belief in constructivist
learning theory. In reading subsequent journals, tally marks were made on an analy-
sis matrix when a previous student journal had noted a similar aspect. Representative
quotes from these journals have been included in the “Results and Discussion” sec-
tion to provide some evidence of how students expressed an awareness of their own
learning during the course and how they expressed confidence—or lack thereof—
in both learning and teaching science and constructivist learning theory at various
points during the semester.
Context of the Study: The Methods Course
Teaching Philosophy
Both professors had a shared philosophy that guided the research and teaching.
We planned our instruction so that participants would have a firsthand experience of
constructing their own understanding of science. Our philosophy was to model con-
structivism as a referent for teaching science (Tobin & Tippins, 1993). We provided
opportunities for participants to reflect on their own learning experiences and to make
explicit connections to their perceived future teaching roles and modeled reflection
in our own instruction by taking time out to talk about our own reflection processes.
Course Curriculum
The curriculum was designed for preservice elementary teachers to focus on

core concepts and principles in science. The science content served as the context
for hands-on activities and discussion, demonstrations, discrepant events, and coop-
erative group work, all strategies that we hoped preservice teachers would employ
when teaching science. The National Science Education Standards (National Re-
search Council, 1996) were reflected in the constructivist orientation of the course
with an eye for depth over breadth and a teaching perspective of “less is more.”
Instructional Approach
In our inductive constructivist approach to the science methods course, we used

hands-on experiences and demonstrations to clarify concepts, but always included
a significant amount of discussion regarding these experiences and the scientific
meaning derived from the instructional events. Participants were asked to reflect in
their journals regarding their own personal understandings at the completion of an
instructional sequence. Students read and critiqued a short book on constructivism
(Brooks & Brooks, 1999), as well as science teaching articles that exemplified
constructivist-oriented teaching situations (e.g., Abell, Anderson, Ruth, & Sattler,
1996; Kleinheider, 1996).
Example Instructional Sequence
An exemplar instructional sequence employed in the methods course is pro-

vided as a context for the findings. This particular example was a 4-h instructional
sequence that took place half way through the course. It was one of four such
sequences employed to provide students with constructivist learning experiences.
When the concept of density was to be examined, students were first asked
to discuss in groups what density meant from a science perspective and how they
thought of density in general (e.g., the idea of someone being “dense in the head”;
mathematical definitions of density). The ideas from each group were written on
the board and formed the basis for more discussion.
This initial discussion was followed by a brief hands-on activity. Students
packed cotton balls into equal volume cups to see how the density could be increased.
Some determined the mass of the cup and cotton balls as more and more cotton balls
were packed into the cup and saw the difference in mass as the number of packed
balls increased in the cup. They could simultaneously see how much denser the
materials in the cup became.
This activity was followed by more in-group discussion, with each group then
sharing their data and explanations with the whole class. After considerable dis-
cussion, many students still reported a feeling of uncertainty regarding density. The
following learning activity was undertaken to try to further the understanding of
this core concept. Small vials containing equal volumes of four different liquids of
different colors and densities were placed out for students to observe and examine.
Students were informed that all were common harmless materials purchased at the
supermarket. They were encouraged to lift, smell, and feel the liquids; then each
group measured out their own set to investigate further. Students noted the color,
clarity, odor, “heaviness,” and “thickness” of each. Triple-beam balances were used
to measure the mass of each vial and its contents and the mass of an identical empty
vial. Students found that each liquid was different in mass, although all were equal
in volume. They were asked to predict what would happen if, one by one, the vials
were poured into a tall container (graduated cylinder) and left for a while. Many
accurately predicted that the different liquids would layer according to their differ-
ent densities or, as some said, that the “heavier” liquids would be on the bottom.
Some predicted that they would mix and then separate, but not maintain their colors.
Students carefully layered the liquids one on top of the other and recognized the top
liquid was corn oil, which they knew would rise above the one they assumed was
water (by lack of smell, thickness, and clarity). Some had correctly identified the
transparent-but-colored, denser liquid as syrup.
After discussion, students reflected in writing at some length about density and
the usefulness of the activity. Some commented that this activity really brought the
idea of density into focus for them. At the conclusion of this cycle of hands-on activ-
ity, reflection, discussion, and further investigations, students wrote in their journals.
Results and Discussion
Demographic and Background Variables
The two course sections were similar in the background variables of partic-
ipants. Course participants in both sections were predominately Caucasian (non-
Hispanic) female education majors. Two thirds were 18–25 years of age. Most
participants (80%) had not finished a university degree, though nine held bachelor’s
and one a master’s.
Most participants (82%) had completed three or fewer college science courses.
However, 39% had completed four or more mathematics courses. Seventy-six per-
cent had a small amount of classroom experience as volunteers, and three participants
had taught for 1 to 2 years. Half the participants recounted positive and half negative
experiences in K–12 school science classes.
These demographic variables were applied as grouping variables to test for any
possible effects on changes in self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and conceptual
understanding. There were significant differences in both the pre- and postself-
efficacy scores between students with positive and negative experiences in K–12
school science classes (discussed later). No significant effects were found for any of
the other grouping variables. One might expect that the number of science content
courses completed would have an effect on self-efficacy; yet, few studies, including
this one, have demonstrated this (Tosun, 2000).
Hands-On Activities and Conceptual Understanding
There were significant gains in science conceptual understanding as measured

