J Sci Teacher Educ (2008) 19:183–204

DOI 10.1007/s10972-007-9084-1

Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs About Science

Teaching

Ozgul Yilmaz-Tuzun

Published online: 15 November 2007

Ó Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Abstract In this study, a Beliefs About Teaching (BAT) scale was created to
examine preservice elementary science teachers’ self-reported comfort level with
both traditional and reform-based teaching methods, assessment techniques, class-
room management techniques, and science content. Participants included 166
preservice teachers from three different US universities. Analyses revealed signif-
icant correlations among participants’ confidence level with assessment techniques,
classroom management, teaching methods, and science content and number of
science methods and science content courses taken. A significant difference was
observed among the students enrolled at each university. Overall, study participants
felt more comfortable teaching biology concepts than teaching chemistry concepts,
physics concepts, or both.

Keywords Preservice teachers
Teaching beliefs
Science teaching

Introduction

In this study, preservice elementary science teachers’ beliefs about their abilities to
(a) apply traditional and reform-based teaching methods, (b) utilize assessment
strategies and classroom management techniques, and (c) teach science content
were explored. It was assumed that preservice teachers’ (PTs’) belief systems and
the knowledge they gained through methods courses are in relation with their further
teaching experiences.
Teacher education programs put forth great effort to help PTs develop the
necessary knowledge and skills to succeed in their future careers. In addition to

O. Yilmaz-Tuzun (&)
Department of Elementary Education, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University,
06531 Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: ozgul@metu.edu.tr

123
184 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun

knowledge of subject matter, teachers need knowledge of how to organize the

classroom to maximize student learning and how to handle management problems
(Milner 2005). Thus, teaching and learning to teach have a ‘‘multifaceted nature’’
(p. 769). Teacher education programs should provide experiences ‘‘linking theory to
practice and connecting practice to theory, and the conceptual change that is
necessary for teachers to move from novice to experts’’ (p. 769). On the part of PTs,
this requires ‘‘serious rethinking and reconceptualization’’ (p. 769). However, it is
necessary to consider the effects of PTs’ beliefs on developing new knowledge and
skills during teacher education programs. PTs’ preexisting beliefs act as ‘‘filters’’
through which they process the content of their education courses and their
experiences as student teachers (Hollingsworth 1989).
Students in teacher education enter their programs with certain beliefs about
teaching due to experiences gained through their previous education (Gunstone
et al. 1993; Hollingsworth 1989; McDiarmid et al. 1989; Olson and Appleton
2006). What they learned as K-12 students influences their professional develop-
ment as teachers. In other words, these beliefs about teaching can be influential in
determining their future experiences. Pajares (1992) called this influence the insider
effect on PTs’ beliefs. Thus, insider effect is that ‘‘the reality of their everyday lives
may continue largely unaffected by higher education, as may their beliefs’’ (p. 323).
In other words, Pajares claimed that they are insiders because they have been
students in the education system; and, so, they take that perspective with them as
they learn to be teachers. Others have also claimed that in teacher education
programs, students value their existing beliefs more and are unlikely to change these
beliefs or to adjust them (Gunstone et al. 1993; Hollingsworth 1989).
These unchanged beliefs may negatively influence the development of new
beliefs and skills during teacher education programs. For example, if PTs believe in
the effectiveness of traditional teaching methods (e.g., lecturing) and cannot
successfully develop the necessary skills to teach with reform-based methods, then
they will likely use traditional teaching methods in their future careers. Apparently,
teachers tend to revert back—based on their preexisting beliefs about teaching—to
teach the same way they were taught. Thus, if they fail to achieve necessary
conceptual change, it becomes difficult for them to incorporate new teaching
techniques into their teaching repertoire, especially when they feel uncomfortable or
uncertain about their abilities to apply different methods, assessment, and
management strategies (Czerniak 1989; Grossman et al. 1989). Enochs and Riggs’
(1990) study showed that preservice elementary teachers who believed that their
skills were not adequate to teach science effectively spent little time teaching
science. Hence, preservice teachers’ beliefs, values, and attitudes need to change to
see progress in their teaching behaviors. Enochs and Riggs indicated that methods
instructors should give importance to PTs’ belief systems about teaching.
Teacher education programs, especially methods courses, are important in
effective preparation of PTs for their careers. PTs should graduate from their
programs with professionally well-developed ideas and skills. Methods courses are
essential elements within teacher education programs (Abell 2006). The purpose of
these courses is to help PTs adopt necessary professional skills, such as teaching
with different teaching methods, assessing students’ knowledge, and applying

123
Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs 185

classroom management techniques. To be effective teachers, PTs need to begin

developing their professional skills when they start taking their methods courses. As
commonly argued by the researchers, PTs beliefs play an important role in acquiring
the skills and knowledge presented at the methods courses (Haney et al. 1996;
Hollingsworth 1989; Mahlios and Maxson 1995). Field experiences associated with
method courses also play an important role. Field experiences may help PTs to think
reflectively about the best practices of the science teaching and observe, create, and
perform new approaches in the real classroom environment (Abell 2006).
This study examines PTs’ beliefs about teaching at the early stages of their
teacher education programs. As mentioned before, one can find rich information in
the literature about the PTs’ beliefs about teaching. However, in regard to PTs’
beliefs about teaching with different methods (e.g., inquiry, concept map,
demonstration), classroom management (e.g., how to handle off-task students,
discipline), use of different assessment strategies (e.g., portfolio, structured test),
content knowledge (e.g., biology, chemistry), and degree of associations among
those beliefs, little information is available. This study addresses this gap in the
literature by providing specific information about the PTs’ beliefs early in their
teacher education programs. To assess PT’s beliefs regarding the aforementioned
areas, a Beliefs About Teaching (BAT) Scale was designed. PTs’ beliefs about the
specific teaching methods, management issues, assessment strategies, and their
comfort levels for teaching different content areas were intended to be captured with
the BAT. The following sections describe the theoretical framework and the
rationale guided the development process for the BAT subscales.

