Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
Data indicate that although science is required of
all students in elementary school, elementary teachers do not usually
teach science as a high priority or in a way that enhances student
achievement. A myriad of possible causes for existing voids in this
teaching process have been suggested by researchers. Teacher belief
systems have been neglected as a possible contributor to behavior
patterns which affect science teaching, therefore its investigation
is vital to a more complete understanding of teacher behavior. This
publication reports on a pilot and a major study in which the
combined Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Belief scale and the
Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy scale instrument (STERT) was
administered to measure self-efficacy or outcome expectancy. Results
of a plot graph illustrated two homogeneous scales for the try-out
study. Results of the major study indicate that the STEBI is a valid
and reliable tool for studying elementary teacher's beliefs toward
science teaching and learning. References, means and standard
deviations, corrected item-totO scale correlations and factor
loadings, factor plot of final ractor analysis results, demographic
characteristics, final scales, validity coefficients, and scoring
instructions for the STEBI are included. (RT)
**********************************************%************************
* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
* from the original document.
*R******%******************%******************%************************
Toward the Development of an
Elementary Teacher's Science
Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument
Iris M. Riggs
California State University, San Bernardino
Larry G. Enochs
Kansas State University
U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Onrce et Educanonat Research and untorcrerent
EDucATIOnAt. RESOURCES INFORMATION
tERICI
re.s document has en reproduced as
beENTER
Iris Riggs
Introduction
3
positive or negative feeling toward something. Attitudes may be
relate to behavior.
been slighted.
Theoretical Framework
4
3
Related Research
have been termed teacher efficacy beliefs and refer to the extent
two.
(1983) found that teachers may have higher teacher efficacy with
Development
7
designed to measure self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs
larger item pool and balance item phrasing. thus controlling for
item, rate each scale, and rate the total instrument's items and
8
opposite direction with "strongly agree" receiving a score of
purpose of this phase of the study was to refine the item pool
correlations meaningless.
Examination of the omitted items revealed two patterns. As
9
therefore, teaching them science is almost impossible." While
(outcom' expectancy).
Correlations.
10
Means and standard deviations for items and total scales are
scale for the main study, the six items with the lowest corrected
were 0.50 and above. Further refinement of the scale was done
problem with the items of this scale (See Table 2). Only two
and above for all items. Factor loadings revealed items which
was again run with a resulting alpha of 0.73 (See Table 3).
Corrected item-total correlations were raised to ('.36 and above.
Factor analysis for the revised scale were much improved, with
all items correlating highly with their own scale. The resulting
A).
Major Study
were eliminated.
post hoc t-tests. Additional post hoc t-tests were run on the
scale scores of all other demographic characteristics. Only
0.53 and above except for two (See Table 6). These were deleted,
alpha to 0.92.
two was 0.34 and above. Two items were removed raising alpha to
0.77.
subsequent analyses.
A second factor analysis calling for two factors was run.
13
eigenvalue of 2.71 and accounted for 10.8 percent of the
positive direction.
Discussion
14
high to one item and low to another item resulting in a less
over which they may feel they have no control. For example, it
15
relationships affirms the described nature of the constructs.
measures.
Conclusions
16
References
Armor, D., Conroy-Osequera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnel, L.,
Pascal, A., Pauley, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of
the school Preferred readinfr pro rams in selected Los