by the pre- and postadministration of the science conceptual understanding test.
Table 1 presents the relevant statistical results.
The quantitative results are supported by focus-group discussions and student
comments in their journals. A few representative responses are given to illustrate how
participants expressed their awareness of changes in their conceptual understanding.
Table 1
Paired Sample t-Test (Two-Tailed) Results for Conceptual Understanding Test (N = 49)
Mean SD t p
Pretest 50.408 12.069 16.626 .001

Posttest 86.857 11.724
Vicki: I learned more about matter in class today than I had in elementary
or middle school. I always had difficulty comprehending how gas took up
space. Today I finally “saw” that it does.
Penny: I would not have understood many of the concepts without doing
the activities or the demonstrations. I needed to do these and see these to
really understand. I don’t have a good science background.
Sally: The hands-on activities and demonstrations made the concepts

become clear. I was just thinking about this as we reviewed for the test
on Monday. I could think back to what was referred to and visualize
what had happened during an activity related to a concept and related
to the question. It passed before me in my mind and I could “see” things
happening as I listened to your responses and to questions. Referencing
visually to things we have done helped me so much to understand and
remember. I also thought how just the talk and drawing would not have
done it for me.
Vicki, Penny, and Sally represented typical elementary preservice teachers,

each having what they described as an inadequate science background. Nearly all
participants expressed that doing hands-on activities helped them understand science
concepts better, even those with robust science understandings.
Barry was particularly clear about this in his journal entries:
I became aware of conceptions I knew from the past, some that I could
even identify by name. However, being able to experience and see the
phenomena in action and then reflect on it allowed me to understand it at
a deeper more meaningful level.
Barry commented, that “he liked having to think,” and this was evidence of his
enjoyment of this process of constructing and reconstructing his own conceptions
of science events. He reflected that his prior understanding was possibly superficially
constructed. Given the opportunity to experience at close hand and reflect on what
had occurred, Barry gained insight into processes and events that he once took for
granted, and his newly acquired deeper understandings were satisfying to him.
Students were beginning to understand science concepts that they had not pre-
viously grasped. The data indicate that providing the time necessary for students to
see science (i.e., science demonstrations) and do science (i.e., hands-on activities)
were perceived by them to be the most important factors in developing their under-
standing. Further, students indicated that they were gaining a heightened awareness
of how they were learning. From these learning experiences, they were feeling more
confident about their own learning and their future science teaching roles.
Students repeatedly expressed how important hands-on activities were to their
learning. It was evident that this was what most helped them understand by providing
a context and background for reference to a particular concept. However, they felt
that discussions and further explanations were critical to a full understanding of a
concept. This is in accordance with the findings on reflective teaching by Palmer
(2002), Schon (1983), and Valli (1992), who noted that preservice teachers, when
given the opportunity to reflect, realize that hands-on activities are necessary, but
not sufficient to understanding science. Discussion and further experimentation are
necessary to achieve full conceptual understanding that lasts beyond the end of a
school science course.
Interpretations from the Exemplar Instructional Sequence on Density
A closer look at the exemplar instructional sequence given in the context to the
study section will illuminate aspects of instruction that helped students construct
conceptual understanding during the course noted by the two professors in their re-
flective discussions and by students in their journals and in focus-group discussions.
How and why density eventually came into focus for students was interesting from