Importance of Methods Courses in Developing PTs’ Beliefs on Teaching

In developing the BAT, both prior research and the context of this study were taken
into account. PTs’ beliefs about specific aspects of teaching have been explored and
well documented in previous studies in disciplines other than science. For example,
Hart (2002) studied PTs’ beliefs about teaching mathematics; and Foegen et al.
(2001) measured PTs’ beliefs about computer-based assessment. Many researchers
have studied PTs’ self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs about their teaching
(e.g., Desouza et al. 2004; Enochs and Riggs 1990). Within the different subscales
of the BAT, the researcher intended to address the typical topics emphasized in a
science methods course. The following section discusses the BAT subscales and
their relation with the topics found in a typical methods course.

Teaching Methods

One of the main goals of a science methods courses is to help PTs develop necessary
skills to teach with different teaching methods. Danielson (1996) suggested
that teachers’ instructional duties require communicating clearly and accurately
with students, engaging students in learning, providing feedback to students, and
demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness. These duties can be achieved

123
186 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun

successfully if teachers implement a variety of instructional methods in their

classrooms.
While many studies have focused on developing inservice teachers’ teaching
skills about the use of different teaching methods (e.g., Akerson and Larry 2003;
Baker et al. 2002; Basista et al. 2001; Bentley and James 2003; Shepardson 2003),
there are fewer studies that focus on developing PTs’ teaching skills for
implementing different methods. Nonetheless, it is clear that PTs may have
difficulties using different teaching methods when they start teaching. As Freiberg
(2002) stated, ‘‘Through trial and error, new teachers develop a repertoire of
teaching strategies. This haphazard process of strategy development may take
several years—by which time many struggling, unprepared new teachers have
already left the classroom’’ (p. 56). Completing teacher education programs without
developing the necessary teaching skills leads new teachers to teach their subject
matter the way they were taught during their formal education, which is mostly
passive transmission of the textbook knowledge to students. It is apparent that PTs
need to gain the necessary skills to teach with different methods through their
teacher education programs.
At this point, one needs to consider developing PTs’ skills in implementing
different methods. Unfortunately, there are not many studies that focus on
developing PTs’ knowledge and skills to teach with a specific method or methods in
the field of science teaching. Nonetheless, there are several that inform this work.
With the publication of the National Science Education Standards (NSES;
National Research Council [NRC]) in 1996, science methods course instructors
have been given guidance on what defines quality science teaching methods,
assessment, and content. The NSES promotes the use of inquiry teaching methods
and interactive hands-on activities that would lead to authentic assessment
opportunities (NRC). Windschitl (2003) examined PTs’ inquiry conceptions and
how those conceptions changed during a science methods course. An open inquiry
project was implemented throughout the science methods course to modify the
inquiry conceptions of PTs who had different understandings about scientific
investigations. Windschitl found that guided and open inquiry approaches were
mostly implemented by the teachers who had authentic views of inquiry. PTs
reported that they gained those views during their undergraduate experiences with
authentic science research. Since previous authentic science experiences influenced
the PTs’ understanding about inquiry teaching, it was suggested that teacher
education programs should provide authentic science research experiences to PTs
during science methods courses and other areas of teacher education programs.
The learning cycle is accepted as one of the best way to implement inquiry
teaching (Blank 2000; Karplus and Their 1967; Lawson 1995). The learning cycle
involves five phases: engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate:
The Engage is presented to excite the students in the topic; the Explore directs
the students to examine the topic in small groups; the Explain allows the
students to describe to others what their team has discovered; the Elaborate
encourages the students to further investigate the topic; the Evaluate provides

123
Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs 187

the students a way to assess what they have learned. (Bybee 1993, as cited in
Lord 1997, pp. 200–201)
Lindgren and Bleicher (2005) investigated the difficulties and factors that led to
understanding the learning cycle learning strategy by PTs. They found that, among
PTs, high-achievement students had difficulty in learning the concepts by learning
cycle teaching methods. On the other hand, average students had successful learning
experience with the learning cycle. Lindgren and Bleicher concluded that multiple
exposures to this method during methods courses will help PTs learn this method.
Hewson et al. (1999) investigated PTs’ adaptability to implement a conceptual
change teaching strategy. They reported that PTs had difficulties implementing
conceptual change in their teaching approach during their student teaching. The
authors concluded that, because PTs were not used to learning the concepts
themselves through conceptual change, they had difficulty in teaching scientific
concepts to their students with this approach. More important, because these PTs
often took science courses in the biology department and the courses they enrolled
were delivered through a lecture format, these teachers tended to use the lecture
strategy in teaching scientific concepts to their own students.
While the studies above relate to specific methods, it is important to note that
model building, project-based learning, problem-based learning, lecturing, labora-
tory, discovery, case dilemma, and demonstration methods have not been the focus
of studies that examine PTs’ developing instructional skills to use those methods
effectively in science classrooms.

Assessment Strategies

Different assessment strategies can be employed to evaluate student learning during

instruction. Yilmaz (2004) found that the assessment repertoire of PTs is very
limited. In student teaching, PTs mostly employed asking questions and traditional
paper-and-pencil assessment strategies. Even though these PTs were aware of
different assessment methods, they could not apply that knowledge in classrooms.
Most of the PTs failed to evaluate their students by using the authentic assessment
strategies. NRC (1996) emphasized the essence of authentic assessment as
‘‘exercises [that] require students to apply scientific knowledge and reasoning to
situations similar to those they will encounter in the world outside the classroom, as
well as to situations that approximate how scientists do their work’’ (p. 78).

