Download - The Effect of Tenebrio obscurus on Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Content Knowledge, Attitudes, and Self-efficacy

The Effect of Tenebrio obscurus on ElementaryPreservice Teachers’ Content Knowledge, Attitudes,and Self-efficacy

Molly Weinburgh

Published online: 3 August 2007

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract This study explores the extent to which an activity used in an elementary

science methods course affected the preservice teachers’ content knowledge,

attitudes, and self-efficacy. The participants were 172 students enrolled in five

sections of elementary science methods. Students participated in a 9-week inves-

tigation on life cycles using mealworms (Tenebrio obscurus). Multiple data sources

indicate that most of the students had limited prior content knowledge about

mealworms, expressed neutral attitudes toward mealworms upon first exposure to

them, and were uncomfortable with the idea of having to teach with and about them.

At the end of 9 weeks, content knowledge on mealworms had greatly improved.

The preservice teachers’ attitudes about mealworms and their self-efficacy about

using mealworms with children had also improved.

Introduction

The goal of a science methods course is to move students toward a new

understanding of science teaching and science content. Previous studies on

preservice elementary teachers suggest that they bring a plethora of information

and feelings into a science methods class. Some of what they bring is positive, while

some of it is negative. Lack of knowledge, misconceptions, or both about science

(Lloyd et al. 1998; Schoon and Boone 1998; Stevens and Wenner 1996); negative

attitudes (Abell and Smith 1994; Mulholland and Wallace 1996); and poor self-

efficacy (Enochs et al. 1995; Ramey-Gassert et al. 1996) emerge frequently in the

research as characteristics of elementary preservice teachers.

The activities, readings, and assignments selected by a professor to be used in a

science methods course are often intended to help the students gain science content

M. Weinburgh (&)

School of Education, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Sci Teacher Educ (2007) 18:801–815

DOI 10.1007/s10972-007-9073-4

knowledge, establish positive attitudes toward science, and develop a positive sense

of self-efficacy. The activity described in this study had all three outcomes as its

goal. The activity involved learning about the life cycle of an organism that changed

form during its development. The organism selected for this activity was the

mealworm (Tenebrio obscurus) because it can easily be bought at any pet store, is

easy to maintain (Borror and White 1970), and is ideal for inquiry activities related

to development (Llewellyn 2002). The activity required the students to work in

groups of four as they engaged in longitudinal observational research. The

preservice teachers not only investigated the organism as ‘‘first time learners,’’ they

also used the mealworms in lessons with first- and second-grade pupils during their

field placement. This required the preservice teachers to use their new understand-

ing of the organism and their new understanding of teaching science to plan

activities for children using the mealworm. The ensuing study sought to explore the

extent to which the activity effected the preservice teachers’ content knowledge,

attitudes, and self-efficacy.

Theoretical Framework and Literature

The theoretical perspective employed in this study includes constructivist theory,

attitudes toward a selected phenomenon, and self-efficacy. These three were

examined in the context of preservice elementary teachers enrolled in a science

methods course.

Constructivism

K-12 science education nationally has been influenced by the constructivist

perspective, which proposes that learning is not the accumulation of new facts, but a

process that requires restructuring of knowledge as the learner makes sense of new

information (von Glasersfeld 1993; Vygotsky 1962, 1978). According to this theory,

the individual builds or constructs his or her own meaning of new information on

the basis of his or her existing knowledge. Vygotsky (1962) stressed that what a

person brings to the learning environment matters. Each learner brings experiences

that affect his or her view of the world and his or her ability to accept other views

grounded in science. The new experience is used by the learner to construct new

meaning. This reconstruction of ideas is not done in a vacuum, but, rather, through

interactions with other people. The social aspect of learning is an important part of

the constructivist perspective. Vygotsky (1962) suggested that the construction of

the new meaning is most often facilitated by a more knowledgeable other, who often

helps through questions or leading comments. Bransford et al. (1999) built on this

idea by suggesting that students of all ages need to talk among themselves, ask and

investigate questions, and reflect on their learning. Personal construction is aided by

practical activities supported by group discussion (Driver et al. 1994).