several aspects. First, the amount of time required to come to the understanding for
the majority of students was quite significant. This topic was visited in more than
one class period, with writing, discussion, and activity taking up the majority of
time. The second aspect was that once the concept was understood, many students
(but not all) employed the usual textbook definition of density and would use the
mathematical representation for density as equal to the mass of an object divided by
its volume. Their conceptual understanding had leapt to the point where the more
abstract representation was acceptable and simpler to use. Third, the visual aspect
of the last activity (density layering) appeared to be key. Many students reported
that seeing the liquids move through each other and then separate into distinct layers
was a clarifying moment. Finally, it was agreed that the earlier activities with the
group and class discussion related to density helped build understanding. Students
felt none of the events in this sequence should be eliminated.
Numerous students commented that a constructivist-oriented sequence of
events took time, but allowed them to understand a concept. Based on these posi-
tive learning experiences, they felt that they would be able to emulate some of the
constructivist-oriented teaching that they had seen modeled in the methods course.
Further, these preservice teachers felt that their future students would probably be
successful learners, just as they had been. Thus, our students experienced changes
in both their self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs.
Changes in Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy Beliefs
A paired samples t-test revealed that there was a significant gain in self-efficacy
as measured by the STEBI-B. Table 2 shows the details of the statistical analysis.
Table 2 also shows the results for the outcome expectancy subscale of the
STEBI-B. There was also a significant gain for outcome expectancy, though a smaller
overall increase in the pre- and posttest means as evidenced in the self-efficacy
change. An independent two-tailed t-test revealed no significant differences between
the two sections of the methods course on either scale. Simply put, our preservice
Table 2
Paired t-Test (Two-Tailed) Results for Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy (N = 49)
Mean SD t p
Self-Efficacy
Pre 44.878 8.025 8.381 .001
Post 53.469 6.225
Outcome expectancy
Pre 36.735 4.649 3.060 .002
Post 38.857 4.933
teachers felt confident that they would be able to teach science effectively and that
it would make a difference to student achievement.
The quantitative results were supported by numerous student testimonies of
their increasing confidence during the course. Participants rated their confidence
levels on a scale of 1–5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, for learning
science and teaching science. When available, we have indicated these confidence-
level ratings in the following findings.
Seventy-four percent of our students gave themselves ratings of 3 or lower (out
of 5) in their perceived ratings of their self-efficacy for learning and teaching prior
to taking our science methods course. STEBI-B premeasures bear this out, as well.
Nancy was a typical student with tremendous anxiety about science and teaching
science, often expressing her fears about learning and, thus, teaching science. She
said she had “put off” taking the science methods course until she had finished all of
her other course work, including other subject area methods courses. Nancy knew
that she would be able to devote all of her time to the class during the summer session.
She knew that she must take the course before she could student teach, but Nancy
was very worried about taking the science methods course. Nancy’s confidence level
for science learning (as she reported in her journal) went from a 1 to a 4, while her
science teaching confidence went from a 1 to a 3 by the end of the course (STEBI-B
data correlated positively with these journal data).
Nancy: I am very happy I decided to take science before my student

teaching, because my confidence level is going up. I felt that I couldn’t be
a good teacher because I wasn’t comfortable with science. I realize I do
not have to know everything, but need a basic knowledge of the content.
I can research topics and be comfortable teaching about that.
All 49 participants expressed a similar self-awareness regarding their success in

