early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

17
This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University] On: 16 December 2014, At: 22:53 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20 Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs HueyLing Lin a , Nedra Hazareesingh b , Janet Taylor c , Jeffrey Gorrell c & Helen L. Carlson b a Alabama State University , Montgomery, AL 361010271, USA b University of Minnesota , Duluth, MN, USA c Auburn University Published online: 03 Aug 2006. To cite this article: HueyLing Lin , Nedra Hazareesingh , Janet Taylor , Jeffrey Gorrell & Helen L. Carlson (2001) Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 22:3, 135-150, DOI: 10.1080/1090102010220302 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090102010220302 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions

Upload: helen-l

Post on 11-Apr-2017

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 16 December 2014, At: 22:53Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Early childhood and elementarypreservice teachers’ beliefsHuey‐Ling Lin a , Nedra Hazareesingh b , Janet Taylor c , Jeffrey

Gorrell c & Helen L. Carlson ba Alabama State University , Montgomery, AL 36101‐0271, USAb University of Minnesota , Duluth, MN, USAc Auburn UniversityPublished online: 03 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Huey‐Ling Lin , Nedra Hazareesingh , Janet Taylor , Jeffrey Gorrell & HelenL. Carlson (2001) Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs, Journal of EarlyChildhood Teacher Education, 22:3, 135-150, DOI: 10.1080/1090102010220302

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090102010220302

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

Pergamon

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150

Journal of J?arly

ChildhoodTeacher

Education

Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers'beliefs

Huey-Ling Lina,*, Nedra Hazareesinghb, Janet Taylorc, Jeffrey Gorrellc,Helen L. Carlsonb

aAlabama State University, Montgomery, AL 36101-0271, USAbUniversity of Minnesota, Duluth, MN, USA

cAuburn University

Received 19 June 2000; accepted 17 September 2000

Abstract

In this study we examined 382 preservice teachers' perceived efficacy, their beliefs regarding teaching andlearning, and the relationship between these two variables by analyzing quantitative and qualitative data using amodified version of the Gibson and Dembo Teacher Efficacy Scale and six open-ended questions. A general linearmodel analysis revealed that several factors differ across certain preparation programs. Preservice teachers'efficacy beliefs increased at the end of these two different teacher education programs. Qualitative analyzesrevealed variance in preservice teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning between the two majors and in thetwo locations which they were studying. Most ending-level preservice teachers had adopted the views of the wayteachers are supposed to teach promoted by the particular teacher education program. The internal programcoherence, program structural contexts, program's goals, and learning experiences in the program may act asimportant factors on preservice teachers' beliefs. © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Preservice teachers enter teacher preparation pro-grams with well established beliefs about teachingand learning which may be subject to change (Clark,1988; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Florio-Ruane & Lens-mire, 1990; Hollingsworth, 1989; Lottie, 1975; Nes-por, 1987; Weinstein, 1989; Wilson, Konopak &Readence, 1994) but those beliefs often are resistantto change (Kagan, 1992; McLaughlin, 1991; Tschan-nen-Moran, Woolfolk & Hoy, 1998; Weinstein,1989, 1990). Several studies provide evidence thatteacher education programs have little impact onteachers' beliefs (Finlayson & Cohen, 1967; Gibson,

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-334-229-4237; fax:+ 1-334-229-4904.

E-mail address: [email protected] (H.-L. Lin).

1972; Lacey, 1977; Lortie, 1975; McDiarmid, 1990;Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). Zeichner & Tabach-nich (1981) reported that the beliefs preservice teach-ers bring with them tend to be maintained whenstudent teachers learn the curriculum and pedagogi-cal methods from their cooperating classroom teach-ers. Formal training in pedagogy at the university isseen as having little impact in comparison with theinfluence of prior experiences (Zeichner & Grant,1981).

Although there is no conclusive evidence con-cerning the degree to which teacher education pro-grams have an impact on preservice teachers' beliefs,evidence exists to support the idea that under certainconditions preservice teachers' conceptions aboutteaching and learning may change during teacherpreparation programs (Feiman-Nemser, McDiarmid,Melnick, & Parker, 1989; Florio-Ruane & Lensmire,1990; Gibson, 1972; Hollingsworth, 1988; Skipper &

0163-6388/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.PII: S0190-1027(01)00117-9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 3: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

136 H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150

Quantz, 1987; Tamir, 1991). Feiman-Nemser et al.(1989) conducted an exploratory study of conceptualchange with 91 preservice teachers in an introductorycourse. They found the entry preservice teachers per-ceived teaching simply as telling and the ending-levelpreservice teachers perceived teaching as being amore complex set of activities and relationships suchas facilitating and guiding. Hollingsworth (1989)stated that students enter teacher education programswith definite ideas about teaching and learning. Shedescribed how those beliefs and ideas may change asa result of the experiences provided in the preserviceprogram. Tamir (1991) concluded that teacher prep-aration and experiences of prospective teachers sig-nificantly affect their expressed views and beliefsabout learning and teaching. Florio-Ruane and Lens-mire (1990), Hollingsworth, (1988, 1989) Skipperand Quantz, (1987) and Tamir (1991) indicated thatteacher preparation programs seem to enhance theattitudes and beliefs of preservice teachers.

By using interviews, observation and question-naires, Tatto (1998) classified teacher training pro-grams into several categories based on their theoret-ical views of learning to teach. Her examination ofthe views of student teachers at different points oftheir teacher education programs showed there weresimilarities and differences across programs with re-gard to beliefs about teaching diverse students, andabout sources of school success and failure. She sug-gests that programs that build a highly coherent cur-riculum have faculty who share common perspec-tives which, in turn, influence graduates' to changetheir views to be more consistent with program em-phases.

Gibson (1972) conducted a study of studentteacher perceptions concerning teacher-role expecta-tions during a three-year period of teacher prepara-tion programs. He found that the early part of theteacher education program seemed to have significanteffects in changing students' attitudes. Also collegecourse work and student teaching experiences mayhave some influences on teachers' sense of efficacy(Ashton & Webb, 1986; Enochs, Scharmann &Riggs, 1995; Watters & Ginns, 1995). The level ofself-efficacy would affect preservice teachers' con-cept change during teacher education (Imants & Tel-lema, 1995).

Teacher's sense of efficacy has been linked tovarious personal and professional factors: (a) teachercharacteristics (e.g., willingness to try a variety ofmaterials and approaches, willingness to work withdifficult students, the desire to find better ways ofteaching, and implementation of progressive and in-novative methods) (Allinder, 1995); (b) preserviceteachers' level of professional commitment (Cola-darci, 1992; Evans & Tribble, 1986); (c) external

factors (e.g., students' family background, parent in-volvement) (Bandura, 1997; Hoover-Dempsey,Bassler & Brissie, 1987); (d) involvement in aca-demic activities (Guskey, 1987); (e) teachers' percep-tions of children and control (Woolfolk & Hoy,1990); (f) classroom management and discipline(Emmer & Hickman, 1991; Soodak & Podell, 1994);and (g) attitudes toward teaching (Tschannen-Moran,et al., 1998).

Ashton, Webb, and Doda (1982) categorizedsome teacher characteristics which differentiated ahigh sense of efficacy from a low sense of efficacy.For example, teachers with a high sense of efficacyhad positive expectations for student behavior andachievement; took personal responsibility for studentlearning; used different strategies for achieving ob-jectives; and had a sense of control with confidencein their ability to influence student learning. Gibsonand Dembo (1984) found that teachers with a highlevel of perceived efficacy had a better academicfocus in the classroom and demonstrated more effec-tive types of feedback than teachers who had a lowersense of efficacy.