Shapiro (1994) suggested that learning in science is more about changes in

thinking, rather than additions to thinking and that the process is evolutionary as

802 J Sci Teacher Educ (2007) 18:801–815

123

students revise and reorganize their ideas. Duschl (1983) suggested that the type of

science experiences one has influences his or her perceptions of science teaching

and learning. An antagonistic dilemma may be created as preservice elementary

teachers try to resolve the conflict they see between what they have experienced in

science content courses and what they are told to do with children in their science

methods courses. They may believe in the value of hands-on experiences for

children, but not know how to translate these into content for the children. Having

the opportunity to learn new (and rigorous) content by building on prior knowledge

and engaging in social interactions may help preservice teachers to resolve the

antagonistic dilemma. In addition, if elementary teachers perceive their role as a

dispenser of facts (Tilgner 1990), designing an experience in which they become

colearners with children forces them into a situation where they cannot simply

dispense what they already know. Activities and experience that allow the

preservice teachers to have an environment in which they can reorganize and build

new knowledge with the help of others are consistent with constructivist theory.

Attitudes

The relationship of attitudes and behavior has interested researchers for many years.

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) proposed the Theory of Reasoned Action in which they

suggested a causal chain with strong links from beliefs to attitudes, from attitudes to

intentions, and from intentions to actions. Ajzen (1985) continued to examine the

relationship between beliefs, attitudes, and actions. He developed the Theory of

Planned Behavior, showing the indirect influence of external variables to beliefs that

then directly influenced attitudes and subjective norms. These, in turn, directly

influenced intention and behavior. Pajares (1992), after an extensive review of the

teachers’ beliefs literature, expanded on this in stating that attitudes are composed of

circumstantial belief clusters. If these links exist, then positive beliefs would lead to

positive attitudes that would lead to positive actions. This link has been examined as

it relates to science education. Crawley (1990) found that attitude was the greatest

predictor of a teacher’s intent to use inquiry-based teaching methods. Haney et al.

(1996) and Czerniak and Lumpe (1996) found that the attitude of a teacher toward

implementing a reform methodology was the greatest predictor of intent.

The link between a teacher’s attitudes and students’ attitudes has been studied. It

is particularly interesting to note that negative attitudes toward science by teachers

can be correlated to students’ negative attitudes about science (Czerniak and

Chiarelott 1990). Abell et al. (2001, 2002) and van Zee (1998, 2000) suggested that

long-term investigation in which preservice teachers observe a natural phenomena,

keep records on their observations, discuss their observations and ideas with others,

and reflect on their own learning can be used to challenge students’ feelings about

their learning abilities. Therefore, engaging preservice teachers in authentic research

(such as the one used in this study) in which they are colearners with elementary

students, preservice peers, or both may help improve their own understanding of the

organism, their attitudes toward the organism, and their self-efficacy in using the

organism to teach young children about life cycles.

J Sci Teacher Educ (2007) 18:801–815 803

123

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a belief-based measure that emerged from social psychology. It

refers to a person’s perception of his or her ability to perform a task and the belief

that they have the skills to perform certain behaviors that produce desired outcomes

(Bandura 1977a, b). Elementary teachers who have a low sense of efficacy tend to

be anxious about teaching science and rely upon teacher-directed strategies, such as

reading from the book and lectures (Czerniak and Schriver 1994). Riggs (1995) and

Ramey-Gassert et al. (1996) reported that low efficacy teachers spent less time

teaching science. These teachers also used less hands-on instruction and less time

developing science concepts. Content knowledge is important in helping to establish

strong efficacy. Czerniak and Schriver and Riggs found a correlation between low

efficacy and concern about science understanding. Desouza and Czerniak (2003)

found that teacher attitudes toward a behavior and perceived control (efficacy) were

the strongest predictors of intent to engage in a targeted behavior.

Study Context

Setting

This research was conducted in an undergraduate teacher preparation program at a

research university in the southeastern part of the United States. Students were

admitted into the elementary education program as 1st-term juniors and moved

through the 2-year program as a cohort. The elementary science methods course was

taught during the second term of the teacher preparation program. Students spent

2 days on campus taking mathematics, science, and language arts methods courses

and 2 days in a first- or second-grade classroom in an urban school. The students

attended the science methods course for 3 hours each Tuesday.

A new cohort was admitted each fall and spring. The same series of courses and

field experiences were used for each cohort. I (Molly Weinburgh, author of this

article) taught all the elementary science methods courses and conducted the

research.