learning science and an increased confidence that they would be able to teach it
effectively.
Twenty-six percent of the students rated their confidence for learning and teach-
ing science at the high end initially (learning 4 or 5 and teaching 4 or 5). From this
group of students who felt their science learning was strong, three had had classroom
teaching experience working as long-term substitute teachers or preschool teachers,
and one student had been a nurse. As she noted, she had had lots of science in
her nursing program and looked forward to teaching science. The remainder of this
group of students indicated they were quite comfortable with science and looked
forward to learning about teaching science.
Another group of students expressed some interest in science but were not es-
pecially high in their self-ratings, assigning themselves an average of 3 for learning
and 2 for teaching. Brenda was representative of this last group of students who
started out with more confidence than the majority of the class. Though more con-
fident at the start, Brenda was not notably different from Nancy in demonstrating
steady improvement in learning science, writing about it, and indicating how she
might approach teaching it. Brenda’s confidence level for science learning (as she
reported in her journal) went from a 3 to a 5 while her science teaching confidence
went from a 2 to a 4 by the end of the course (STEBI-B data correlated positively
with these journal data). Brenda, like many others, felt she could not rate herself
at the highest level (5) for teaching science because she had not taught science or
taught at all. She felt reluctant to commit to such a high evaluation on something
she had not done.
Nancy was anxious about learning and teaching science, while Brenda was
not. Nancy’s science background was weak and her understanding of science re-
flected her experiences. Brenda had an adequate science background (at least 3
science courses prior to the methods course) and a good understanding of the sci-
ence concepts taught in the methods course (above the class average score on the
science conceptual understanding test administered). Yet, initially, Brenda still felt
uncomfortable with the idea that she soon would have to teach science to children.
Although there were differences in the two students’ initial confidence for teach-
ing science, both finished with an increased level of confidence about learning and
teaching science. As they expressed it, they felt “comfortable” about it. Thus, both
the quantitative and qualitative data demonstrated that the preservice teachers in-
creased in their science self-efficacy. This relates to research by Palmer (2002) that
demonstrated that both students with positive or negative attitudes to science could
develop the confidence to teach it. We would, however, argue that it glosses over the
complexities of the relationship between motivation and teaching practice to under-
estimate the learning and self-efficacy development needs of our preservice teachers
who enter our methods courses with positive attitudes to science, satisfactory science
backgrounds, or both.
Other studies that employed the STEBI-B have reported mixed results in terms
of significant changes in the two subscales, self-efficacy (PSTE) and outcome ex-
pectancy (STOE). For example, similar to this study, Wingfield et al. (2000) found
significant changes in both self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Cantrell, Young,
and Moore (2003), Schoon and Boone (1998), and Tosun (2000) found significant
changes in self-efficacy, but not in outcome expectancy. However, Ginns, Watters,
Tulip, and Lucas (1995) found significant changes only in outcome expectancy.
We do not see these mixed results as inconsistent. Rather, we feel that they show
that different interventions in preservice teacher preparation courses can result in
changes to either self-efficacy or outcome beliefs, and sometimes to both. It is our
hope that we can begin to delineate a combination of constructivist-oriented instruc-
tional events and learning situations that will generally result in lasting changes in
both constructs. We recognize that beliefs are formed over many years and through
diverse experience. We do not expect that all students will soar to high levels of sci-
ence self-efficacy in one 15-week methods course. We are satisfied with results that
show a promising beginning to effecting such changes that may express themselves
in the future classroom practice of our preservice teachers (Lindgren & Bleicher,
2003).
Correlations Between Variables
A correlation analysis was employed to examine associations between self-

efficacy, outcome expectancy, and conceptual understanding variables as measured
by the STEBI-B and the science conceptual understanding test. Table 3 summarizes
these relationships in a Spearman correlation coefficient matrix. The correlations in
bold print are significant at the p = .05 level.
There was a significant correlation between preconceptual understanding and
pretest self-efficacy (r = .313) and also between posttest conceptual understand-
ing and posttest self-efficacy (r = .320). This indicates that both before and after
participation in the methods course, participants who had more conceptual under-
standing tended to have higher self-efficacy or vice versa. This finding triangulates
with journal entries that indicated that course participants often expressed that the
two were linked in their self-awareness of their own learning process and their per-
ceptions of future teaching situations. One way to interpret it is that development
of conceptual understanding may be a predictor of the development of self-efficacy.
Another interpretation is that development of self-efficacy may be a predictor of
development of conceptual understanding. This is the chicken-or-egg quandary that
Table 3
Spearman Correlation Coefficient Matrix for Variables in Study (N = 49)
Pre Post Preself- Postself- Pre Post