Angeles minority schools (R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA:
Rand Corp.
1.7
Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct
validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 56'1)-
582.
18
'
E a ' A 8 F: t g El f g u l g g t 2 S i 2 I i i 2R 1 2 El 8 ' A g g f g '01 g 8 2 g E; 2 g 2R le le le g f.! g ;1 P g s3 g $
c g g 0 C g 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. d 0 g d 0 C g C; 0 0 el. :i g 0 0 e 0 e e 0 e 0 0 0 0 g 4; c c c c 4i
.,
B ss al tz ss 5 srl f2 va fa El va 1.2 Er; 8 '4 ER g g El Eg C4 Cg a le 2 S3 8 ON 8 fl le ;1 8 ;1 g g E; 8 ER 2 IS 3 & 4
01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01e$01 01 01 .0 el 01 01 .4. 01 01
al
r, ,.. r, r, 01 vit r4 ve 43. 481 01 V 01 01 01 01 (I v MN
1:41:141:41:4114ZZa4 C4ZZZIU C14 ZZZa4ZZZC4 ZZ 1:41:41:4ZZZZZZZI:4041:4Z1:411414Z
it s « 4: it 4: 4: ig 41 41 4: 41 41 4: it 41
M
r4 e4 rl V ig"5 r' 4:13 ri 04 m qv VD r CO Ch C) el 04 el ge Is Ch CU
;1 g :1 g n t.; A A 1,1 fl A el ri 1-4 el el ri el ei ri el
IMMEHNHO MENNEN110 MNMNINERiENINMENi
I1 6
r- qr c) CO 03 In qr. ri CD 1. el In el CD CD ri CD Ill 1.4 el cp
al
qr CD ri ri CD el CV .4* ri CD C4 CSI CD ri ri ri CD ri CD (4 1.4 CD
ZS ZS 4 A g O Z5 rl 19 2 g V 2 Z5 E; rig gl Z5 7
el 0
000 ? 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? 0 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 0 ( 1 ) I? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (i) 0
C4 r r
gt gt .4* in
Ch U, MD Ch OD m) qr Ch CO r- c)
MD MD in In qr D MD r- in r
C4 Or) e4 (4 CD MD CO %V
MD r- 4, r- gs,
c)
NC) MD IR) qr 1. CO
ri c)
0
Vim'
C)
rq qr W
C4 MD gt !V a) a) gp rl 14) c)
qr C4 el GI At C4 cp r4
0
C) c) 4) 4) c) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) ip 4) 4) C) 4) C)
gr
0 (a co ca ca
i)
N
cn
'
ER a A 3 ER A Fr..! Esi 1 E; rig &3 13 2 g C2 : g 8 g ii"; :; 4 g 4 L; .c.; 4 ER A A 4 A 4 g gsl
gl 111 1; :":, E; ER Z
000000000000000000000000 6 6 6 6 6 6O 6 4 ci 6 6 6 di 6 O.4 6 6
i
Pail4P4P4NZZAINZZZNAIZZZNZZZAIZZ P4P41:1ZZZZZZZN114P,ZNP411sZP4
is 41 41 is 41 41 4
41 41 41 41 41 41 * 41 41 41
r4 4 el r Fs OCh
ierirlri
r qr ul 4OD
r4i Vel A
oommommoomomoomonoommo0
OHM
TABLE 3
FINAL CCSSECITD ITEN-TCTAL SCALE CCRRE1ATICNS AND FACICR LOADINGS
TRY air STUDY
TACIT LOADMGS
MEASURE POS-NEG ITT COR FACT 1 FACT 2
MEAN MEAN
N SESCALE OESCALE
VARIABLE
FIE 288
39
88%
12%
55.48
58.90 *
49.41
50.10
tMIE
MALE: TALGHT
26 8% 58.52 48.58
'KINDERGARTEN
52 16% 55.88 49.28
FIRST
48 15% 54.70 50.96
SECOND
44 13% 54.38 49.75
THIRD
57 17% 57.51 49.64
FOURTH
51 16% 55.54 49.00
FIFTH
48.49
MTH 40 12% 55.44
56.54 48.09
CCHBINATICN 11 3%
CY.
DISTRICT SIZE
7 2% 58.86 50.17
< 200
200 - 399 1 0% 56.00 50.00
26 8% 53.24 47.04
400 - 999
20 6% 55.20 49.84
1000 - 1799
1800 - 4999 24 7% 55.50 49.50
6 2% 54.80 48.75
5000 - 9999
> 10,000 246 75% 56.24 49.64
r3
r1 r1 MmtDatticrmhri0MtC001 mcN1.71hMhhWMOMOMMM
MOMMWO3hCOMMhNWM
Mr4hCOM0 WOMNOr-1'WWWr1
dAdOciddA88,1Acidcia; dOcidcidcidOciOddAa
OcOnrrINcrO4OMCOMricINWO
WrIrihMWWWWhVqVNNNW g8P8RP:M2284
cive;c4c44c4c4c4c4c4c4o;
MCIVMMMMMMMMMMVMM
NZZNZZNZZNZZZNZ A4ZNNNZNNZNNNZr.
.Nmvowr...,A,
MOMMOOONONOM NONOMEROOM
ilb
r-1 to
ON N
IL
ece3 a 4 fR .T a g f2 .2 .c4R '4? .c43 6; 2 Eg 4! A g
'
6 .6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 .6 .6 6 6 e., _ el,: 6 6 .6 6 .6 6 6 .6
CZZO4ZZO4ZZO4ZZZO4Z ill Z G14 P4 1:34 Z tli P4 Z AI 114 1:34 Z Z
4, 4, it it
Hoarl.s.Lnwt.ccich,41in 1 ri 01 In ..4' In VD is SO C11 Foi ri IN1 el V'
-'A
mmpoomoolomnEENO EEf101iNEliENNERg
H16
TiME 7
Final Scales
44411410444 44444
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement
below by circling the appropriate letters to the right of each statement.
SA x STRONGLY AGREE
A r AGREE
UN x UNCERTAIN
D t DISAGREE
SD a STRONGLY DISAGREE
SA A UN D SD
1. When a student does better than usual in science, it
is often because the teacher exerted a little extra
effort.
SA A UN D SD
2. I an continually finding better ways to teach science.
a
0
aa
0
TABLE 9
VALIDITY COEFFICIENTS: STUDY
= 305) ***
SESCALE .19 **
OESCALE .19 **
* p < .06
** p < .01
*** N for the principal rating coefficient was only 28.
SCORING INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE "STEBI"
COMPUTE ESCALE=ITEM2+ITEM3+ITEM5+ITEM6+ITEM8+ITEM12+ITEM17+
ITEM18+ITEM19+ITEM21+ITEM22+ITEM23+ITEM24
COMPUTE OESCALE=ITEM1+ITEM4+ITEM7+ITEM9+ITEM10+ITEM11+ITEM13+
ITEM14+ITEM15+ITEM16+ITEM20+ITEM25
31