Participants

Participants included all preservice teachers (N = 172) enrolled in the elementary

science methods course over the 5 terms from Spring 2000 to Spring 2002. The

students were aware that class sessions were videotaped and that all written

materials were copied for analysis. The participant profile was similar to many

elementary preservice classes conducted at a university located in a large urban

area. About 169 (98%) of the students were female; 75% were White, 20% African

American, 3% Hispanic, and 2% Asian. All but nine of the students were between

21 and 23 years old. Only 11 (6%) of the students were first-generation college

students.


123

Sequence of Events

The preservice teachers in the science methods course (from this point they will be

called science education students) engaged in several activities during the term, one

of which was an activity in which they were introduced to a novel phenomenon—

the mealworm. The 9-week period in which the science education students worked

with the mealworm is described below.

Week 1

On the 1st day of class prior to any instruction, the science education students were

asked to complete a survey. One of the items asked the students to write a paragraph

telling as much as they could about mealworms; specifically, they were asked to tell

what they thought they knew about mealworms. Another part of the initial survey

asked the students, ‘‘How do you feel about your ability to teach science to

elementary school children?’’ and ‘‘How do you feel about your ability to teach

about life cycles to elementary school children?’’ When the students completed their

survey, they were collected by me to analyze them for initial content knowledge and

self-efficacy.

Almost 1½ hours of 1st-day material was covered before I announced that I had

found something very interesting in some oatmeal that had been in a storage cabinet

in my garage and wanted the science education students to help me learn more about

it. I asked the students to prepare a small plastic container with oats and a small slice

of apple and then gave each table of four students a large pan containing the larva

stage of mealworms. I asked them to select 10–12 of the organisms to transfer to

their small plastic container. After the students had established their ‘‘colony,’’ I told

them that they had mealworms and asked the class to brainstorm on how to learn

more about the organism. Although several suggestions were given, the class finally

decided to observe the mealworms for a period of time to see what would happen.

They agreed to keep a journal with (a) observations made every other day and (b)

any ‘‘I wonder’’ questions that might arise (e.g., I wonder if they are male or female;

I wonder what they eat; I wonder if they respond to heat). The students then used

class time for their first journal entry. They observed the colony, recorded their

observations, and discussed their organisms with their group. They then recorded

any I wonder questions that they had. The lesson was videotaped, as were all lessons

during the term. The assignment for the next class meeting was a reflection on their

reaction as they first experienced the mealworms.

Weeks 2–8

During the second meeting of the class, the science education students observed

their personal colony, recorded data, and discussed it with others at their table. This

was followed by a whole-class discussion in which the similarities of each colony

were recorded and new vocabulary introduced. They were then asked to extend their

investigation by taking the colony into their school placement so they could see how


123

children reacted to them. They were asked to expand their journal to include

children’s reactions to the mealworms, as well as their own observations and I

wonder statements. The science education students kept the mealworms in the first-

or second-grade classroom in which they were placed. The science education

students recorded their observations of the mealworms, as well as the observations

and reactions of the young children. They were told that they could use the

mealworms with the children in lessons if they wanted. (I knew that using the

mealworms in lessons would not influence the life cycle of the organism). During

the science methods class each week, they discussed any changes they observed in

the organisms and reactions of the children in their school placement. I, as the more

knowledgeable other, used the data gathered by her science education students to

lead the discussion toward relevant scientific ‘‘discoveries.’’ New content knowl-

edge about the mealworms was acquired each week. The science education students

discussed what they had observed and began to build language and vocabulary

necessary to communicate accurately. They were able to take their new language

and vocabulary into the elementary classroom as they worked with children.

Weeks 4 and 7

At Week 4, the science education students were asked to look at the data they had

collected (review their journals and class notes) and write a reflection paper on their

experiences and their pupils’ experiences to-date. By this time, many of the larvae

had changed into pupae. Each metamorphosis required the addition of more

vocabulary. At Week 7, the science education students were again asked to use their

data to write a reflection paper on their personal experiences and the experiences of

the children in their field placement. Many of the colonies had changed from the

pupae to the adult beetles by this time. The science education students were

reminded of (or introduced to) the concept of ‘‘insect’’ as they described the

physical characteristics of the beetles. Both Week-4 and Week-7 reflections were

handed in to me, and I made a copy of each for analysis.