understanding understanding efficacy efficacy outcome outcome
Preunderstanding 1.000
Postunderstanding .178 1.000
Preself-efficacy .313 .323 1.000
Postself-efficacy .137 .320 .578 1.000
Preoutcome expec. −.150 .248 .363 .315 1.000
Postoutcome expec. −.019 .185 .092 .331 .504 1.000
Note. Significant values (except diagonal) are in bold at the level of significance alpha =
.050 (two-tailed test).
has been discussed to some degree in the self-efficacy literature and is unlikely to be
resolved due the reciprocal relationship between motivation and human performance
(Pajares, 2002).
In contrast, there were no significant relationships between conceptual
understanding and outcome expectancy pre or post. This finding concurs with
other research that shows differences between the interactions of self-efficacy
and outcome expectancies and various achievement constructs, such as alternative
conceptions (Schoon & Boone, 1998) or science content knowledge (Lloyd et al.,
1998; Stevens & Wenner, 1996). The differential interaction of the two constructs
of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy with such achievement performance
measures lends weight to the existence and usefulness of the two factors in
Bandura’s (1977) theory. In examining a teacher’s performance, both components,
their belief that they are effective teachers and that teaching can make a difference
to student achievement, need to be considered.
There were also modest correlations between self-efficacy and outcome ex-
pectancy on both the pre (r = .363) and post (r = .331) measures. This finding is
supported by some research studies (e.g., Enochs & Riggs, 1990) and contradicted
by others (e.g., Ginns et al., 1995; Ramey-Gassert et al., 1996). Nonetheless, fac-
tor analysis of the STEBI-B supports two distinct factors, given proper rotations.
The conceptual complexity of the interrelationship of self-efficacy and outcome ex-
pectancy is reflected by the fact that both are correlated, yet can be distinguished
with careful measurement. It is logical that one’s beliefs about the effects that teach-
ing can have on student achievement will have an effect on our self-efficacy beliefs,
yet be somewhat independent at the same time.
There was only one grouping variable, previous K–12 school science expe-
riences, that showed an effect on the self-efficacy beliefs of participants. Table 4
presents the independent t-test results between participants who indicated that they
had had positive and those who indicated negative K–12 school science experiences.
Table 4
K–12 School Science Experiences (Positive or Negative) Independent Samples t-Test
(Two-Tailed) Results for Pre and Postself-Efficacy (N = 49)
Mean SD t p
Preself-efficacy
Positive 49.30 5.592 3.901 .001
Negative 41.50 7.337
Postself-efficacy
Positive 56.05 6.151 2.796 .008
Negative 51.17 5.289
Note. Preself-efficacy was significantly correlated to Science Experiences (.394);

postself-efficacy was significantly correlated to Science Experiences (.297); there were no
significant correlations between Outcome Expectancy and Science Experiences.
Those with positive experiences, when compared to those with negative experiences,
demonstrated significantly higher self-efficacy both before and after participation in
the methods course. There was a more marked difference in the pretest (mean dif-
ference of 7.8) data than posttest (mean difference of 4.9). This indicates that those
with negative experiences were closing the initial gap in self-efficacy with their
peers who had more positive experiences. This is in accord with other studies, (e.g.,
Jarrett, 1999; Palmer, 2002; Tosun, 2000), which demonstrated that prior school
science experiences were correlated with self-efficacy beliefs and that such beliefs
could be affected by well-designed science methods course learning experiences
(Ramey-Gassert & Shroyer, 1992).
There were no significant differences between participants with positive or
negative experiences for outcome expectancy either pre or post. This is in accord
with some researchers (e.g., Ramey-Gassert et al., 1996), but not others (e.g., Ginns
et al., 1995). There is growing consensus in the current research for Bandura’s
two-component theory (Ramey-Gassert et al.), but there is still a lack of agreement
about the conceptual details of these two components (Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998). While the self-efficacy (PSTE) component is more clearly defined, out-
come expectancy (STOE) is in much more contention in terms of conceptualization.
In the context of studies involving preservice elementary teacher methods course
experiences, the conceptualization of outcome expectancy as “personal-external”
(Tschannen-Moran et al.) seems to us to be a close match to how our preservice
teachers expressed their developing sense that their teaching might make a difference
to student learning.
Conclusions
The preservice elementary teachers in this study experienced success in learn-