Classroom Management Techniques

Elementary teachers’ confidence level with classroom management may affect the
type and quality of classroom instruction. Classroom management is often found to
be PTs’ greatest concern in their early teaching years (Veenman 1984; Wilson and
Cameron 1996). Teachers who lack classroom management skills often spend
classroom time managing misbehavior instead of instructing students. Appleton and

123
188 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun

Kindt (2002) found that beginning teachers often choose ‘‘safe’’ teaching methods
that they believe are easily managed or ‘‘work well’’ and avoid more interactive labs
and hands-on activities (p. 49). Conversely, teachers who have more confidence
with their ability to manage students use more interactive lessons, cooperative
learning, and problem-solving activities that lead to enhanced student comprehen-
sion (Gee et al. 1996). Enochs et al. (1995) found that PTs with more facilitative
classroom management ideologies had higher science teaching self-efficacy scores
(p. 71). Thus, these more confident science teachers are more willing to experiment
with interactive student-centered lessons (Enochs et al. 1995).

Content Knowledge

Preservice elementary teachers have been shown to lack confidence in their science
content knowledge (Grossman et al. 1989; McDiarmid et al. 1989). This is
important, given that teachers’ content knowledge can influence what they teach,
as well as how they teach (Nichols and Koballa 2006). It was argued that ‘‘breadth
and depth of science understandings are needed by elementary school teachers’’
because ‘‘a teacher’s science knowledge directly affects students’ opportunities to
learn science’’ (Nichols and Koballa 2006, p. 4). For example, Grossman et al.
(1989) found that teachers who lack content knowledge often resort to lecture or rely
too heavily on the course textbook, instead of using student-centered teaching
techniques that produce real student understanding. Additionally, elementary
teachers may choose not to teach a science topic or science at all due to their
inexperience with the content (Czerniak 1989; Malcolm 1989). The National Science
Education Standards (NRC 1996) outline content standards focusing on physical,
life, earth and space, technology, and nature of science. Elementary teachers must
feel confident in their knowledge of each of these content areas if science standards
are to be met. This knowledge of content should also be integrated in meaningful
ways with teachers’ knowledge of pedagogy (Shulman 1986). Moreover, teachers
also need to develop an understanding about the relationships between science and
technology and science and other school subjects (Anderson and Mitchener 1994).

Methods of Inquiry

Participants

Participants in this study included 166 preservice teachers from three Midwestern
universities. One hundred forty-one students were elementary education majors and
25 were early childhood education majors. Student distribution across the
participating universities is represented in Table 1.
The semester the study took place, all participants were enrolled in a science
methods course at their university. All methods courses included a field placement in
addition to instruction in science teaching methods. Each of the methods courses met
for 3–6 h per week, with students participating in a field teaching experience ranging

123
Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs 189

Table 1 Distribution of participants at each University

University Course Field Number of Sex
Hours/Week Experience students
Hours Female Male

University A 6 22 51 48 3
University B 3 72 20 17 3
University* C1 3 16 35 30 5
University* C2 3 72 25 24 1
University* C3 3 16 35 31 4
Total 150 16

*University C has three sections of the same methods courses

from 16 to 72 h during the semester (Table 1). Characteristics of the different

methods courses and the topics emphasized in each can be found in Table 2.

Data Collection

Elementary science method instructors at five Midwestern universities were invited

to participate in this research study. Instructors from the three universities agreed to
participate in this study. Two doctoral students and classroom instructors admin-
istered the BAT in a regular class meeting during the last month of classes in Spring
2002. The surveys were administered at the end of the semester to ensure that most of
the methods class topics had been covered. After having the purpose of the study
explained to them and their rights as participants, students voluntarily completed the
scale, with all survey participants remaining anonymous. The survey required
approximately 20 min to complete; however, the students were not limited by time.

Data Analysis

Descriptive and inferential statistics were conducted to analyze the survey responses
using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 10.0 for Windows.
The basic assumptions of multivariate analysis were checked before the analysis.
Correlations between dependent variables were found to be less than .70, indicating
no violation of singularity (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). No outliers were found in
the data set. The kurtosis and skewness values for each subscale were found to be
within an acceptable range (Tabachnick and Fidell). To examine possible
underlying dimensions of the survey subscales, student responses for each subscale
were factored, using principal components analysis, and a Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization rotation was applied (Hair et al. 1998).

Instrumentation

In developing the BAT, the researcher first considered the structure of the questions
or statements. Since the participants of this study were PTs, they were not very

123
190 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun

Table 2 Topics emphasized in methods courses at three universities

Course content University A University B University C1 University C2
and University C3

Science content Animal Animal Seasons States of matter

Plant Plants Electricity Acid–base
Ecology Water Individual project Individual project
Energy Rocketry
Metals Bridges
Water
Heat
Temperature
States of matter
Magnetism
Gases
Physical and
chemical change
Professional Nature of science Nature of science Standards Nature of science
teaching Workshops Workshops standards Hands-on Standards
Standards Inquiry Misconception Inquiry
Project wild Lesson plans Scientific method Lesson plans
Project wet Hands-on Multiple intelligence Hands-on
Constructivism Discrepant events Reflection papers
Jigsaw Multicultural issues
Questioning
Proj-based learning
Learning cycle
Conceptual change
project wet
Assessment Yes No Yes Yes
Management Yes No No No

familiar with educational terminology; therefore, efforts were made to avoid the use
of jargon. Additionally, we were aware that longer sentences might increase the
likelihood of PTs interpreting the items in different manners. Thus, BAT items were
designed in a way that they did not include long question statements. Instead, for
each item, phrases were used to maximize their clarity. A similar strategy was
employed earlier by Lumpe et al. (2000). They developed a scale called Context
Beliefs About Teaching Science (CBATS) to determine science teachers’ beliefs
about teaching science. In their scale, they used short phrases instead of long
sentences. For example, a main statement in the CBATS scale is, ‘‘The following
factors would enable me to be an effective teacher.’’ The item choices that follow
are short phrases. For example, Item 23 included ‘‘Involvement of scientists,’’ and
Item 7 included ‘‘Increased funding.’’