Gibson and Dembo (1984) applied Bandura's so-cial cognitive theory to construct a teacher efficacyscale (see Appendix for sample items) which mea-sures two factors: personal teaching efficacy and gen-eral teaching efficacy. Other researchers have con-firmed this two-factor finding (Allinder, 1995;Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988; Coladarci,1992; Coladarci & Breton, 1997; Kushner, 1993;Saklofske, Michayluk, & Randhawa, 1988; Soodak& Podell, 1994). However other studies using theGibson and Dembo scale have shown inconsistencieswhen that scale is applied to divergent settings (Em-mer & Hickman, 1991; Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Lin& Gorrell, 1998; Soodak & Podell, 1996).

One of few studies that link efficacy and beliefsabout teaching and learning was conducted by Gus-key (1987). He found that teachers' perceived senseof efficacy in teaching and learning which was con-sidered as teachers' perception of personal responsi-bility for student learning. This study was designed tofurther explore the relationship between efficacy andbeliefs and to determine if those variables change dueto education programs. We chose a combination ofthe Gibson and Dembo (1984) scale and open-endedquestions to gain a better understanding of preserviceteachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about teachingand learning. We analyzed, described and interpretedthe pattern of responses related to the sense of effi-cacy and beliefs about teaching and learning of earlychildhood and elementary preservice teachers at twouniversities. We also examined the connection be-tween their beliefs and their sense of efficacy, hy-pothesizing that preservice teacher beliefs may be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 4: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150 137

Table 1Participants demographic data

Variable

Age

Degree will earn

Gender

University

SU

MU

SU

MU

SU

MU

Category

20 or below21 to 2526 and up20 or below21 to 2526 and upBachelor's degreePost-baccalaureateBachelor's degreePost-baccalaureateMaleFemaleMaleFemale

EC

Beginning

381838

103

59

1922

57

21

Ending

582

254

591

254

601

28

ELEM

Beginning

5182

15364

61

5324

571738

Ending

455

424

50

46

446

640

Note: SU: Southeastern University; MU: Midwestern University; EC: Early Childhood Education Major; ELEM: ElementaryEducation Major.

influenced by the structural context of their prepara-tion, by the goals of their teacher education pro-grams, and by their experiences in the program. Wealso hypothesized a relationship between the preser-vice teachers' sense of efficacy and their beliefsabout teaching and learning both before and aftercompletion of their teacher education program.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The 381 participants in the study included 169early childhood preservice teachers (44%) and 212elementary preservice teachers (56%). Of the totalsubjects, 230 preservice teachers were from a south-eastern university (60%) and 151 were from a mid-western university (40%) and 196 preservice teacherswere at the beginning of their program (52%) while185 were at the end of their program (48%). Of thetotal sample, 91% were female and 93% were underthe age of twenty-six. Of the 230 preservice teachersat the southeastern university 120 were starting theprogram while 110 were at the end of their programand 119 were enrolled in early childhood educationand 111 in elementary education. Of the 151 preser-vice teachers at the midwestern university, 76 werestarting the program while 75 were at the end of theirprogram and 50 were enrolled in early childhoodeducation and 101 in elementary education. At thesoutheastern university, ending-level students inearly childhood programs had completed 300 hours

of practical work with children prior to their studentteaching and ending-level students in elementary pro-grams completed 160 hours of practical work prior totheir student teaching. At the Midwestern university,ending-level students in early childhood and elemen-tary programs completed 160 hours of practical workprior to their student teaching. Demographic infor-mation concerning the participants is presented inTable 1.

2.2. Teacher education programs

There are some similarities and differences amongthe four teacher education programs in terms of thecourses required, the program philosophy and theo-retical perspective, the method of program delivery,and the amount and kind of field based experiences. Allfour programs are situated at two state universities thatoffer initial and advanced programs for those who wishto teach in state-accredited preschool, kindergarten, pri-mary, and elementary schools. All have been accreditedby their state department of education and by the Na-tional Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Educa-tion.

2.2.1. Courses structureAll programs are four-year programs that consist

of approximately 180 to 204 quarter hours. The earlychildhood and elementary programs at both univer-sities are similar in that they all require a combinationof university core courses, core education courses,state course requirements, teaching field courses, andprofessional education courses. The programs at the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 5: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

138 H.-L. Lin et at. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150

midwestern university require approximately 20fewer quarter hours to complete than do those at thesoutheastern university.

2.2.2. Program's philosophy and theoreticalperspective

At the southeastern university, the early child-hood program is based on a constructivist perspectivethat emphasizes teacher autonomy, decision makingand problem solving. This program is based on theresearch of Jean Piaget, and adheres to the guidelinesfor the preparation of early childhood professionalsdeveloped by the National Association for the Edu-cation of Young Children. The elementary programadheres to the standards of professional organizationsin the pertinent content areas (e.g., National Councilof Teachers of Mathematics, National Council for theTeaching of English).

At the midwestern university, the early childhoodand elementary programs are based on a social-con-structivist perspective that emphasizes diversity, col-laboration, reflection, empowerment, and technology.The primary underlying theories of these two pro-grams include Glasser's reflective empowerment,Johnson and Johnson's cooperative and collaborativelearning, Vygotsky's emphases on scaffoldingthrough language and Piaget's theory of cognitivedevelopment. A strong philosophical component ofthe Early Childhood Studies program is critical the-ory. Stemming from Freire's pedagogy for the op-pressed, the students come to grips with such forcesas racism, classism, sexism. They learn that the dom-inant society has major impact on what happens ineducational settings and find ways to advocate forchanges at the macrolevel.

2.2.3. Method of program delivery and thematicvariation

The early childhood and elementary programs atthe southeastern university differ significantly in theway the program is delivered. The early childhoodprogram educates students as generalists, while theelementary program requires students build a concen-tration in a specific subject area. The elementarymajors complete a 20-quarter-hour concentration inone selected content area, such as life science, his-tory, or math. They also complete four professionalcourses organized around the content to be taught andmethods for teaching the content (20 quarter hours).These methods courses are taken in two sequentialcurriculum blocks (Block I: Language Arts and So-cial Science; Block II: Mathematics and Natural Sci-ence) that are integrated with practical experiences inthe schools. Early childhood majors complete an in-tegrated six-course sequence (20-quarter hours) thatbegins with an understanding of the nature of the

learner, and follows with courses in the nature of thecontent to be taught, the methods by which to teachthe content, the professional ethics that govern theirinteractions with others, and strategies for planningand managing the classroom. This sequence includestwo quarter-long practica, one in the preschool andone at the primary level. Additionally, early child-hood majors take five courses (19 quarter hours) inaspects of child development related to learning indifferent knowledge areas, such as The Child's Con-struction of Number.

At the midwestern university, both of the teachereducation programs have 23 courses which containfoci on foundations (historical, philosophical, socio-logical, psychological), teaching field courses andprofessional courses (discipline specific and inte-grated) connected to field practice and student teach-ing. Major requirements of these two programsstrongly emphasize diversity and working with fam-ily. The elementary education program requires the-oretical courses addressing the philosophical andpsychological models of education, learning environ-ments, classroom management, and beginning liter-acy methods with observation and practice in variouselementary schools. Block two courses concentrateon methods and pedagogy in mathematics and liter-acy, with connections to practice. Block three con-tinues with methods and pedagogy related to thenatural and social sciences, again with connections topractice. Courses in special education and other di-versity areas are integrated in all of the blocks. Ele-mentary majors are required to complete an approvedacademic minor in social science, language science,or math. The early childhood education program dif-fers in that early childhood students complete com-mon core courses in child development, parent-childrelations, early childhood education, special educa-tion/early childhood education, community re-sources, and organizational management and super-vision. They build a concentration in one area ofspecialization (infants and toddlers, diverse field ex-perience, early childhood special education licensure,and parent educator licensure). In addition, studentstake classes in early childhood art, music, movement,health and nutrition. Tied to all of the course work areobservations and practice in a variety of early child-hood settings.