ing science. Their confirmatory statements indicated they felt that they understood
the science concepts taught in the methods course and they would be comfortable
teaching this science. This provided justification for the time and effort required
to teach the methods course with hands-on experiences, extensive discussion and
explanation, and extensions to help reinforce and make connections to other science
ideas and to the everyday world. In a constructivist-oriented classroom, learning
is facilitated when teachers gain insight into what students are thinking and un-
derstanding. When their students speak out and teachers listen, the voices of the
students provide teachers with the chance to observe where understandings (or mis-
understandings) are occurring. Teachers can then provide the necessary instructional
events to facilitate the students’ understandings. When conceptual understanding is
the goal of science instruction, the constructivist classroom is the place where this
is most likely to occur.
Many of our students had a weak science background, as has been often reported
for elementary preservice teachers (Lloyd et al., 1998; Stevens & Wenner, 1996).
A few students, in contrast, had stronger science backgrounds. Yet, both sets of
students had concerns about whether they would be able to teach science in ways
that would be meaningful to children. All our students overcame their concerns by
the end of the methods course.
While there are those who believe that the answer to providing better science
understanding for preservice elementary teachers lies in requiring more science
courses within the undergraduate program, the findings of this study suggest that
how those classes are taught is critical. To develop conceptual understanding, such
courses should engage in teaching practices that are different from those of tra-
ditional science lecture courses. Time for reflection, discussion, and experiential
learning must be included in the instructional design of the courses, and connec-
tions to the everyday world should be made if the additional course requirements
are to have relevance for preservice elementary teachers and, thus, affect their future
teaching. As political pressure is applied for more hours in content area courses for
elementary teachers, it is important to remember that the number of hours in class
may not be sufficient to overcome elementary preservice teachers reluctance to teach
science because of a lack of confidence in learning science. How those additional
hours are spent learning science is an important factor.
Our contention, that hands-on activities followed by discussion supported con-
ceptual understanding, was supported in our analysis. This is in accord with the
National Science Education Standards (NSES; National Research Council, 1996).
In the opening overview of the NSES, it is stated,
The Standards rest on the premise that science is an active process. Learn-
ing science is something that students do, not something that is done to
them. Hands-on activities, while essential, are not enough. Students must
have “minds-on” experience as well. (p. 2)
Taking the example of the core concept of density, we found that, once under-
stood, the concept seemed robust and students could refer to it with some ease when
discussing it in other contexts, such as when discussing convection. We spent con-
siderable time investigating density to attain this level of conceptual understanding.
In accord with Cochran and Jones (1998), we contend that major concepts that are
not investigated thoroughly with the aid of hands-on activities and discussion will
not be well understood. If teachers lack understanding of core concepts, they prob-
ably will not feel comfortable when teaching science to children. This may result in
what we see so often today: an absence of science teaching at the elementary level
or the further repetition of a “loop in history” (Hawkins, 1990, p. 97) in which new
teachers tend to repeat the way they were taught.
Overcoming this generational tendency is a major goal of current elementary
science education reform. More research is necessary to more clearly delineate
the most effective methods to employ to increase preservice elementary teachers’
self-efficacy and outcome expectancy for learning and teaching science.
We would further point out that, when an effort is made to focus on develop-
ment of science conceptual understanding in preservice elementary teachers, their
success in learning and development of science teaching self-efficacy are posi-
tively correlated. We are in strong agreement with a growing body of literature
(e.g., Ashton, 1984; Cannon & Scharmann, 1995; Cantrell et al., 2003; Enochs &
Riggs, 1990; Jarrett, 1999; Scharmann & Hampton, 1995; Tosun, 2000; Watters &
Ginns, 2000; Wingfield et al., 2000) that science teaching self-efficacy should be
explicitly addressed in teacher education programs.
Acknowlegement
An earlier version of the manuscript appeared in ERIC ED 465 602 (pp. 1593–
1606).
References
Abell, S. K., Anderson, M., Ruth, D., & Sattler, N. (1996). What’s the matter:
Studying the concept of matter in middle school. Science Scope, 20(1), 18–21.
Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 28–32.
Balunuz, M., Jarrett, O. S., & Balunuz, N. (2001, March). Growth of science interest
and confidence among Turkish preservice elementary teachers. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research of Science
Teaching, St Louis, MO.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Self-efficacy: Foundation of agency. In W. Perrig & A. Grob
(Eds.), Control of human behavior, mental processes, and consciousness (pp.
17–33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bleicher, R. (2001, March). Building science teaching confidence in preservice
elementary teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
Bleicher, R. (2002, April). Increasing confidence in preservice elementary teachers.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bleicher, R., & Lindgren, J. (2002). Building confidence in preservice elementary
science teachers. In P. Rubba, J. Rye, W. DiBiase, & B. Crawford (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2002 annual international conference of the Association
for the Education of Teachers in Science (pp 1593–1606) (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 465 602).
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for
constructivist classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Cakiroglu, J., & Boone, W. J. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs and their conceptions of photosynthesis and inheritance. Journal of
Elementary Science Education, 14(1), 1–14.
Cannon, J. R., & Scharmann, L. C. (1995). Influence of cooperative early field
experience on preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy. Science
Education, 80, 419–436.
Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching effi-
cacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
14, 177–192.
Cochran, K. F., & Jones, L. L. (1998). The subject matter knowledge of preservice