123
Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs 191

With this in mind, we designed the BAT to address four subscales: teaching
methods, assessment techniques, classroom management techniques, and science
content. See Appendix for the BAT survey. The items on each subscale were
assessed using a 5-point Likert-type scale with the following categories: strongly
agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree. The teaching methods
subscale included 18 items, the assessment techniques subscale included 12 items,
the classroom management techniques subscale included 25 items, and the science
content subscale included 20 items. The entire survey also included six
demographic questions, such as sex, proposed teaching level, major area of study,
number of science methods courses taken, number of science content courses taken,
and number of general methods courses taken. In the survey development, the
following steps were taken. First, an item pool for each subscale was generated from
an extensive literature search and examination of the National Science Education
Standards (NRC 1996). Second, a team of science education researchers—two
doctoral students in science education and a senior science education professor—
validated the items in each pool in terms of their wording, appropriateness, and
correlation to the standards. Third, the survey was pilot tested on 14 Midwestern
university science method students and reevaluated from their responses. Finally,
the researcher team made final survey adjustments before administrating the survey
for this study. Following these adjustments, the overall Cronbach’s a reliability
coefficient of the survey was reported as r = .97. The Cronbach’s a for each
subscale was as follows: teaching methods, r = .91; assessment techniques,
r = .89; classroom management techniques, r = .96; and science content, r = .95.
For further validation and assessment of the reliability of the scale, factor analysis was
performed with the study data. Because each subscale was constructed with different
philosophical perspectives, the factor analysis was applied to each subscale separately.
Computing one factor analysis for the entire instrument would hide important
information about the individual subscales. The science content subscale was excluded
from the factor analysis because each scientific concept has its own characteristics;
therefore, the factors generated would be meaningless. In general, factor analysis
revealed that students’ responses corresponded to ideas presented in the literature
review. The specific factors for each subscale are outlined in the sections that follow.

Factor Analysis

Teaching Methods Techniques Subscale

Factor analysis revealed three main dimensions in the teaching methods subscale:
(a) traditional method, (b) inquiry-based method, and (c) cooperative learning
method. The analysis showed that PTs’ responses for role playing, cooperative
learning, project-based learning, problem-based learning, questioning, discovery,
and model building loaded significantly on Factor 1 (Table 3). Since all these
methods include group work, they were named as Cooperating Learning Methods.
Inquiry, inquiry demonstration, inquiry laboratory, laboratory, and learning cycle
loaded significantly on Factor 2. This factor was named Inquiry-Based Methods.

123
192 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun

Table 3 Factors for teaching

Methods Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
methods subscales of the BAT
Cooperative learning .775 .298 .065 .163
Role playing .757 -.017 .292 .072
Project-based learning .726 .390 .128 .126
Questioning .669 .206 .105 .422
Discovery .656 .342 .211 -.075
Model building .598 .105 .538 -.169
Problem-based learning .577 .219 .264 .188
Inquiry demonstration .257 .839 .105 .095
Inquiry .200 .835 .212 -.081
Inquiry laboratory .174 .802 .169 .088
Laboratory .410 .425 .354 .163
Learning cycle .385 .410 .404 .066
Case dilemma .143 .053 .817 .109
Conceptual change .204 .271 .689 .121
Mentoring .182 .324 .547 .313
Lecturing -.008 -.108 .104 .846
Discussion .524 .177 .158 .592
Demonstration .446 .377 .120 .475

Case study, conceptual change, and mentoring loaded significantly on Factor 3.

Lecturing, discussion and demonstration loaded significantly on Factor 4. Factor 4
was named Traditional Methods. Traditional methods are defined in this study as
typically teacher-directed methods, including lecture, discussion, and demonstra-
tions. Factor 3 consisted of items expected to load in other categories. Based on its
characteristics, case dilemma would load with the cooperative learning methods
dimension. Similarly, mentoring was expected to load with the traditional methods,
and conceptual change to load with the inquiry-based techniques. These three items
loaded into Factor 3 must be further evaluated. Other items, which possess similar
characteristics, were loaded into separate factors.
The Eigen values for the four factors were all greater than 1, and the cumulative
variance based on these factors explained 40.24% of the variance. The final
communalities represent the variability explained by each factor. After Varimax
rotation, all the communalities were above .300, with a range of values from .302 to .794.

Assessment Techniques Subscale

Factor analysis revealed two main dimensions in the assessment subscale: (a) traditional
and (b) alternative assessment. PTs’ responses for observation, journals, projects,
interview, individual portfolio, and group portfolio loaded significantly on Factor 1
(Table 4). Traditional assessment strategies, essay tests, standardized tests, written
reports, and formative and summative tests loaded significantly on Factor 2. Again,
traditional assessment in this survey refers to assessment techniques that are most
commonly used in a typical classroom (see, for example, Ebenezer and Connor 1998).