2.2.4. Field based experiencesThe early childhood and elementary programs at

the southeastern university require 2 or 3 teachingpractica and a 10-week student teaching experience.The early childhood and elementary programs at themidwestern university require one quarter-long in-ternships. The unique features of each of the teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 6: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150 139

education programs included in this study are shownin Table 2.

2.3. Instrumentation

The instrument used to gather the data for thestudy included the following three sections.

2.3.1. Teacher-efficacy scaleGibson and Dembo (1984) developed the teacher

efficacy scale for measuring personal teaching effi-cacy (PE) and general teaching efficacy (TE). Sixteenout of the original thirty items had acceptable reli-ability coefficients based upon principal componentsfactor analysis. In the present study, the instrumentwas a slightly revised form of Gibson and Dembo's(1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale to reflect an earlychildhood and elementary education emphasis. Forexample, references to earning grades were replacedwith references to doing well in school. The revisedinstrument contained the original or revised 16 itemsplus two additional items that examined issues re-lated to cultural differences (items # 9 & 13). Eachitem on the scale is rated on a 5-point Likert scaleranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree(1) with a neither agree nor disagree as the midpoint(See Appendix for a comparison of revised instru-ment with the original Gibson and Dembo's instru-ment). Higher total scores on this scale reflect higherlevels of perceived efficacy. Based on responses ofthe present sample, the internal consistency estimate(Cronbach's Alpha) for the total sample was 0.56.

2.3.2. Six open-ended questionsSix open-ended questions were used to inquire

into the preservice teachers' beliefs about teachingand learning (Gorrell, Hazareesingh, Carlson & Sten-malm-Sjoblom, 1995). Participants were asked to de-scribe: (1) what their most important roles as teacherswould be; (2) what would be going on in their firstclassroom; (3) what they thought were the best waysthat children learn; (4) what they thought were themost important reasons for children to go to school;(5) what they thought their pupils would need fromthem; and (6) the relationships they expected to havewith pupils' families. This set of six questions al-lowed us to compare preservice teachers' beliefsabout teaching and learning across four teacher edu-cation programs.

2.3.3. DemographicsDemographic information related to preservice

teachers' age, gender, major, minor or collateral field,and degrees held was gathered for data analysis.

2.4. Procedure

The instrument was distributed to students at bothuniversities during regularly scheduled school days.Participants at both universities volunteered to an-swer the questions on the instrument and were as-sured of the confidentiality of their responses.

2.5. Data analysis

The three sections of the data gathering instru-ment in analyzed as follows.

2.5.1. Teacher-efficacy scaleGeneral Linear Model procedures were used to

determine if statistically significant differences ex-isted between the four university programs, betweenpreservice teachers sense of efficacy and beliefsabout teaching and learning at the beginning of theirprogram and at the end of the program, and betweenmajors. When group differences were identified, fol-low-up univariate analyzes were conducted.

2.5.2. Six open-ended questionsUsing a qualitative, inductive approach, responses

from the six open-ended questions for each partici-pant were broken down into thought units, codedaccording to key words and then organized intothemes (Bogdan & Biklin, 1992; Hutchinson, 1990;Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The constellation of keywords related to these themes was entered into theNUD* 1ST (Non-Numerical Unstructured Data In-dexing, Search and Theory Building) software pro-gram designed specifically for theory building (Miles& Huberman, 1994; Kelle, 1995). The percentages ofresponses for each theme were calculated. Also, inorder to identify themes that differed by major, lo-cale, or group, the researchers examined emergingthemes and the frequency ranking of responses forthe six questions by each variable. During the processof data analysis, professors from both teacher educa-tion programs were asked to provide alternative per-spectives that added to the credibility of the research(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 1990).

3. Results

3.1. Teacher efficacy scale

3.1.1. Summative comparisonGibson and Dembo's (1984) two-factor solution

procedure using principal axis factoring with bothoblique and orthogonal rotations was replicated. TheBartlett's Test of Sphericity was significant in bothsites' data, X2 (153, N = 230) = 557.815, p <

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 7: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

140 H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150

Table 2Description of the teacher education programmes included in this study

Program Southeastern university Midwestern university

EC ELEM EC ELEM

Courses structure Approximate totalquarter hours is 204which includes 19 hoursin child development, 90hours in Lib. arts, and110 hours in earlychildhood education.

Programme's philosophy Constructivist orientationand theoretical based on the teaching ofperspective Jean Piaget.

Method of programmedelivery

Thematic variation

Uses a constructivistdevelopmentalorganization of coursesorganized aroundproblem-based learningapproach.

A developmental six-course sequence.

Five courses in childdevelopment.

Major requirementstrongly emphasizeschild development baseda constructivist principle.

Approximate totalquarter hours is 204which includes 20 hoursin academic minor orcollateral field, 90 hoursin Lib. arts, and 114hours in elementaryeducation.

Adheres to the standardsput forth by professionalorganizations of manycontent areas.

Approximate totalquarter hours is 188which includes 18hours in academicminor, 86 hours inLib. arts, and 16 hoursin family educationand special education,and 102 hours in earlychildhood education.Social-constructivistorientation withemphases on reflection(Glasser), diversity,and collaboration(Johnson andJohnson), scaffolding(Vygotsky), cognitivedevelopment (Piaget)and critical theory(Freire).

Uses an organizationaround content areasthat are sequentiallydeveloped and integratedwith practicalexperience.

20-quarter-hourconcentration contentareas such as in lifescience, or history.

Uses an organizationaround content areasthat are sequentiallydeveloped (methodsblocks) and integratedwith practicalexperience.23 credit hour in thenatural and physicalsciences, the socialsciences, languagesand symbolic thought,and the fine arts.

Two blocks includedfour professionalcourses.Major requirementstrongly emphasizesteaching content in theareas and practicalexperience.

Major requirementsstrongly emphasizes,critical theorydiversity, family andspecial education.

Approximate totalquarter hours is 108which includes 22—32 hours inacademic minor, 86hours in Lib. arts,and 94 hours inelementaryeducation.

Social-constructivistorientation withemphases onreflection (Glasser),diversity, andcollaboration(Johnson andJohnson),scaffolding(Vygotsky),cognitivedevelopment (Piaget)also implementstandards ofprofessionalorganizations ex:NCSS, WCTW,NSF.Uses an organizationaround content areasthat are sequentiallydeveloped (methodsblocks) andintegrated withpractical experience.23 credit hour in thenatural and physicalsciences, the socialsciences, languagesand symbolicthought, and the finearts.

Major requirementstrongly emphasizesdiversity, specialeducation, andteaching contentknowledge.

(continued on next page)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 8: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150 141

Table 2 (continued)

Program Southeastern university

EC ELEM

Midwestern university

EC ELEM

Field based experience Two quarter-longpracticaone quarter-longinternships.

one quarter-long one quarter-long one-quarter-longinternships internship internshipField placements within Field placements Field placementsblock course. during courses in within block course,

the major.

Note: EC: Early Childhood Education Major; ELEM: Elementary Education Major.