Week 8

By this time, the science education students had observed the metamorphosis from

larva to pupa to adult, had discussed characteristics of each stage, and had answered

some of their I wonder questions. They participated in an Internet search to discover

as much as they could about mealworms, particularly looking for answers to any

remaining I wonder questions. Information was shared in class and the science

education students discussed how to use this knowledge with the children in their

school placement.

Week 9

The journals were handed in with one more reflective paper in which the science

education students addressed ‘‘What I learned as a learner of science,’’ ‘‘What I


123

learned as a teacher of science’’ (including what they thought contributed to this

learning), and ‘‘What I learned about pupils learning science.’’

Study Methods

Data Sources and Instruments

This work was essentially qualitative in nature (Creswell 2003; Feldman 1995;

Lincoln and Guba 1985). The purpose was to investigate the effectiveness of a long-

term investigation of meal worms on science education students’ content

knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy. Data were collected in several ways to get

the best picture of what the science education students thought at the beginning of

the term; their personal journey; and any changes that occurred in content, attitudes,

and self-efficacy (Feldman 1995). Data sources included an initial survey; a video of

all class session in which the science education students observed their mealworms;

a reflection on their first experience with the mealworms; an on-going journal that

included their observations of the mealworms, their I wonders, and pupil

observations and reactions; two reflective papers on the experience to-date (Weeks

4 and 7); an end-of-the-project paper that included ‘‘What I learned as a learner of

science,’’ ‘‘What I learned as a teacher of science’’ (including what they thought

contributed to this learning), and ‘‘What I learned about pupils learning science’’; a

video of the class session in which they shared their experiences; and my field notes.

Data Analysis

Data analysis began after the 1st day of each of the five terms and continued

throughout and beyond the term. To explore the initial content knowledge, attitudes,

and self-efficacy of the elementary science education students, I used the following:

my notes from the first class, the video of the first class session, the initial survey

completed by the science education students, and their reflection on setting up the

colony and observing the mealworms (Creswell 2003).

The notes from the viewing of the video and the textual databases (paragraphs

and reflections) were read and reread to sort statements into the major areas of

content knowledge, attitude, and self-efficacy (Creswell 2003). Each major area was

then sorted into statements that appeared to be giving the same information. Broad

labels were used at first, with more specific labeling occurring as more data were

added. For example, the labels that emerged for knowledge were correct, incorrect,or fictitious. The correct statements further emerged as indicating that the mealworm

was an insect and metamorphosis occurred. The incorrect and fictitious statements

also emerged into subcodes. The cyclic nature of the analysis resulted first in

structural codes and, later, in emergent themes (Creswell 2003).

To explore ways in which the student changed over the 9-week period, the

reflective papers from Weeks 4 and 7, the students’ weekly journal and log entries,

the videos of each lesson, and the end-of-the-term reflection papers were analyzed.


123

Each reflection was coded and then compared to the coding from the initial activity.

The journals were coded and used to collaborate information and ideas expressed in

the students’ reflections and by the video (Creswell 2003). The final reflection had

three parts: The ‘‘What I learned as a science learner’’ was compared to the original

paragraph to help determine the amount a content acquisition; the ‘‘What I learned

as a teacher of science’’ and ‘‘What I learned about pupils as learners of science’’

were compared with the original paragraph to help determine changes in attitude

and self-efficacy. A series of sorting, classifying, and collapsing resulted in

categories that could be used to describe the science education students’ initial

knowledge of and reaction to the mealworms, as well as their changing knowledge

and reactions.

The 2nd term’s textual databases and videotapes were analyzed using the same

method and then compared to the 1st term. Similarities and differences were noted.

The process continued for Terms 3, 4, and 5. The final labels show themes that were

consistent across the terms.

Results

The results are reported in three parts: the initial reaction as seen in Week 1, the

progress of change as seen in Weeks 2–8, and the final knowledge, attitude, and

efficacy as seen in Week 9. This will allow the reader to follow the changes in

student knowledge, attitude, and efficacy.