123
Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs 193

Table 4 Factors for the

Assessment Factor 1 Factor 2
assessment methods subscale of
the BAT
Observation .873 .144
Journals .872 .139
Projects .869 .198
Interview .719 .079
Questioning .612 .498
Individual portfolio .652 .080
Group portfolio .460 .007
Essay tests .168 .872
Standardized tests .005 .838
Written reports .276 .813
Formative test .159 .371
Summative test .191 .340

The Eigen values for the three factors were all greater than 1, and the cumulative
variance based on these factors explained 46.75% of the variance. All communal-
ities were above .400, with a range of values from .421 to .835.

Classroom Management Techniques Subscale

Factor analysis revealed three main dimensions in the management subscale (a)
student discipline problems, (b) enhancing student learning, and (c) classroom
diversity issues (Table 5). Factor 1 consisted of items dealing with student
discipline problems, including off-task behavior, discipline, and noise. Factor 2
included management skills related to enhancing student learning. Items defined as
enhancing student learning ranged from the ability of PTs to change the physical
arrangement of the classroom to monitoring student interactions and progress during
a lesson. Factor 3 consisted of classroom diversity issues, including cultural
differences, gifted students, and disabled students.
The Eigen values for the three factors were all greater than 1, and the cumulative
variance, based on these factors, explained 50.93% of the variance. All commu-
nalities were above .400, with a range of values from .468 to .747.

Findings

Correlation Analysis

The correlations among the demographic data and subscales suggested that there is a
significant correlation between the number of science methods courses taken and the
students’ level of comfort with assessment techniques (r = .156, p \ .05). The data
show that student comfort level with assessment techniques decreases as the number
of science content courses taken increases (Table 6). The average number of science
methods courses taken ranged from one to three. In addition, significant negative
correlations were found between the number of science content courses taken and

123
194 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun

Table 5 Factors for the

Management Factor Factor Factor
classroom management
1 2 3
techniques subscale of the BAT
Classroom environment control .761 .284 .293
Off-task students .725 .259 .323
Discipline .705 .300 .276
Noise .680 .336 .285
Unfocused learners .673 .001 .512
Authoritative teaching .662 .340 .058
Classroom testing .643 .396 .180
Students who break the rules .617 .267 .456
Classroom physical arrangements .082 .783 .321
Students’ sharing responsibility for their .334 .714 .133
learning
Scientific discussion and debate among .197 .690 .264
students
Facilitative teaching .416 .679 .057
Students’ curiosity .267 .667 .455
Pair/group work .362 .628 .273
Students’ interactions .360 .611 .466
Lesson preparation .338 .535 .343
Students’ progress .377 .506 .472
Students in active and extended scientific .393 .426 .303
studies
Cultural differences .168 .225 .780
Parents’ requests .218 .217 .730
Disabled students .309 .177 .675
Learner differences .171 .370 .666
Gifted students .301 .381 .616
Effective communication .471 .261 .539
Student motivation .460 .272 .502

Table 6 Correlations among

Methods Assessment Management Content
the demographic data and
subscales
Science method .065 -.156* -.137 -.013
courses taken
Science content .216* .148 .164* .208*
courses taken
*p \ .05

the participants’ level of comfort with the teaching methods (r = -.216, p \ .05),
the classroom management (r = -.164, p \ .05), and the science content (r = -
.208, p \ .05). As the number of science content courses increased, the participants’
comfort level with the teaching methods, the classroom management, and the
science content increased. Sixty-four percent of the participants—106 of them—
reported that they have taken one to three science content courses.

123
Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs 195

Table 7 Mean subscale scores for preservice teachers at participating Universities

Mean scores

Methods Assessment Management Content

University A 1.86 1.50a* 1.55a* b*

2.04a*
a* a*
University B 1.83 1.63 1.43 1.94a*
b* d*
University C1 1.97 2.09 2.09 2.37b*
b* c* d*
University C2 1.99 1.96 1.89 2.16a* b*

b* b* c* a*
University C3 1.76 1.87 1.77 1.97

*p \ .05. Means with similar letters (a, b, c, d) are not significantly different from each other; means with
different letters (a, b, c, d) are significantly different from each other

Multivariate Analysis

To control for errors resulting from multiple comparisons, a multivariate analysis of

variance (MANOVA) was performed. A 1 9 4 MANOVA was run to determine
possible differences between student responses based on different methods courses.
The multivariate test was significant for the main effect of class, Wilks’s
Lambda = .650, F(16, 483) = 4.579, p \ .05. Univariate follow-up revealed
significant differences on assessment techniques, F(4, 165) = 12.595, p \ .05,
MSE = 2.256; classroom management techniques, F(4, 165) = 10.556, p \ .05,
MSE = 2.117; and science content, F(4, 165) = 2.899, p \ .05, MSE = .989.
Duncan post-hoc analysis revealed a significantly higher confidence level for the
students in methods courses at University A and University B than for the students
at University C for assessment techniques (p \ .05). University A and University B
students were also significantly more confident (p \ .05) with classroom manage-
ment than the students in two of the University C courses (C1 and C2). The students
in University C1 and C2 methods courses were also significantly less confident with
science content than the students in the other methods courses (p \ .05). The mean
scores of students’ responses for each teacher at each university are represented in
Table 7. Higher mean values correspond to lower levels of student comfort with the
different teaching techniques or science content.