0.0001; X2 (153, N = 151) = 467.224, p < 0.0001,indicating that there were some statistically signifi-cant correlations within the correlation matrix. How-ever, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of SamplingAdequacy was 0.686 and 0.688, indicating only me-diocre sampling adequacy. In addition, the correla-tion matrix revealed very few item correlations over0.30.

Based on multiple independent variables (18items) and dependent variables (major, group, andprogram), we used the General Linear Model to testthe significance of the eighteen-item difference be-tween early childhood and elementary majors, be-tween beginning and ending groups, and betweenuniversity programs based on participants' responses.Also we used univariate analyzes of variance for thesum of the 18 items to examine the differencesamong three dependent variables (program, groupand major).

Overall preservice teachers at the ending of theirprogram (M = 66.09) have higher efficacy scoresthan preservice teachers at the beginning of theirprogram (M = 64.32), although univariate analyzesof variance for the sum of the 18 items revealedneither major (early childhood and elementary), noruniversity (the midwestern university, the southeast-ern university) main effects are statistically signifi-cant. The group (beginning, ending group) main ef-fect is statistically significant, F (1, 373) = 11.133,p < 0.05, eta2 = 0.029, as well as interaction be-tween university and major, F (1, 373) = 4.935, p <0.05, eta2 = 0.013. The difference in perceived effi-cacy between early childhood and elementary majorsat the southeastern university was greater than thedifference in perceived efficacy between early child-hood and elementary majors at the midwestern uni-versity. The southeastern university early childhoodpreservice teachers had the highest perceived efficacyscore (M = 66.03) which was statistically signifi-cantly different from elementary preservice teachersat the southeastern university, F (1, 228) = 6.76, p <0.05, eta2 = 0.029 which was the lowest (M =64.17). There was not a statistically significant dif-ference between the early childhood and elementary

majors at the midwestern university, F (1, 149) =0.304, p = 0.582, eta2 = 0.002. The midwesternuniversity early childhood preservice teachers hadlower perceived efficacy (M = 65.10) than the mid-western university elementary preservice teachers(M = 65.55), but both fell between the southeasternuniversities highest and lowest.

3.2. Significant interaction effects

General linear model analyzes revealed a statisti-cally significant interaction between the two univer-sities' teacher education programs and the pointwhere preservice teachers were in their respectiveprograms (beginning or ending levels), F (18, 356) =2.017, p < 0.05, eta2 = 0.093. There was also astatistically significant interaction between these twouniversities' teacher education programs and the pre-service teachers' major (early childhood and elemen-tary), F (18, 356) = 1.928, p < 0.05, eta2 = 0.089.Because there were statistically significant interac-tions revealed in the general linear model, we plottedthe data for identifying the pattern depicted by thesethree variables (locale, group, and major). The effectsof each variable were interpreted with the levels ofthe other variable in mind. We looked at the differ-ences between beginning-level and ending-level pre-service teachers in each teacher educational program,as well as the differences between early childhoodand elementary preservice teachers in each teachereducation program.

3.2.1. Interaction between program and majorFollow-up univariate analyzes of variance for the

18 items were conducted. Six of the 18 items re-vealed statistically significantly interactions betweenprogram and major; Item 3, F = 4.01, p < 0.05, eta2

= 0.011; Item 9, F = 12.23, p < 0.05, eta2 = 0.032;Item 10, F = 4.12, p < 0.05, eta2 = 0.011; Item 13,F = 4.78,/? < 0.05, eta2 = 0.013; Item 14, F = 4.95,p < 0.05, eta2 = 0.013; Item 16, F = 7.01, p < 0.05,eta2 = 0.018.

A pattern was found regarding the interaction bymajor and program on these six items. The means ofthe early childhood majors at the southeastern uni-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 9: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

142 H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150

Table 3Means efficacy

Group

BeginningEnding

scores

SU

EC

64.3267.70

by group

ELEM

63.6664.80

MU

EC

64.0565.97

ELEM

65.2565.91

Note: SU: Southeastern University; MU: MidwesternUniversity; EC: Early Childhood Education Major; ELEM:Elementary Education Major.

versity were more similar to the means of the ele-mentary majors at the midwestern university than tothe means of the early childhood majors at the mid-western university and the elementary majors at thesoutheastern university. On item 3 (the child learnsbetter when the teacher puts forth extra effort) thesoutheastern early childhood and midwestern ele-mentary means (M =3.2 and M = 3.29 respectively)were lower than the means of the early childhoodmajors at the midwestern university and the elemen-tary majors at the southeastern university (M = 3.46and M = 3.42 respectively). On item 9, 14 and 16(the teacher can offer culturally appropriate learningexperiences) the southeastern early childhood andmidwestern elementary means were higher than themeans of the early childhood majors at the midwest-ern university and the elementary majors at the south-eastern university (see Table 4).

The interaction between program and major re-vealed two patterns. On items 3, 9, 14, and 16 thesoutheastern early childhood majors and the mid-western elementary majors differed significantlyfrom the southeastern elementary majors and themidwestern early childhood majors. On items 10 and13 the midwestern early childhood majors differedsignificantly from the midwestern elementary majorsand both southeastern majors. Means scores for sig-nificant efficacy items by group, major and programare reported in Table 3.

The interaction in item 3 (learning being attrib-uted to teachers' extra effort) revealed that southeast-ern university early childhood majors scored signif-icantly lower than others in these programs.Southeastern early childhood education preserviceteachers appear to think that putting forth extra effortwould not necessarily produce better effects on thelearning of the students. This is consistent with whatthey have learned in their constructivist programwhich is based on the teachings of Jean Piaget. Stu-dents in that program understand that it is not throughtheir effort that children learn, but rather through thechild's ability to assimilate the information in logicalways.

Analysis of item 9 (the ability to offer culturally

appropriate learning experiences) showed that thesoutheastern early childhood and the midwestern el-ementary preservice teachers' efficacy scores werehigher than the midwestern early childhood and thesoutheastern elementary preservice teachers' efficacyscores. We know very little about how a particularteacher education program influences teachers learn-ing to teach diverse learners. At both universities,early childhood education and elementary programsstrongly emphasize diversity and working with fam-ilies and children from diverse backgrounds. On item10 (more effective ways of facilitating learning) themidwestern early childhood preservice teachers' ef-ficacy scores were significantly lower than the scoresof both majors of the southeastern sample and themidwestern university's elementary majors' scores.Midwestern early childhood preservice teachers hadsignificantly lower scores than midwestern elemen-tary preservice teachers and southeastern early child-hood and elementary preservice teachers on item 13(the ability to positively negotiate differences withparents and children from different backgrounds).There were no significant differences between themidwestern university elementary preservice teach-ers or the southeastern early childhood and elemen-tary preservice teachers on this item.

In terms of students sense of efficacy about guid-ing children's behaviors, southeastern early child-hood and midwestern elementary preservice teachersdemonstrated a higher sense of efficacy for handlingstudents' misbehaviors (item 14) than midwesternearly childhood preservice teachers and southeasternelementary preservice teachers. There was similarinteraction pattern on item 16 (the ability to provideappropriate alternatives to help an unsuccessfulchild) in that southeastern early childhood and mid-western elementary preservice teachers had signifi-cantly higher scores than midwestern early childhoodand southeastern elementary preservice teachers.These programs should be analyzed to find similarfactors that may account for these findings.