science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook
of science education (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Czerniak, C., & Chiarelott, L. (1990). Teacher education for effective science instruc-
tion: A social cognitive perspective. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 49–58.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand,
and standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher
for every child. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviorism towards
social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.),
International handbook of science education (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. London: Routledge.
Enochs, L., & Riggs, I. (1990). Further development of an elementary science
teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School
Science and Mathematics, 90, 694–706.
Frechtling, J., & Sharp, L. (Eds.). (1997). User-friendly handbook for mixed
method evaluations. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of
Research, Evaluation, and Communication (RED 94-52965).
Ginns, I. S., Watters, J. J., Tulip, D. F., & Lucas, K. G. (1995). Changes in preservice
elementary teachers’ sense of efficacy in teaching science. School Science and
Mathematics, 95, 394–400.
Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue
in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 74, 5–17.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage.
Haney, J. J., & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective science teach-
ers’ beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices. Science Education,
86, 783–802.
Hawkins, D. (1990). Defining bridging the gap. In E. Duckworth, J. Easley, D.
Hawkins, & A. Henriques (Eds.), Science education: A minds-on approach
for the elementary years (pp. 97–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jarrett, O. S. (1999). Science interest and confidence among preservice elementary
teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(1), 49–59.
Kleinheider, J. K. (1996). Assessment matters. Science & Children, 34(5), 23–26.
Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In
D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and
psychological (pp. 63–82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participa-
tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LeCompte, M. D.Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative
design in educational research (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Lindgren, J., & Bleicher, R. (2003, March). Understanding and Use of the learning
cycle and elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching,
Philadelphia.
Lloyd, J. K., Smith, R. G., Fay, C. L., Khang, G. N., Wah, L. L. K., & Sai,
C. L. (1998). Subject knowledge for science teaching at primary level: A
comparison of preservice teachers in England and Singapore. International
Journal of Science Education, 20, 521–532.
McRobbie, C. J., & Tobin, K. (1995). Restraints to reform: The congruence of
teacher and student actions in a chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 32, 373–385.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters
most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Teachers College Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.
Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Palmer, D. H. (2002). Factors contributing to attitude exchange amongst preservice
elementary teachers. Science Education, 86, 122–138.
Pajares, F. (2002). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic contexts: An outline. Re-
trieved December, 22, 2003, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/
efftalk.html.
Ramey-Gassert, L., & Shroyer, M. G. (1992). Enhancing science teaching self-
efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science
Education, 4(1), 26–34.
Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. R. (1996). A qualitative study of
factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers.
Science Education, 80, 283–315.
Rice, D. C., & Roychoudhury, A. (2003). Preparing more confident preservice
elementary science teacher: One elementary science methods teacher’s
self-study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 97–126.
Roth, W. M. (1995). Knowing and interacting: A study of culture, practices, and
resources in a grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive
apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 73–128.
Scharmann, L. C., & Hampton, C. M. O. (1995). Cooperative learning and pre-
service elementary teacher science self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 6, 125–133.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: BasicBooks.
Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of
science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82, 553–568.
Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to
embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science
Shymansky, J. A. (1992). Using constructivist ideas to teach science teachers about
constructivist ideas, or teachers are students too! Journal of Science Teacher
Silvertsen, M. L. (1993). Transforming ideas for teaching and learning sci-
ence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 362 417).
Stevens, C., & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge and
beliefs regarding science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics,
96, 2–9.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Grounded theory: Basics of qualitative research.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tobin, K.(1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. J. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching
and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science
education (pp. 3–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional
strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook on research
in science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Tosun, T. (2000). The impact of prior science course experience and achievement
on the science teaching self efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal
of Elementary Science Education, 12(2), 21–31.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy and measure.
Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Valli, L. (1992). Reflective teacher education. Albany: SUNY Press.
Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary
science.: Effect of collaborative and authentic learning practice in preservice
education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 301–321.
Weiss, I. R. (1994). A profile of science and mathematics education in the
United States: 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC
Document No. ED 382 461).
Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics
learning. Science Education, 75, 9–21.
Wingfield, M. E., Freeman, L., & Ramsey, J. (2000). Science teaching self-efficacy
of first-year elementary teachers trained in a site-based program. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
This manuscript was accepted under the editorship of Craig Berg and Larry Enochs.