Preservice Science Teachers’ Content Knowledge

The t-test analysis suggested that students felt more comfortable teaching the nine
different biology and earth science course concepts than the 10 different physics and
chemistry concepts (Table 8).
As mentioned before, students who took more science content courses were more
confident with the science concepts in general (r = -.208, p \ .05). Upon further
analysis, a significant correlation was found between the number of science content
courses taken and the confidence in teaching biology and earth science content
(r = -.221, p \ .05), but not in teaching physics and chemistry content (r = -.149,
p [ .05). See Table 9 for those results.

123
196 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun

Table 8 Mean score

Mean t df Sig. (2-
differences between content
difference tailed)
areas
Physics and Chemistry 2.4096 12.241 165 .000*
Biology and Earth 1.9111
*p \ .05 Science

Table 9 Correlations Among

Pearson’s Physics and Biology and Science content
Science Content Subscales and
correlation sig. (2- chemistry earth science courses taken
Science Content Courses Taken
tailed)

Physics and 1 .686 -.149

chemistry
Biology and earth 1 -.221*
science
Science content 1
courses taken
*p \ .05

Discussion

Correlation analysis revealed that PTs’ confidence level with assessment techniques
decreased as the number of science method courses they have taken increased. This
suggests that, as PTs gain more assessment knowledge in their methods courses,
they learn how to evaluate students using traditional and alternative assessment
techniques. Through the methods courses, PTs have the opportunity to compare
traditional and alternative assessment techniques.
Correlation analysis also revealed that PTs’ confidence level with teaching
methods, classroom management, and science content increased with the number of
science content courses taken. As PTs’ content knowledge increases, they become
more confident with pedagogical issues (Shulman 1986). Shulman argued that, when
teachers know their subject matter very well, they can apply the necessary pedagogical
approaches to increase students’ understanding. In other words, this study suggests
that knowing something for oneself and being able to enable others to know it are
important aspects of learning and teaching. This study provides additional evidence
that shows the importance of science content knowledge for future elementary
teachers to increase their beliefs about implementation of different teaching methods
and classroom management strategies complementary to those methods. However, at
this point, it is necessary to indicate the contradictory findings in the literature. There
are many studies indicated that increasing the amount of science content resulted in
having interestingly little effect on students’ confidence to teach science (Moore and
Watson 1999; Schoon and Boone 1998; Watters and Ginns 2000).
Nearly two thirds of the PTs in this survey reported taking only one to three
science content courses. This finding is consistent with the research from most
elementary teacher preparation programs (Greenwood and Scribner-MacLean
1997). This result suggests that more emphasis on science content in elementary
teacher preparation programs could result in greater overall teaching performance
(Mulholland and Wallace 2000). It is interesting to note, however, that the PTs in

123
Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs 197

this study felt more confident teaching content in biology, earth science, or both
than teaching content in physics, chemistry, or both. This finding further supports
previous research that suggests more emphasis needs to be placed on teaching
content and addressing misconceptions in physics and chemistry during methods
courses (Appleton 1991; Lawrenz 1986; Weiss et al. 1994).
MANOVA analysis showed a difference in confidence between PTs enrolled in
different universities’ method courses for classroom management skills, assessment
skills, and science content knowledge. An analysis of the course instructors’ syllabi for
their respective methods courses revealed differences in the science content, teaching
methods, assessment techniques, and field placement hours covered in each.
University C2 students, who were early childhood education majors, were not
significantly different from the C1 elementary education majors. The students in these
two courses had the lowest confidence levels for assessment, management, and
content. University A and University B students had the highest average confidence
levels in all three categories. These courses focused more on delivering science content
in a workshop, laboratory setting, and field placement than the courses at University C.
The emphasis in these courses on students’ presenting science lessons and teaching
science content might have given these students more confidence in all teaching areas
(Mulholland and Wallace 2000). Despite these differences, all courses covered similar
teaching methods, including inquiry, questioning, and hands-on science. No significant
difference was found between the participants’ comfort level with teaching methods
by course. Besides the additional experience with science content at University A and
University B, other specific aspects of the methods courses or field placements could
account for the differences in the results of this study. For example, students’ previous
classroom experiences and their actual teaching experiences encountered during field
placements could lead to the observed differences. Other researchers have also
reported uncertain findings concerning the influence of field experience on elementary
PTs’ self-efficacy beliefs about teaching science (Doyle 1997; Huinker and Madison
1997). The influence of a preservice teacher’s field experience may be dependent on
the quality of their reflections, participation, or mentors during the time they are in the
school setting (Doyle 1997; Tosun 2000).

Conclusion

It is found that the more science content courses taken the greater the increase of PTs’
confidence levels related to the use of different teaching methods, assessment
strategies, management strategies, and content knowledge. If teachers know the
content very well, it will be easier for them to choose the appropriate pedagogical
activities and teaching methods. This finding is similar to what Shulman argued in his
theory of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman 1986). PTs believed that, if they
mastered content knowledge, they would be comfortable with the implementation of
methods stated in the BAT. Similarly, if teachers are successful in applying different
methods targeted to student needs, classroom management might be facilitated.
Moreover, this study concluded that science methods courses should encourage
students to prepare lesson plans on physics and chemistry concepts. This will help