3.2.2. Interactions between program and groupOf the 18 items there was only one statistically

significantly interaction between program and group,F = 6.54, p < 0.05, eta2 = 0.017. Item 14 (knowingstrategies for handling students' misbehaviors) re-vealed that beginning preservice teachers at the mid-western program had a lower mean score (M = 3.87)than beginning preservice teachers at the southeast-ern program (M = 4.12). By the end of program,midwestern preservice teachers showed higher scoreson this item (M = 4.28) than southeastern universitypreservice teachers (M = 4.16). The mean differencebetween beginning and ending groups at the mid-western program was greater than the mean differ-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 10: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150 143

Table 4Means for significant efficacy items by program and major

Items SU

EC

3.204.233.763.994.234.23

ELEM

3.424.003.723.994.054.00

MU

EC

3.463.953.533.694.014.08

ELEM

3.294.183.784.004.144.15

Q3 Extra effortQ9 Offer culturally learning experienceQ10 More effective ways of teachingQ13 Ability to positively negotiate differencesQ14 Know strategies for handling misbehaviorQ16 Provide appropriate alternatives

Note: SU: Southeastern University; MU: Midwestern University; EC: Early Childhood Education Major; ELEM: ElementaryEducation Major.

ence between beginning and ending groups at thesoutheastern program.

3.2.3. Interactions between major and groupThere was only one statistically significant inter-

action between major and group, F = 3.87,p = 0.05,eta2 = 0.01. Item 2 (the ability to guide the mostdifficult children) revealed no significant differencebetween ending early childhood majors (M = 3.82)and beginning elementary majors (M = 3.8), and asignificant difference between beginning early child-hood majors (M = 3.74) and ending elementary ed-ucation majors (M = 3.87).

3.3. Open-ended questions

Frequency rankings revealed differences in pre-service teacher beliefs for both midwestern andsoutheastern programs at the beginning and ending ofthese programs as well as between the early child-hood and the elementary programs. The overall find-ings are presented in terms of themes that clearlyemerged from subjects' responses to the six open-ended questions (see Table 5). High frequently-men-tioned key words are key words mentioned with highfrequency indicated in this table with X's.

The most pervasive themes found through theanalysis were preservice teacher beliefs about (1)pedagogical responsibilities, (2) management respon-sibilities, (3) the teacher's role, (4) teacher character-istics, and (5) teacher expectations of children andhow they learn. These are discussed in the followingsections.

3.3.1. Pedagogical responsibilitiesIn terms of pedagogical responsibilities, south-

eastern beginning early childhood preservice teachersstressed 'putting children in groups' frequently. Theirconception of this pedagogical responsibility standsout as a primary concern. In contrast, both endingsoutheastern early childhood and elementary preser-

vice teachers mention a whole range of pedagogicalresponsibilities (such as providing "thinking games,""math games," "hand-on activities," "role-play,""sharing activities," "cooperative learning," "story-telling," "real-life experiences," "thematic units," and"integrated curriculum"), indicating their varied un-derstanding of pedagogical responsibilities.

In the midwestern sample, both beginning andending early childhood and elementary preserviceteachers mentioned "cooperative learning" and "teamwork" frequently when answering questions relatedto pedagogical responsibilities. While beginningearly childhood preservice teachers also mentioned"projects" and "freetime," ending early childhoodpreservice teachers mentioned many more specificpedagogical techniques such as "creating appropriateenvironments," providing a "variety of materials"and "literature," and conducting learning activitiessuch as "language experiences," "story, group, andcircle time" and "music." Similarly, the midwesternelementary preservice teachers' responses seemed toreflect a extensive pedagogical understanding by theend of their program compared to the beginning oftheir program. At the outset, in addition to coopera-tive learning, these preservice teachers mentioned"literature," "hands on activities," and "work sta-tions." However, they expanded on these consider-ably at the end by noting "whole language and liter-ature based instruction," "creative teaching,""reading and writing workshop," and "scienceprojects."

3.3.2. Management responsibilitiesWith regard to management responsibilities, both

the beginning and ending southeastern early child-hood preservice teachers commented frequently onestablishing a bright and attractive environment (e.g.,bright, happy, attractive, pleasant, excited environ-ment, set up centers and stations, constructivist set-ting, learning community). At this university, begin-ning early childhood preservice teachers see

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 11: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

144 H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150

Table 5Preservice teachers' comments regarding emerged themes

Themes SU

EC ELEM

MU

EC ELEM

Theme 1: Pedagogical responsibilitiesPutting children in groupsA whole range of pedagogical responsibilities"Cooperative learning" and "team work"'"Projects" and "freetime"Specific pedagogical techniques"Whole language" and "literature based instruction"Theme 2: Management responsibilitiesEstablishing a bright and attractive environment"Authority figures" and as "managers"Unstructured learning environmentA well-managed and orderly environmentTheme 3: Teacher roleDidactic commentsProviding learning opportunitiesBuilding "friendships" with studentsDisciplineCaretakersTheme 4: Teacher characteristics"Feeling" characteristicsTheme 5: Teachers' expectationsDidactic learningSpontaneous learning and self-explorationUsing movies, music, and art to the curriculum

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XXX

XXX

Note: SU: Southeastern University; MU: Midwestern University; EC: Early Childhood Education Major; ELEM: ElementaryEducation Major; X in the column is an indicator of high frequent mention key word; B: Beginning group; E: Ending group.

themselves as "authority figures" and as "managers"of time and space in the classroom. Ending earlychildhood preservice teachers tend to believe more inan "unstructured, relaxed and open, homelike envi-ronment," more of a "community" working togetherthan a classroom managed by the teacher. However,this ending group also frequently mentioned a well-managed and orderly environment in which class-room rules are enforced and discipline maintained.

Unlike the southeastern sample, midwestem pre-service teachers seldom mentioned issues related toestablishing a pleasant environment. However, theending midwestem university elementary preserviceteachers commented frequently on managing "un-structured, relaxed and open classroom settings" asthe southeastern preservice teachers did. At the sametime, they commented on managing the classroomunder more formal structures (e.g., routine, orga-nized, under control) and on managing time andspace in the classroom.

3.3.3. Teacher roleThe theme of teacher role is expressed frequently

by the southeastern preservice teachers both at the

beginning and at the ending stages of their prepara-tion. Both early childhood and elementary preserviceteachers' early beliefs tend to be more didactic; thatis, the teacher's role is to influence children, to givethem attention, and to show them how to do things.However, the early childhood group also mentionedmeeting children's needs and leaving room for ex-ploration and discovery. Other didactic commentsthat beginning early childhood preservice teachersmade included helping children leam new informa-tion, enhancing their study habits, helping them getacquainted, giving them positive reinforcement, andasking children questions. These were also character-istic of the comments by ending elementary preser-vice teachers. This is in stark contrast to the endingearly childhood subjects' more facilitative com-ments, such as providing learning opportunities, fa-cilitating learning by setting up learning centers andstations, creating a constructivist setting by lettingchildren get involved in their own learning and doing,having parents play an active role in their child'slearning, and creating a community of learners. Amore constructivist approach to teaching and leam-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 12: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150 145

ing, where children play an active rather than passiverole in learning, seems to emerge in the beliefs heldby early childhood rather than elementary preserviceteachers at the southeastern university by the end oftheir teacher preparation programs.

