Help, I don’t like science and I have to teach it!

Sally CreelEarly Childhood Ed.D. Cohort

Kennesaw State UniversityMay 3, 2008

Orientation• Less than 2% of elementary teachers

majored in science or science education.

• 67% of elementary teachers had less than 6 semesters of science courses.

• 14% and 24% of teachers felt ‘very well qualified’ to teach physical or earth science

• 77% felt ‘very well qualified’ to teach language arts.

Source: Horizon Research Group, 2002

Orientation

• Teachers who are weak in content background tended to have significantly lower self-efficacy than teachers with strong content background. (Enochs & Riggs, 1990)

• Low comfort levels towards science and/or science teaching lead to sporadic teaching of science or the omission of science instruction from the school. (Connor, 2005)

Orientation• Large majority of secondary school

students fail to reach proficiency in math and science. (Kuenzi, Matthews, & Magan, 2006)

• Lack of proficiency is causing many students to be unsuccessful on the Georgia HS Graduation Test. (Georgia DOE, 2008)

• Georgia is 49th in the percentage of students earning a high school diploma. Currently on 53.6 ninth grade students go on to graduate from high school in Georgia. (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2006)

Orientation• Federal Government is allocating funds for

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) programs.

• Georgia DOE is offering competitive Math & Science Partnership (MSP) grants aimed at improving teacher’s content knowledge and pedagogical skills.

• KSU partnered with a local metro school district and was awarded a two-year MSP grant to provide sustained professional development to 4th, 5th, & 8th grade science teachers.

Purpose of the Study

• The purpose of this study was to determine if a sustained professional development model is an effective means to improve teacher self-efficacy in science and increase the quality of elementary science instruction.

Purpose of the Study

• What are the effects of the Math Science Partnership professional development model on teacher self-efficacy as reported by 5th grade teachers?

Key Terms

• Self-Efficacy-o People’s belief about their capabilities to

produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave.

-Bandura, 1986

Key Terms

• Sustained Professional Development-

o a learning opportunity offered to teachers over a prolonged period of time to upgrade the skills and knowledge of teachers to prepare students for the next century.

-Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998, p. 3

Methods & Data Sources

• Mixed methods approach

• Quantitative Sourceso Science Teaching Efficacy Belief

Instrument (STEBI)

• Qualitative Sourceso Institute Evaluation Formso Focus Group

Participants• 5th grade teachers in Metro school district

• 29 total participants - 21 Caucasian, 6 African American, 2 Hispanic

• 25 elementary schools, which accurately reflect the diversity of the school district.

• 100% Female

• 100% Self-identified as weak in science, but possessing the desire to improve.

Data Collection Time LinePre

-STEBI

Asses

smen

t Ins

titut

e Day

1

Asses

smen

t Ins

titut

e Day

2

Focu

s G

roup

Post-S

TEBI

Inst

itute

Eva

luat

ion

Analysis

• Quantitative data were generated using descriptive statistics.

– Pre- & Post-STEBI scores were compared using a paired t-test

– Variables related to self-efficacy and outcome expectancy were analyzed.

Question Distribution on STEBI

The STEBI is broken into two categories of questions, those designed to elicit beliefs on self-efficacy and outcome expectancy.

This chart is an adaptation from work by Enochs, Smith, & Huinker, 2000.

Analysis

• Qualitative data analysis of unstructured text generated from transcribed:– focus group interviews

– open-ended participant response to session evaluation question: “Explain how this project has impacted the way you teach science?”

Results• STEBI scale:

– Self-efficacy scale item totals were statistically significant, F(1,19)=2.207, p=0.04.

– Outcome expectancy scale items were not significant, F(1,19)=.998, p=0.331

Results• Highest gains and most statistically significant

changes in self-efficacy were on the following questions:

– “I don’t know what to do to turn students on to science.”

– “I know the steps necessary to teach science concepts effectively.”

– “Students’ achievement in science is directly related to their teacher’s effectiveness in science teaching.”

Results• Outcome expectancy results were not

statistically significant. They actually decreased over the intervention. The lowest gains were on these two questions:

– “The low science achievement of some students cannot generally be blamed on their teachers.”

– “I understand science concepts well enough to be effective in teaching elementary science.”

Results• Institute Evaluation:

– 92% indicated positive impact on self-efficacy and confidence for themselves, peers, and students.• “I enjoy science more because I feel a little

more confident teaching.”

• “I feel like I am a better science teacher due to this training.”

• “This has allowed me to approach my teaching of science with excitement, enthusiasm, and a better grasp of understanding the concepts.”

Results• Institute Evaluation:

– 62% indicated that the intervention positively impacted pedagogy and classroom practices.• “I focused more the standard and less on just

doing what I’ve always done.”

• “I have increased hands on inquiry based learning significantly.”

• “I am providing my students with more opportunities to “discover” science concepts rather than hear me talk about science.”

Results• Institute Evaluation:

– 52% indicated that the intervention had a positive impact on students:• “My students now beg for science time.”

• “My students ranked it [science] right next to PE!”

• “My students have had a blast with great hands-on activities we have conducted this year. They are actually able to verbalize what is happening during the experiment using those science terms.”

Limitations

• Limited generalizability because self-efficacy is a domain-specific construct.

• Limited sample size; n=20

• STEBI data from seven surveys were not included.

Discussions & Conclusions• Focus of intervention, assessment for

learning, had a negative impact on outcome expectancy.

• Self-efficacy scale was positively impacted by structure of intervention:– Bandura’s (1986) mastery experiences &

verbal/social persuasion– Use of Conceptual Change Learning

Framework

Implications for Practice• High quality teachers needed to challenge

students• Student-centered approach to inquiry

learning• Opportunity to “get hands dirty” embedded in

trainings• Focus attention on self-efficacy to provide

tools necessary to maintain productive emotional dynamics & optimism, even when instruction is unsuccessful

Implications for Policy

• Continue model in year 2 of MSP training

• Expand model into district professional development opportunities

• Ensure that professional development is offered/supported over a period of time

• Include design elements targeted to affect self-efficacy

Implications for Leadership

• Conduct additional investigations into the affect of self-efficacy on actual classroom practice.

• Expand model to include classroom observations.

• Help school leadership create opportunities for teachers to continue improving within the school.

Future Research• Exploration of factors contributing to high teacher

efficacy in science.

• Science teaching efficacy beliefs and their impact on the quality of classroom instruction.

• Longitudinal studies on science teachers with a high self-efficacy and the achievement of their students.

• Exploration of the transfer of self-efficacy from teacher to students.