Week 1

Content Knowledge

The initial paragraph written by the science education students indicated that only

10 (6%) had any real knowledge of mealworms: Four (2%) of them wrote that the

mealworm was an insect, 5 (3%) wrote that it changed forms during its life cycle,

and 1 (0.5%) wrote that it was both an insect and changed forms. The remaining 162

students (94%) did not write anything that would show any understanding of the

mealworm. Incorrect ideas were also found. About 43 (25%) described it as a true

worm, and 25 (15%) described it as being the first stage in the life cycle of the

butterfly. Rather than handing in a blank sheet of paper, the other students tended to

make up elaborate stories about what a mealworm might be. Other more whimsical

answers include, ‘‘This is a fairy that is in disguise’’ and ‘‘I think these must have

been created by our professor to confuse us.’’

Attitudes

The videotape of the science education students establishing their own colony

showed that 157 of them (91%) were able to move the mealworms from the large

pan to their own container. About 50% were somewhat reluctant and were slow in

deciding to move the organisms, but did so with a minimum of negative comments.


123

Examples of comments that indicated that the students had concerns about working

with the mealworm initially were ‘‘Do I really have to touch them?’’ ‘‘Oh, gross!

This is repulsive,’’ and ‘‘I can’t believe that I have to do this.’’ It is interesting to

note that all of the students with this type of reaction were able to move their

specimen from the large pan to their small pan before the end of class that day.

Over the five terms, only 15 (8%) science education students were very hesitant

to transfer their 10–12 specimens. However, with the help of classmates and me,

they were able to establish their colony, observe them, and later take them into their

school placement. One student (0.5%) expressed deep concern about the activity

and could not even touch the container holding her mealworms. A classmate

prepared her colony and put the container in a brown paper bag for her to transport

it. Her journal described her fear of the organism, but also described how she was

able to observe the mealworms from a distance—but was never able to touch them.

(She was offered an alternative assignment, but selected to continue with the

mealworms.)

The first journal entry (made in class) and the first reflective paper (made after the

1st day of class) supported the video evidence that most of the science education

students were comfortable with the larva stage of the mealworm and had, in fact,

named them and enjoyed watching them. Science education students tended to write

in their reflection that they were surprised that they would be working with worms;

but once they established their own colony, they found the organism to be

interesting.

Betty: Now that I know they cannot crawl out, I think they are kind of interesting.

Tom: They remind me of the ‘wigglers’ that my grandfather used for bait.Mary: I would not want these to crawl around my house but seeing them in thepan is okay.

Self-Efficacy

Two items from the initial survey were used to determine the self-efficacy of the

science education students. About 126 (73%) students indicated that they were not

sure if they could teach science, and 132 (76%) indicated that they could not teach

about life cycles. A common remark in all five sections was ‘‘I am okay with having

my colony, but I cannot imagine how I would teach with these critters.’’ This

statement paralleled their own realization that they did not know anything about this

particular organism, as seen in Karen’s reflection: ‘‘I don’t know enough about this

thing to use it with kids. How can I conduct a science lesson when I don’t know the

answer? When they say, ‘What will it do?,’ what will I answer?’’

About 124 (71%) students expressed negative thoughts about the ability of young

children to learn from an experience with mealworms. ‘‘Kids will be grossed out by

this,’’ and ‘‘I still do not see why kids need to see these things.’’ were comments

made by several science education students. About 153 (89%) thought the

cooperating teacher would block the use of the mealworms in his/her class. Becky

said, ‘‘My teacher is of the old school. She does not believe that children should

have bugs in the classroom.’’ Kristi added, ‘‘Mrs. Jones is afraid of them.’’


123

Weeks 2–8

Content Knowledge

Without fail, all of the science education students were able to make accurate

observations about the mealworms and record the information in their journals. As

the mealworm changed from larva to pupa to adult, the science education students

were able to accurately describe each of the three phases. They recorded changes in

the mealworms over time as they observed the shedding of skin (exoskeleton) and

then the metamorphosis into the pupa and finally into the beetle. Although they did

not know the scientific term for each stage until after the class discussion, they were

able to use the terms correctly in their next observation. One or two students each

term thought that their colony had been ‘‘contaminated’’ when they first observed

the pupa. They were later excited to see that the contamination was actually the next

phase in the life cycle.

Sally: Today, I found a thing that looks like a mummy in my colony. I do not knowhow it got there.