Results from the midwestern university indicatethat both beginning and ending preservice teachersmentioned building "friendships" with students whenthey assigned roles to themselves. In addition, theypresent many different images of teachers' roles,such as "guide," "role model," "educator" and "pro-vider." They also emphasize encouraging, support-ing, listening, meeting the students' needs, and get-ting parents involved in their children's learning.Both beginning and ending groups made didacticcomments such as helping children, getting ac-quainted, giving them positive reinforcement, andasking children questions. The midwestern elemen-tary preservice teachers mentioned "discipline" moreoften than the early childhood preservice teachersdid. Elementary preservice teachers at the midwest-ern university perceived their roles as caretakers whomaintained standards of behavior, regular schedulesand a safe environment. Various didactic commentsthat midwestern preservice teachers made (e.g., edu-cate, guide, listen, discipline and question children,provide resources to children, let children makechoices, encourage them, reach children and considerchildren's interests) also appeared in southeasternpreservice teachers' written responses.

Teachers' perceptions regarding their role influ-enced their orientation toward their classroom re-sponsibilities. For example, the midwestern teacherssaw themselves as caretakers, consistent with theircomments related to maintaining standards of behav-ior, enforcing regular schedules and providing a safeenvironment. Additionally, midwestern teachers sawthemselves as educators. This perception is consis-tent with their comments related to accomplishingtheir goals, being strict, building students' skills, anddealing with loud children.

3.3.4. Teacher characteristicsIn terms of teacher characteristics, both beginning

and ending early childhood preservice teachers at thesoutheastern university noted that teachers needed tobe caring and loving. The beginning early childhoodgroup, however, stressed the more "feeling" charac-teristics (patient, kind, understanding) compared toboth the early childhood and elementary endinggroups that commented more on personality charac-teristics (stable, responsible, productive). While end-ing preservice teachers acknowledged the importanceof affective attributes such as "caring," they seemed

more aware of other sustaining personality character-istics that mark effective teachers when compared tobeginning preservice teachers.

Results from the midwestern university indicatethat both beginning and ending early childhood andelementary preservice teachers are aware of the im-portance of compassion, love, caring, enthusiasm andsincerity. Preservice elementary teachers at both uni-versities commented more on being positive, stable,and productive than did the early childhood preser-vice teachers. Beginning and ending elementary pre-service teachers and beginning early childhood pre-service teachers at the midwestern universityemphasize their own characteristics of being creative,open, supportive and flexible. In general, the mid-western preservice teachers paid more attention totheir own characteristics as teachers than did thesoutheastern preservice teachers.

5.3.5. Teachers' expectationsIn terms of teachers' expectations of children and

beliefs about how they learn, beginning and endingearly childhood and elementary preservice teachers atboth universities had distinctly different conceptions.The beginning groups, when commenting on howchildren learn, were more likely than ending groupsto emphasize didactic learning (children need to learncertain skills, subjects and major concepts) and lesslikely to emphasize spontaneous learning and self-exploration (discovering, solving their own prob-lems, learning from mistakes, developing criticalthinking). This difference is especially reflected inthe southeastern university's ending early childhoodpreservice teachers and the midwestern university'sending elementary preservice teachers' conceptionsof the learning process. The southeastern beginningelementary sample also mentioned didactic learningin subject areas often with only a slight shift in belieftoward exploratory learning at the end. The midwest-ern ending early childhood preservice teachers em-phasized using movies, music, and art in the curric-ulum more than the beginning group.

4. Discussion

The results of this study did not replicate the twodimensions of efficacy, teaching efficacy and per-sonal efficacy, that Gibson and Dembo (1984) found.This may be due to the fact that the participants ofthis study were preservice rather than inservice teach-ers. The preservice teachers may have more undif-ferentiated perceptions of their sense of efficacy dur-ing their teacher education programs because theyhave not had sufficient experience to advance theirthinking in this way (Lortie, 1975). Additionally,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 13: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

146 H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150

Table 6Summary of program characteristics and key findings from the present study

Program characteristic Sense of efficacy Beliefs about teaching and learning

A developmental coursessequence for majorrequirements

Strongly childdevelopment andconstructivist teaching

Two quarter-long practicabefore student teaching

Block methodsStrongly diversity, family

and special educationProgram leads to state

licensure in specialeducation/earlychildhood or earlychildhood familyeducation

Blocks methodsStrongly teaching different

content areas

Block methodsStrongly diversity, family

and special education

Having the highest efficacybeliefsHaving the strongestprogram influence ongraduates' sense of efficacy

Uncertain about one'seffectiveness in addressingchildren's diversity inteaching

Low sense of efficacybeliefs

Low sense of efficacybeliefs

Toward the end of program, having deeperunderstanding of pedagogical responsibilitiesHaving different views of maintainingclassroom control and fostering self directedlearning in an open atmosphereA more constructivist approach to teachingand learningView children play as active role in learningTeacher's role as a facilitatorMore aware of sustaining personalitycharacteristics that mark effective teachers

Focusing on cooperative learning and teamworkHaving different views of maintainingclassroom control and fostering self directedlearning in an open atmosphereHaving many different images of teachers'rolesMore aware of sustaining personalitycharacteristics that mark effective teachers

Toward the end of program, havingextensive understanding of pedagogicalresponsibilitiesMore aware of sustaining personalitycharacteristics that mark effective teachers

Toward the end of program, havingextensive understanding of pedagogicalresponsibilities

some of revised items may have resulted in signifi-cant modifications of the meaning of the originalGibson and Dembo's items. For example, in item 7,we changed "achievement" to "development." Somemay view "development" as less significantly differ-ent than "achievement," viewing "development" as afunction of nature and nurture and "achievement" asthe outcome of academic learning at school. Thosedifferences in interpretation of the revised items maynot be parallel with the meaning of the Gibson andDembo's items. Additionally, in reviewing theteacher efficacy scale, it is evident that the itemsrelate to what the teacher (as the agent) can do. Thus,the scale itself does not address the need for societalchange in order to support children and families inachieving educational equity. The scale focuses onwhat the teacher can do. Perhaps the scale does nottap into the societal change perspective of the Mid-west early childhood studies program and could re-late to their low efficacy means.

We assumed that different programs would reflectdifferent views about what teachers need to know tobe able to teach. By looking at philosophy, goals,

structure, and courses of these programs, we foundthe connections among program characteristics,teachers' efficacy and beliefs about teaching andlearning. Below we discussed briefly some findingsrelated to the characteristics of programs (see Table6).

Both programs clearly identified some body ofknowledge as essential for preparing to teach. Forexample, the southeastern university early childhoodprogram emphasized knowledge of child develop-ment as an integrating core and built around theapplication of child development knowledge toteaching. Additionally, two-quarter long practica be-fore internships led to preservice teachers feelingeffectiveness of their capability to teach. The mid-western elementary program explicted social-con-structivist psychology and curriculum theory to sup-port an orientation to the teaching of academicsubjects. Also it provides an integrated curriculumwhich methods courses are offered in blocks: theo-retical courses followed method courses. Preserviceteachers spend a great deal of time in classrooms

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 14: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150 147

where they get help taking ideas encountered at theuniversity and applying them in practice.

Examining the significantly different efficacyitems across these programs, we found that south-eastern university early childhood preservice teachersand midwestern elementary teachers had a strongsense of their ability to offer culturally appropriatelearning experiences to children from diverse back-grounds, to use effective strategies for handling stu-dents' misbehavers, and to provide appropriate alter-native learning experiences for children who are notsuccessful. Additionally, we found that southeasternuniversity early childhood and elementary preserviceteachers and midwestern elementary teachers had astrong sense of their abilities to find more effectiveways to facilitate learning and to positively negotiatedifferences with parents and children from differentcultural backgrounds.

While both the beginning southeastern universityand midwestern university subjects' responses topedagogical responsibilities represented new ways ofthinking in terms of teaching (grouping, cooperativelearning and hands on instruction), the responseswere nevertheless general and quite standard. In con-trast, the ending preservice teachers at both univer-sities and across both programs displayed a wholepanoply of pedagogical knowledge indicating theteacher education programs lead to differentiationand proliferation of strategies and ways to structureclassrooms.