123
198 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun

these teachers to gain experience teaching these subjects. This practice may help
those teachers to see their weaknesses and attempt to improve their knowledge of
these subject matters in their teacher education programs. Furthermore, taking more
physics and chemistry courses might be made compulsory for PTs throughout their
teacher education programs.
Interestingly, the number of science methods courses taken was found to be
positively correlated with the assessment subscale of the instrument. In general, PTs
talk about assessment strategies in the methods courses. This positive correlation
indicates that, in their methods courses, PTs’ experiences with different assessment
strategies—especially with authentic assessment strategies—might be increased.
Field experiences and student teaching constitute the core areas of teacher
education programs. According to Anderson and Mitchener (1994)
Field experience in schools is an opportunity for students to try out who they
are as professional educators and what it is they are learning in their courses. In
addition, it serves as a general socialization process to school contexts. (p. 18)
Even though the PTs have many experiences about learning science as students and
they believe that they could teach, based on their previous experiences (Briscoe
1991; Gunstone et al. 1993; Hewson and Hewson 1989; Wallace and Louden 1992;
Wright and Tusca 1968), they realize the difficulties of teaching and the many
responsibilities they have when they begin teaching. Hence, this study concluded
that having more field experiences might increase PTs confidence in handling the
issues discussed in the instrument.
Many teacher education programs lack sufficient professional development
experiences in teaching that would allow preservice teachers to use effectively
appropriate pedagogical strategies for teaching their subject matter (NRC 2001).
Methods courses can provide the best environment for preservice teachers to
develop their skills regarding the application of pedagogical knowledge and
teaching subject matter. However, general methods courses are often regarded as
lacking in academic challenge or as being ineffective in producing change,
depending on their content and structure (Morey et al. 1997). Since beliefs influence
practices, methods course instructors need to give enough importance to developing
PTs’ beliefs about the issues covered in this study.
Many universities all around the world are revising their curriculum to better deal
with scientific understanding in different areas. If the purpose is to foster the real
reform desired in science education (Haney et al. 1996; Hollingsworth 1989;
Mahlios and Maxson 1995), policy makers and practitioners need to give enough
importance to development PTs’ beliefs on different aspects of the methods courses
and adjust the university curriculum to address these beliefs.
In conclusion, there is no one best way to teach science; each method has its own
characteristics. Each method may work in a different way for each PT. It is imperative
that science methods courses should provide opportunities to learn about different
methods and practice them as appropriate. Gaining the skills, such as assessment
strategy and management strategy necessary to implement different teaching methods,
will provide PTs with opportunities for effective application of those methods in their

123
Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs 199

future career. It is believed that the application of the learned knowledge in real
settings influence PTs’ beliefs about their comfort level with each method.

Appendix

Dear Future Teacher,

The purpose of this questionnaire is to get information about your ideas about different
instructional methods, assessment, classroom management, and science contents.

Part 1 includes 3 sections:

Section 1: Instructional Methodologies
Section 2: Assessments
Section 3: Classroom Managements

Part 2 includes 1 section:

Section 4: Elementary School Science

Part 1

Section 1: Instructional Methodologies

The following is a list of classroom methods. Please check the box that most accurately describes
your feelings about the statement below.

Given my current knowledge, I believe I am able to teach using the following methods:

Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree

inquiry
inquiry demonstration
inquiry laboratory
lecturing
demonstration
conceptual change
mentoring
laboratory
discussion
learning cycle
model building
role playing
questioning
problem-based learning
cooperative learning
project-based learning
case dilemma
discovery

Please describe any other methods or tools you feel knowledgeable enough to use in a classroom today to
help your students learn science.

123
200 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun

Section 2: Assessments

The following is a list of classroom assessments. Please check the box that most accurately
describes your feelings about the statement below.

Given my current knowledge, I believe I am able to assess students’ achievement using the
following assessments:

Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree

summative test
formative test
individual portfolio
group portfolio
journals
projects
observation
interview
standardized tests
essay tests
written reports
questioning

Please describe any other classroom assessments you feel knowledgeable enough to use in a classroom
today to understand students progress.

Section 3: Classroom Management

The following is a list of classroom management issues. Please check the box that most accurately
describes your feelings about the statement below.

Given my current knowledge, I believe I am able to understand, respond and handle the following
problems:

Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree

pair/group work
Noise
Student motivation
discipline
classroom testing
students’ progress
learner differences
cultural differences among
students
unfocused learners
classroom environment control
effective communication

123
Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs 201

Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree

students in active and extended

scientific studies
off task students
students’ interactions
students’ curiosity
classroom physical arrangements
scientific discussion and debate
among students
students’ sharing responsibility
for their learning
authoritative teaching
facilitative teaching
students who break the rules
gifted students
disabled students
parents’ requests
lesson preparation

Please describe any other classroom management problems that you feel knowledgeable enough to handle.

Part 2: Content Knowledge

Directions: Pick the science content that you believe that you can teach effectively. If you feel
the list is incomplete, please add any topics to “Other” at the end of each list. Check the answer
that most agrees with the written statement before the choices.

Section 4: Elementary School Science

Given my current science content knowledge, I believe that I am able to teach thoroughly
the following concepts:

Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree

light energy and color

heat energy
sound energy
magnetic interactions
electrical energy
simple machines
plants
animals
nutrition
the earth
air
weather
water
living things
universe and solar system
earth and moon systems
human body (systems)
matter and motion
atoms
ecology

Other:

123
202 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun

References

Abell, S. K. (2006). Challenges and opportunities for field experiences in elementary science teacher
preparation. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives
on contemporary issue and practice (pp. 73–90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Akerson, V. L. (Dickinson), & Larry, E. (2003). Using GIS technology to support K-8 scientific inquiry
teaching and learning. Science Educator, 12(1), 41–47.
Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. Gabel (Ed.),
Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44). New York: Macmillan.
Appleton, K. (1991). Mature-age students: How are they different? Research in Science Education, 21, 1–
9.
Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (2002). Beginning elementary teachers’ development as teachers of science.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 43–61.
Baker, W. P., Lang, M., & Lawson, A. E. (2002). Classroom management for successful student inquiry.
Clearing House, 75, 248–253.
Basista, B., Tomlin, J., Pennington, K., & Pugh, D. (2001). Inquiry-based integrated science and
mathematics professional development program. Education, 121, 615–625.
Bentley, M. L., & James, L. (2003). The influence of the modeling of inquiry-based science teaching by
science faculty in P-12 teacher professional development programs. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED475053).
Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding?
Science Education, 84, 486–506.
Briscoe, C. (1991). The dynamic interactions among beliefs, role metaphors, and teaching practices: A
case study of teacher change. Science Education, 75, 185–199.
Bybee, R. (1993). An instructional model for science education: Developing biological literacy. Colorado
Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Studies.
Czerniak, C. M. (1989). An investigation of the relationships among science teaching anxiety, self-
efficacy, teacher education variables, and instructional strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Ohio State University, Columbus.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Desouza, J. M. S., Boone, J. W., & Yilmaz, O. (2004). A study of science teaching self-efficacy and
outcome expectancy beliefs of teachers in Southern India. Science Education, 88, 837–854.
Doyle, M. (1997). Beyond life history as a student: PTs’ beliefs about teaching and learning. College
Student Journal, 31, 519–532.
Ebenezer, J. V., & Connor, S. (1998). Learning to teach science: A model for the 21st century. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy
belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 694–706.
Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preservice
elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Education, 79, 63–75.
Foegen, A., Espin, C., Allinder, R. M., & Markell, M. A. (2001). Translating research into practice: PTs’
beliefs about curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Special Education, 34, 226–236.
Freiberg, H. J. (2002). Essential skills for new teachers. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 56–60.
Gee, C. J., Boberg, W. S., & Gabel, D. L. (1996). Preservice elementary teachers: Their science content
knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
Greenwood, A., & Scribner-MacLean, M. (1997). Examining elementary teachers’ explanations of their
science content knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.
Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter
knowledge for teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp.
23–36). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Gunstone, R. F., Slattery, M., Bair, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1993). A case study exploration of
development in preservice science teachers. Science Education, 77, 47–73.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

123
Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs 203

Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the
implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33,
971–993.
Hart, L. C. (2002). PTs’ beliefs and practice after participating in an integrated content/methods course.
School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 4–14.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1989). Analysis and use of a task for identifying conceptions of
teaching science. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 191–209.
Hewson, P. W., Tabachnick, B. R., Zeichner, K. M., & Lemberger, J. (1999). Educating prospective
teachers of biology: Findings, limitations, and recommendations. Science Education, 83, 373–384.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational
Research Journal, 26, 160–189.
Huinker, D., & Madison, S. K. (1997). Preparing efficacious elementary teachers in science and
mathematics: The influence of methods courses. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 107–126.
Karplus, R., & Their, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Lawrenz, F. (1986). Misconceptions of physical science concepts among elementary school teachers.
School Science and Mathematics, 86, 654–660.
Lawson, A. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lindgren, J., & Bleicher, R. E. (2005). Learning the learning cycle: Differential effect of elementary
preservice teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(2), 61–72.
Lord, T. R. (1997). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology.
Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 197–216.
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science
teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 275–292.
Mahlios, M., & Maxson, M. (1995). Capturing PTs’ beliefs about schooling, life, and childhood. Journal
of Teacher Education, 46, 192–199.
Malcolm, C. (1989). Trends in school science curriculum and their implications for teacher education.
Discipline Review of Teacher Education in Mathematics and Science, 3, 210–229.
McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1989). Why staying one chapter ahead doesn’t really
work: Subject-specific pedagogy. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning
teacher (pp. 193–205). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Milner, H. R. (2005). Stability and change in U.S. prospective teachers’ beliefs and decisions about
diversity and learning to teach. Teacher and Teacher Education, 21, 767–786.
Moore, J. J., & Watson, S. B. (1999). Contributors to the decision of elementary education majors to
choose science as an academic concentration. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11, 37–46.
Morey, A. I., Bezuk, N., & Chiero, R. (1997). Preservice teacher preparation in the United States.
Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 4–24.
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2000). Beginning primary science teaching: Entryways to different worlds.
Research in Science Education, 30, 155–171.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Research Council (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New
practices for the new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nichols, S. E., & Koballa, T. (2006). Framing issues of elementary science teacher education: Critical
conversations. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International
perspectives on contemporary issue and practice (pp. 1–14). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olson, J. K., & Appleton, K. (2006). Considering curriculum for elementary science methods courses. In
K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contem-
porary issue and practice (pp. 127–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice
elementary teachers. Science Education, 82, 553–568.
Shepardson, D. P. (2003). The effectiveness of the envision professional development model. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED474595).
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 4–14.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

123
204 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun

Tosun, T. (2000). The beliefs of preservice elementary teachers toward science and science teaching.
School Science and Mathematics, 100, 374–379.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54,
143–178.
Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (1992). Science teaching and teachers’ knowledge: Prospect for reform of
elementary classrooms. Science Education, 76, 507–521.
Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary science: Effect of
collaborative and authentic learning practices in preservice education. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 11, 301–321.
Weiss, I. R., Matti, M. C., & Smith, P. S. (1994). Report of the 1993 National Survey of Science and
Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Wilson, S., & Cameron, R. (1996). Student teacher perceptions of effective teaching: A developmental
perspective. Journal of Education for Teaching, 22, 181–195.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences
reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112–143.
Wright, B. D., & Tusca, S. A. (1968). From dream to life in the psychology of becoming a teacher. School
Review, 76, 253–293.
Yilmaz, O. (2004). Factors affecting the development of instructional skills in preservice middle and
secondary school science teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University,
Bloomington.

123