Tom: I emailed Dr. W today to tell her that I had a problem. She said to just leavethe colony alone and continue to observe it.LaTisha: I am glad Dr. W told us to count our worms each time. Today I had 9worms. I thought I lost one. Then I saw that thing and almost freaked.

In their journal entries and two reflective papers, the science education students

were using such words as insect (head, thorax, abdomen, and six legs), complete

metamorphosis, exoskeleton, and frass (mealworm wastes and eggs). Over the

8-week period, there were 541 cases of the science education students indicating

that they had learned something about the organism. In addition, they were asking

such questions as ‘‘How do you tell the male from female?’’ ‘‘What is their favorite

food?’’ and ‘‘Can they live through the winter?’’

Attitudes

During the 8 weeks that the science education students observed the mealworms

and observed children’ reactions to the mealworms, attitudes improved. Not one

science education student expressed less positive attitudes. Of the 15 science

education students who were hesitant to transfer their specimen to their container,

14 reported that they were glad to have had the experience. About 12 of the 14

reported that they could easily move the mealworms (and beetles) from one

container to another. The one who refused to touch the container during the first

experience completed the assignment and used the mealworms with children in her

school placement without ever touching the organisms. As Kawana said, ‘‘I cannot

believe that I actually look forward to seeing what they have done since the last

observation. And the kids love them!’’ Janice wondered, ‘‘Why was I so afraid of

them? They are harmless and kind of fun to watch.’’

Of great interest was the change in attitude about how children would react. LiLi,

who thought that children would be afraid of them, wrote, ‘‘The first-grade students


123

think these are the greatest things. Even the girls want to hold them and let them

craw up their hands.’’ Each term, one or more science education student expressed

amazement that the children in their school placement wanted to have the

mealworm crawl on them and several expressed even more amazement that they

(the science education students) would touch the mealworm in all three stages. Over

the 8 weeks for all five terms, there were 721 statements that indicated that the

science education students thought the work with the mealworm was ‘‘fun’’ or

‘‘exciting,’’ and 644 said that they ‘‘liked’’ or ‘‘enjoyed’’ their work with the

mealworm.

Self-Efficacy

Each term, the science education students who thought that their cooperating

teachers would not want the mealworms in the class found that the teachers were

very receptive to them. Even teachers who did not know about mealworms allowed

them into their classroom. The journal entries and the two reflection papers provided

evidence that the students were more confident each week with using the

mealworms in lessons with children. All but one of them felt that they could

‘‘reproduce’’ the observation of the mealworms and help children understand about

organisms that have a life cycle that has phases that do not look like the parent.

Others saw the mealworms as a way to teach about experimentation as children

asked questions like ‘‘Do they like heat?’’ ‘‘Can they see?’’ ‘‘What else will they

eat?’’ Others saw them as a way to teach about the requirements for living things:

food, water, space, and shelter.

Carol: One of the state requirements is that kindergarteners will explore the basicneeds of organisms. This is prefect.Lynn: My teacher wanted me to do a lesson on the stages of the life cycle of someorganisms in its natural habit. Did you know this when you gave us themealworms?Tom: My students are looking for patterns, so I am having them compare whathappens with one colony and another to see if all the colonies behave the sameway. They love it and so do I.

Week 9

The investigation ended in the 9th week with the students returning their beetles to

my colony. The students were asked to write a three-part reflection: What I learned

as a learner of science; What I learned as a teacher of science; and What I learned

about pupils and children who are learning science. This allowed for a comparison

between the first writing and the last writing.

Content Knowledge

Science education students were asked to write what they now know about

mealworms as a part of their final reflection. They all knew the basic facts from their


123

own observations and the whole-class discussions. Some of them added very

interesting facts that they had learned from the Web search that they did in Week 8.

In addition, 47 (27%) students indicated that for the first time they had engaged in a

true investigation. They were amazed that their investigation did not proceed step-

by-step, as they had thought investigations would. They were surprised that they

were not required to write a traditional lab report. Rachael’s reflection captures this

nicely,

I always thought that all science inquiry followed the steps of the ‘scientificmethod’ but I have learned so much by just observing. Sometimes I would havean I wonder and then by watching closely, I would find an answer.

Attitudes

About 168 (97%) indicated that they liked working with the mealworms and would

recommend it to stay as an activity in the methods course. About 160 (93%)

indicated that they would like to use mealworms with children to show one of the

following: life cycle, characteristics of insects, and habitats.