The differences between ending southeastern uni-versity early childhood and midwestern universityearly childhood and elementary preservice teachers'beliefs of maintaining classroom control and foster-ing self directed learning in an open atmosphere canbe understood in terms of those participants' increas-ing teaching competence and experience, and thebuild up of their trust in students' capabilities tolearn, along with a shift toward a deeper and moreintegrated understanding about teaching and learn-ing. It is also a reflection of the dreaded 'discipline'issue that is prevalent among teachers in general, andtheir unwillingness to give up control because of theirinexperience and uncertainty as they embark on theirteaching career. This difference is again reflected inthe more implicit management comments of the end-ing midwestern and southeastern early childhoodteachers. The different views regarding managementresponsibilities also are reflected in their responseson some items in the Teacher Efficacy Scale. Earlychildhood preservice teachers at the midwestern uni-versity showed lower sense of efficacy on their abil-ity to positively negotiate differences with childrenfrom different background and knowing more effec-tive ways of facilitating learning.

As in the efficacy data, there are patterns of sim-ilarity between the beliefs of the southeastern univer-sity early childhood majors and the midwestern uni-versity elementary majors. The belief statements ofthese two groups documented increasingly frequentresponses related to the pedagogical responsibilitiesof providing opportunities for learning; in helpingchildren think for themselves; in helping children tounderstand, to learn new concepts, and to expandtheir minds; and in their use of role play, themes,cooperative learning, storytelling, and other activi-ties. Their belief statements also showed increasedfrequencies in statements concerning the teacher'srole by serving as a role model for the children, bycommunicating with parents, and by meeting chil-dren's needs. Last, their belief statements showedincreased frequencies in references to the teachercharacteristics of being stable, productive, positive,and responsible.

5. Conclusions

The results of this study show that preserviceteachers' efficacy beliefs were stronger at the end ofthese two different teacher education programs thanthey were at the beginning of the program. This canbe understood in terms of their increasing teachingcompetence through college course work and expe-rience in working with young children. For example,the southeastern university ending-level early child-hood preservice teachers had the highest perceivedefficacy score among groups. At the southeasternuniversity, child development makes up a large por-tion of the foundational knowledge that early child-hood students are expected to learn. A developmentalsix-course sequence is viewed as necessary for teach-ers to plan developmentally appropriate learning ac-tivities for young children as well as the applicationof knowledge during two quarter-long practica beforestudent teaching. Graduates from this program haveacquired a great deal of knowledge of child growthand development which they can apply to their field.Extended study in child development may have madea significant contribution to the early childhoodteachers' efficacy beliefs. Thus, college course workand related teaching experiences, under certain con-ditions, seem to influence the preservice teachers'sense of efficacy (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Enochs etal., 1995; Watters & Ginns, 1995).

The present findings show that preservice teachershave various views regarding teaching and learning.Though perceived efficacy appears to be associatedwith some emerging beliefs about teaching and learn-ing (e.g., the concept of strong teacher responsibility

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 15: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

148 H.-L. Lin el al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150

for children's learning, their perception of role asteachers, and some teacher characteristics of beingstable, productive, positive, and responsible), identi-fying direct links between preservice teachers' senseof efficacy and their beliefs about teaching and learn-ing is limited because of the complexity of definingand analyzing the two constructs. However, one spe-cial pattern associated with efficacy and belief de-serves specific mention. Based on the open-endedresponses, the present study shows some generaltrends in preservice teachers' beliefs from the begin-ning to the end of their programs. At the beginning,preservice teachers from these two universities seemto have traditional conceptions of teaching (didactic,controlling, and providing knowledge) and globalconceptions of learning such as putting children ingroups. Towards the end of their programs, theseconceptions tend toward more facilitative and con-structivist orientations and toward more detailed andexpanded conceptions of teacher roles and pedagogyas well as preservice teachers tend to develop towardhigher perceived efficacy. Most ending-level preser-vice teachers had adopted the views of the way teach-ers are supposed to teach promoted by the particularteacher education program. This finding is consistentwith some of prior studies (Feiman-Nemser et al ,1989; Florio-Ruane & Lensmire, 1990; Gibson,1972; Hollingsworth, 1988; Skipper & Quantz, 1987;Tamir, 1991) which claimed preservice teachers'conceptions may change during teacher preparationprograms.

Through examining philosophy, goals, struc-ture, and courses of these programs, we found thatthe thematic variations across programs tends sup-port to the notion that internal program coherenceacts as an important factor on preservice teachers'beliefs (Tatto, 1998) and their perceived efficacy(see Table 5). According to Tatto (1998), the de-velopment of internal or across-program coherencein teacher preparation facilitates preservice teach-ers' reflection about learning and teaching. Such acoherence may serve to overcome the tendency ofteacher education programs to be "weak interven-tions" (Griffin, 1994) related to preservice teach-ers' beliefs.

We have only begun to examine preservice teach-ers efficacy beliefs and beliefs about teaching andlearning and whether they change as preserviceteachers attend in different teacher education pro-grams. The future study can be extended to the im-pact of particular programs on through examining thepresence or absence of changes in preservice teach-ers' beliefs and then link those changes with the waysof program's approach.

Appendix. Teacher Attitude Scale

1* The amount a child can learn is primarilyrelated to family background.

(4) The amount that a student can learn is pri-marily related to family background.

2 I can successfully guide even the most dif-ficult children.

(15) When I really try, I can get through to mostdifficult students.

3 When a child learns something better thanhe or she normally learns, many times it isbecause I exerted extra effort.

(1) When a student does better than usual, manytimes it is because I exerted a little extraeffort.

4* The hours in my class or program have littleinfluence on children compared to the influ-ence of their home environment.

(2) The hours in my class have little influenceon students compared to the influence oftheir home environment.

5* If children do not receive guidance at home,they aren't likely to accept any guidance.

(6) If students are not disciplined at home, theyaren't likely to accept any discipline.

6 When a child is having difficulty with atask, I am usually able to adjust it to his orher developmental levels.

(12) When a student is having difficulty with anassignment, I am usually able to adjust it tohis/her level.

7 A teacher is very limited in what he or shecan achieve because a child's home envi-ronment is a large influence on his or herdevelopment.

(16) A teacher is very limited in what he/she canachieve because a student's home environ-ment is a large influence on his/her achieve-ment.

8 When a child performs at a higher develop-mental level for his or her age, it is usuallybecause I have found better ways of work-ing with that child.

(14) When a student gets a better grade than heusually gets, it is usually because I foundbetter ways of teaching that student.

9 I can offer culturally appropriate learningexperiences to children from diverse back-grounds.

10 When children improve their ways of work-ing with materials, it is usually because Ifound more effective ways of facilitatingtheir learning.

(19) When the grades of my students improve it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 16: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150 149

is usually because I found more effectiveteaching approaches.

11* If parents would do more with their chil-dren, I could do more.

(23) If parents would do more with their chil-dren, I could do more.

12 If a child gets frustrated interacting in alearning situation. I know how to interveneto help him or her feel successful.

(24) If a student did not remember information Igave in a previous lesson, I would knowhow to increase his/her retention in the nextlesson.

13 I have the ability to positively negotiatedifferences I have with parents and childrenfrom different ethnic, economic, and cul-tural backgrounds.

14 If a child in my class becomes disruptiveand noisy, I feel assured that I know somestrategies for dealing with the situation.