Jurnal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Science Teacher Education (2005) 16: 205–225

Success in Science Learning and Preservice Science Teaching

This study examined relationships between conceptual understanding, self-

Constructivist Learning Theory

This study is framed in a constructivist approach to teaching and learning

The connection of beliefs to teaching practice can be captured by the psy-

People are producers, as well as products, of social systems. By exercis-

This study employed a mixed-method design involving both quantitative and

Participants in this study were 49 preservice elementary teachers enrolled in two

Quantitative Data Sources and Analysis

Changes in science conceptual understanding were measured by administering

Qualitative Data Sources and Analysis

Participants kept reflective journals during the semester. Students understood

Every 2 to 3 weeks, we requested students to rate their confidence toward learning

Context of the Study: The Methods Course

The curriculum was designed for preservice elementary teachers to focus on

In our inductive constructivist approach to the science methods course, we used

Example Instructional Sequence

An exemplar instructional sequence employed in the methods course is pro-

Results and Discussion

Demographic and Background Variables

Hands-On Activities and Conceptual Understanding

There were significant gains in science conceptual understanding as measured

Pretest 50.408 12.069 16.626 .001

Sally: The hands-on activities and demonstrations made the concepts

Vicki, Penny, and Sally represented typical elementary preservice teachers,

Interpretations from the Exemplar Instructional Sequence on Density

Changes in Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy Beliefs

Nancy: I am very happy I decided to take science before my student

All 49 participants expressed a similar self-awareness regarding their success in

Correlations Between Variables

A correlation analysis was employed to examine associations between self-

Pre Post Preself- Postself- Pre Post

Note. Preself-efficacy was significantly correlated to Science Experiences (.394);

The preservice elementary teachers in this study experienced success in learn-

You might also like