Self-Efficacy

At the beginning of the experience, 125 (73%) thought that they could not use the

mealworms in class. The end-of-the-term paper asked the preservice teachers to

reflect on what they now know as a teacher of science. All but one indicted that they

could and probably would use mealworms with small children. In addition to having

the confidence to use the mealworm, many more of them expressed confidence in

their ability to use other live animals. They also felt capable of teaching science

without telling facts to the pupils prior to an experience with the real thing. Each

term, several students wrote that they would like stronger content because they did

not want to have to learn everything at the same time as their students; however,

they now know that they can become colearners with young children. Overwhelm-

ingly, they wrote that they feel more comfortable to teach science.

Discussion and Implications

This research investigated the extent to which the mealworm activity affected the

content knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy of preservice teachers in a science

methods course. It builds on the work of other scholars who are investigating their

own teaching, course construction, or both to assess what works in helping to

prepare effective science teachers (Abell et al. 2002; Van Zee and Roberts 2001).

The findings are relevant to science educators in two ways. First, they document one

activity that appears to be successful in helping prepare future elementary science

teachers by increasing content knowledge, improving attitudes, and increasing self-

efficacy. Therefore, this study provides other science methods professors with an

activity that may be included in their course for elementary preservice teachers.


123

Second, the findings provide insight about elementary preservice teachers who are

enrolled in a science methods course. The data indicate that elementary preservice

teachers come to science methods classes eager to be teachers, but with little science

content on which to build engaging learning experiences for the children they will

be teaching. They also may have somewhat neutral attitudes about science and low

self-efficacy about teaching science. However, such activities as the one described

in this study can increase their knowledge, improve their attitude, and increase self-

efficacy. In addition, the students indicated that this experience helped them see

science inquiry as nonlinear. This study supports finding by Millar et al. (1993) and

Weinburgh (2003).

Teacher education research in general is clear that learning to teach is a difficult,

complex task that requires intellectual engagement by those formulating new roles

and conceptions of self (Bullough et al. 1992; McDonald 1992). Elementary

preservice teachers read in the national or state standards and are told by professors

that children should engage in a meaningful way with phenomena. For example,

they read (or are told) in the National Science Education Standards, ‘‘As a result of

activities in grades K-4, all students should develop understanding of life cycles of

organisms’’ (National Research Council 1996, p. 127). This is further elaborated as

‘‘...have life cycles that include being born, developing into adults, reproducing, and

eventually dying’’ (p. 129). However, they may not be aware of good examples of

life cycle changes and may not be comfortable with the natural phenomenon

(mealworms, in this case). This study indicates that mealworms are excellent for

using in a college classroom to allow the preservice teacher to experience natural

phenomena over a period of time. Mealworms are cheap, clean, and almost

indestructible. Mealworms are also easily transportable to the elementary classroom

to be used with children.

The fact that 90% of the preservice teachers in this study did not know basic

content about mealworms and did not know how to use them to help children learn

about life cycles suggests that mealworms are not being used in elementary

classrooms. After observing the mealworms change from larvae to pupae to adults,

most of the preservice teachers showed evidence of knowing basic information

about them: belong to a grouping called insects, go through four stages (egg, larva,

pupa, adult), eat meal, prefer shade, can become cannibals, and so forth. It can be

argued that juniors in college should already know the characteristics of an insect

and what metamorphosis is; these students did not. However, working with the

organism over a 9-week period gave them the opportunity to observe characteristics

of their own organism, see that others in the room had similar observations, discuss

reasons why one group might have observations that were different from all others

in the room, resolve observed differences, pose questions about the organism, and

hunt solutions for their questions.

In addition to helping the preservice teachers learn content firsthand, the activity

described in this study provided an opportunity for them to truly engage in

colearning with the first- and second-grade children in their field placement. Many

of the preservice teachers observed the change from larva to pupa at the same time

as their first-grade or second-grade children saw it. This gave the preservice teachers

time to incorporate their new and growing understanding of inquiry into an


123

experience in which they were involved and to transfer this new understanding to

lessons with children. They saw in the children a curiosity and an eagerness to

engage on a personal level with the phenomena that they had not expected.