(25) If a student in my class becomes disruptiveand noisy, I feel assured that I know sometechniques to redirect him quickly.

15 Positive experiences at school can make upfor negative experiences outside school.

(27) The influences of a student's home experi-ences can be overcome by good teaching.

16 If a child is not successful completing alearning experience, I would be able to pro-vide appropriate alternatives to help thatchild succeed.

(29) If one of my students could not do a classassignment, I would be able to accuratelyassess whether the assignment was at thecorrect level of difficulty.

17* Even a teacher with good teaching abilitiesmay not reach many children.

(23) Even a teacher with good teaching abilitiesmay not reach many children.

18 If a child learns something thoroughly, thismight be because I was able to teach him orher effectively.

(21) If a student masters a new math conceptquickly, this might be because I knew thenecessary steps in teaching that concept.

* Items 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 17 are reverse-scaled tocreate a total score.

Item numbers in parentheses are from Gibson andDembo's (1984) scale.

References

Allinder, R. M. (1995). An examination of the relationshipbetween teacher efficacy and curriculum-based mea-surement and student achievement. Remedial and Spe-cial Education, 16 (4), 247-254.

Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relation-ships among teachers' and students' thinking skills,sense of efficacy, and student achievement. AlbertaJournal of Educational Research, 34 (2), 148-165.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference:Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement.New York: Longman.

Ashton, P. T., Webb, R. B., & Doda, N. (1982). A study ofteachers' sense of efficacy. Final report, (Vol. 1).Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 231 834)

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bogdan, R. D., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative researchfor education: An introduction to theory and methods(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Clark, C. M. (1988). Teachers as designers in self-directedprofessional development. In A. Hargreaves & M. G.Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp.75-84). New York: Teachers College Press.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thoughtprocess. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of researchon teaching (pp.255-296). New York: Macmillan.

Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efficacy and com-mitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Educa-tion, 60, 323-337.

Coladarci, T., & Breton, W. A. (1997). Teacher efficacy,supervision, and the special education resource - Roomteacher. Journal of Educational Research, 90 (4), 230-240.

Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy inclassroom management and discipline. Educational &Psychological Measurement, 51 (3), 755-766.

Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Giggs, I. M. (1995).The relationship of pupil control to preservice elemen-tary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expect-ancy. Science Education, 79 (1), 63-75.

Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teachingproblems, self-efficacy and commitment to teachingamong preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Re-search, 80 (2), 81-85.

Feitnan-Nemser, S., McDiarmid, G. W., Melnick, S. L., &Parker, M. (1989). Changing beginning teachers' con-ceptions: A description of an introductory teacher edu-cation course (Research Report 89-1). E. Lansing, MI:Michigan State University. (ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Service No. ED 310 093)

Finlayson, D., & Cohen, L. (1967). The teacher's role: Acomparative study of the conceptions of college of ed-ucation students and head teachers. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 37, 22-31.

Florio-Ruane, S., & Lensmire, T. J. (1990). Transformingfuture teachers' ideas about writing instruction. Journalof Curriculum Studies, 22, 277-289.

Gibson, D. R. (1972). Professional socialization: The effectsof a college course upon role conceptions of students inteacher training. Educational Research, 14, 213-219.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: Aconstruct validation. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 76 (4), 569-582.

Gorrell, J., Hazareesingh, N., Carlson, H., & Stenmalm-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 17: Early childhood and elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs

150 H.-L. Lin et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 22 (2001) 135-150

Sjoblom, L. S. (1995). Teacher Attitude Scale. Unpub-lished instrument, Auburn University.

Griffin, G. A. (1994). Teacher education in a time of schoolreform. In M. J. O'Hare (Ed.), Teacher education: Part-nerships in education (pp. 224-245). New York: Mac-millan.

Guskey, T. R. (1987). Context variables that affect mea-sures of teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Re-search, 81 (1), 41-47.

Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: Astudy of construct dimensions. American EducationalResearch Journal, 31, 627-643.

Hollingsworth, S. (1988). Making field-based programswork: A three-level approach to reading education.Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (4), 28-36.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive changein learning to teach. American Educational ResearchJournal, 26, 160-189.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S.(1987). Parent involvement: Contributions of teacherefficacy, school socioeconomic status, and other schoolcharacteristics. American Educational Research Jour-nal, 24, 417-435.

Hutchinson, S. (1990). Education and grounded theory. InR. R. Sherman & R. B. Webb (Eds.). Qualitative re-search in education: Focus and method (pp. 110-122).London: Falmer Press.

Imants, J. G. M., & Tillema, H. H. (1995). A dynamic viewof training for the professional development of teachers.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED390839)

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preser-vice and beginning teachers. Review of EducationalResearch, 62, 129-169.

Kelle, U. (1995). Computer-aided qualitative analysis: The-ory, methods and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kushner, S. N. (1993). Teacher efficacy and preserviceteachers: A construct validation. (ERIC Document Re-production Service No. ED356265)

Lacey, C. (1977). The socialization of teachers. London:Metheun.

Lin, H., & Gorrell, J. (1998). Pre-service teachers' efficacybeliefs in Taiwan. Journal of Research and Develop-ment in Education, 32 (1), 17-25.

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

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). Challenging prospective teach-ers' beliefs during early field experience: A quixoticundertaking? Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (3), 12-20.

McLaughlin, H. J. (1991). The reflection on the blackboard:Student teacher self-evaluation. Alberta Journal of Ed-ucation Research, 37, 141-159.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data anal-ysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd Ed.) ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice ofteaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluationmethods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Saklofske, D., Michaluk, B., & Randhawa, B. (1988).Teachers' efficacy and teaching behaviors. Psychologi-cal Report, 63, 407-414.

Skipper, C. E., & Quantz, R. (1987). Changes in educationalattitudes of education and arts and science studentsduring four years of college. Journal of Teacher Edu-cation, 38 (3), 39-44.

Soodak, L. C , & Podell, D. M. (1994). Teachers' thinkingabout difficult-to-teach students. Journal of EducationalResearch, 88 (1), 44-51.

Soodak, L. C, & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy:Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct.Teaching and Teacher Education, 12 (4), 401-411.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of grounded theory:Grounded theory procedures and techniques. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Tamir, P. (1991). Views and beliefs of Israeli preserviceteachers on teaching and learning. Journal of Educa-tional Research, 84, 239-244.

Tatto, M. T. (1998). The influence of teacher education onteachers' beliefs about purposes of education, roles, andpractice. Journal of Teacher Education, 49 (1), 66-77.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K.(1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Re-view of Educational Research, 68 (2), 202-248.

Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (1995, April). Origins of andchanges in preservice teachers' science teaching effi-cacy. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of theNational Association for Research in Science Teaching,San Francisco.

Weinstein, C. S. (1989). Teacher education students' per-ceptions of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 53-60.

Weinstein, C. S. (1990). Prospective elementary teach-ers' beliefs about teaching: Implications for teachereducation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 279-290.

Wilson, E. K., Konopak, B. C, & Readence, J. E. (1994).Preservice teachers in secondary social studies: Exam-ining conceptions and practices. Theory and Research inSocial Education, 22, 364-379.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teach-ers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journalof Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.

Zeichner, K., & Grant, C. (1981). Biography and socialstructure in the socialization of student teacher: A re-examination of the pupil control ideologies of studentteachers'. Journal of Education for Teaching, 7 (3),298-314.

Zeichner, K., & Tabachnich, B. R. (1981). Are the effects ofuniversity teacher education "washed out" by schoolexperience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32 (3),7-11.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

53 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014