Prior to the activity, many of the science education students did not feel confident

with using live animals in the classroom. As they cared for their colony, they

became aware of how little effort it took. In maintaining their own colony, they

began to lose some of their reluctance, as can be seen by their growing ability to

touch the organisms as they changed form in the three stages. Although no one was

required to touch their mealworms, each time they observed their colony, their

acceptance grew until, without their even being aware of it, most of the students

were touching them. This natural acceptance and increased comfort may account for

their increased confidence that they could use mealworms with children to help

teach about life cycles. As the science education students posed questions and then

developed ways of finding the answers (some questions called for experimentation

and some for Internet searches), they become more convinced that they could guide

children through similar inquires.

Such activities as the mealworm exploration can be used to help elementary

preservice teachers increase their content knowledge, improve attitudes, and

increase self-efficacy. This activity is inexpensive, yet effective.

References

Abell, S. K., & Smith, D. C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the

nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 475–487.

Abell, S. K., Martini, M., & George, M. (2001). ‘‘That’s what scientists have to do’’: Preservice

elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during a moon study. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 23, 1095–1109.

Abell, S., George, M., & Martini, M. (2002). The moon investigation: Instructional strategies for

elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 85–100.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman

(Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bandura, A. (1977a). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. PsychologicalReview, 84, 191–215.

Borror, D. J., & White, R. E. (1970). A field guide to insects: America north of Mexico. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National

Academies Press.

Bullough, R. V., Knowles, J. G., & Crow, N. (1992). Emerging as a teacher. London: Routledge.

Crawley, R. E. (1990). Intentions of sciene teachers to use investigative teaching methods: A test of the

theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 685–697.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Czerniak, C. M., & Chiarelott, L. (1990). Teacher education for effective science instruction: A social

cognitive perspective. Journal of Teacher Educaiton, 41, 49–58.

Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Relationship between teacher beliefs and science education

reform. Journal of Science Teacher Educaiton, 7, 247–266.

Czerniak, C. M., & Schriver, M. (1994). An examination of preservice science teachers’ beliefs and

behaviors as related to self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 5(3), 77–86.

Desouza, J. M. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2003). Study of science teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about

collaborative reflective practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 75–96.


123

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in

the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

Duschl, R. A. (1983). The elementary level science methods course: Breeding ground of apprehension

toward science? A case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 745–754.

Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preservice

elementary science teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Teacher Education,79(1), 63–75.

Feldman, M. S. (1995). Strategies for interpreting qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, behavior: An introduction to theory andresearch. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

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.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.

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.

McDonald, J. P. (1992). Teaching: Making sense of an uncertain craft. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Millar, R., Driver, R., Leach, J, & Scott, P. (1993). Students’ understanding of the nature of science:Philosophical and sociological foundations to the study. Working Paper 2 from the project ‘‘The

development of understanding of the nature of science.’’ Centre for Studies in Science and

Mathematics Education, The University of Leeds, United Kingdom.

Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (1996). Breaking the cycle: Preparing elementary teachers to teach science.

Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(1), 17–38.

National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academies Press.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Reviewof Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

Ramey-Gassert, L. K., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. (1996). Factors influencing science teaching self-

efficacy in elementary teachers: Results of a qualitative study. Science Education, 80, 283–315.

Riggs, I. (1995, March). The characteristics of high and low efficacy elementary teachers. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San

Francisco.

Schoon, K., & Boone, W. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice

elementary teachers. Science Education, 82, 553–568.

Shapiro, B. (1994). What children bring to light: A constructivist perspective on children’s learning inscience. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Stevens, C., & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding

science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 2–9.

Tilgner, P. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74, 421–431.

Van Zee, E. H. (1998). Preparing teachers as researchers in courses on methods of teaching science.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 791–809.

Van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal ofScience Education, 22, 115–142.

Van Zee, E. H., & Roberts, D. (2001). Using pedagogical inquires as a basis for learning to teach:

Prospective teachers’ reflections upon positive science learning experiences. Science Education, 85,

733–757.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.), Thepractice of constructivism in science education (pp. 23–38). Washington, DC: AAAS Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weinburgh, M. H. (2003). Confronting and changing middle school teachers’ beliefs about scientific

methodology. School Science and Mathematics, 103, 222–232.


123

Download - The Effect of Tenebrio obscurus on Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Content Knowledge, Attitudes, and Self-efficacy

Top Related