Examining the Impact of Context on Preservice Teachers Sense of Teaching Efficacy

Examining the Impact of Context on Preservice Teachers Sense of Teaching EfficacyDr. S. Michael PutmanUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteMichael.Putman@uncc.eduBackground LiteratureTeacher PreparationTheory-Practice DisconnectBall, Sleep, Boerst, & Bass, 2009; Grossman & McDonald, 2008Field Experiences Zeichner, 2010Capraro, Capraro, & Helfeldt, 2010Teaching EfficacyBandura, 1997Posnanski, 2007; Clift & Brady, 2005Teaching Efficacy and Field ExperiencesWoolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005; Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008Oh, et al., 2005; Zeichner & Conklin, 2005teacher preparation programs have been characterized as focusing on preparation of candidates within a theoretical paradigm as opposed to facilitating development of skills through opportunities to practice them with authentic classroom contexts (Ball, Sleep, Boerst, & Bass, 2009). Programs operating within this paradigm have provided teaching candidates multiple opportunities to engage in simulated planning and reflection, but fewer opportunities to practice teaching in authentic settings under normal teaching conditions (Grossman & McDonald, 2008). Grossman and colleagues (2009) point out, Principles developed in the absence of assisted practice lack the depth required to enact such principles in practice. At the same time, learning to enact instructional routines in the absence of a developing sense of the principles underlying such routines reinforces a view of teaching as a set of techniques. (p. 278)

Field experiences have been cited as a mechanism to facilitate this process as they allow candidates with limited training to apply pedagogical skills and strategies in controlled settings under the guidance of a mentor (Berliner, 1985; Zeichner, 2010). research suggests that the learning process of teaching candidates should include multiple opportunities that engage teaching candidates as learners and build from their prior knowledge and understandings within the environments that they will teach (Hammerness, et al., 2005). Grossman and her colleagues (2005) referred to as approximations of practice. These approximations are the result of being able to develop teaching strategies in settings of reduced complexity where candidates do not have to attend to all elements within a teaching situation.

Efficacyhigh levels of efficacy are more likely to implement effective methods of instruction (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Bandura, 1997); persist during difficult teaching situations (Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990); successful at maintaining student engagement (Ashton & Webb). low teacher efficacy has been associated with non-differentiation of instruction, lack of interest in collaboration with other teachers, and negative views toward inclusion (Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998).

Most teaching candidates hold positive efficacy beliefs, but results have shown different resultsPosnanski (2007) noted teaching candidates efficacy is enhanced through participation in university courses that employed a constructivist paradigm and included both modeling and opportunities to apply knowledge in contextually relevant settings.Clift and Brady (2005) noted a positive impact on efficacy when teaching candidates were provided a combination of observation, simulation, and opportunities to work with small groups of students.

efficacy and experiencesMost research done in student teaching with variable results of increases and decreases; although mastery experience should help with more accurateCritical to offer support, guidance, and assistance within demonstrations and approximations of practiceresulted in multiple questions (see Woolkfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005; Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008). Researchers have called for additional studies that investigate features of pathways to teaching that are powerful for preparing teachers and demonstrating a related effect on efficacy for teaching (e.g. Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Zeichner & Conklin, 2005). 2Research QuestionsWhat is the impact of variations in programmatic delivery on the teaching efficacy of teaching candidates?How do programmatic variations impact teaching candidates efficacy for classroom management, instructional strategies, and student engagement?

Researchers have called for additional studies that investigate features of pathways to teaching that are powerful for preparing teachers and demonstrating a related effect on efficacy for teaching (e.g. Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Zeichner & Conklin, 2005). 3Context and ParticipantsElementary education majors admitted to the teaching curriculumCombination of convenience and purposive sampling techniques (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Two courses: foundations and practicumIndependent variable - specific delivery format looping (n = 25; 7 self-removed) blocked (n = 16) traditional (n = 25)original n = 73; enrolled in the sections of the foundations course until twenty-five names were generated. The first class in this sequence, which will be referred to as the foundations course, included content focused on instructional planning and evaluation as well as classroom management theory and design as applied to instructional contexts. As part of the course requirements, candidates developed a minimum of two lesson plans central to a topic or theme and created a classroom management plan citing relevant theories of experts within the field. Teaching candidates did not have the opportunity to teach their lessons nor did they implement any aspects of the classroom management plan as part of typical delivery format for the course; however, they were required to complete 10 hours of observation within an elementary classroom. Feedback was provided by the course instructor on the lessons as well as the classroom management plans.The objectives for candidates enrolled in the practicum experience included: demonstrating proficiency in planning and instructional practice; investigating the various perspectives on student achievement and the factors that affect it; and applying theories and strategies associated with classroom management strategies to teaching situations. Candidates experienced 4-6 hours of observation, conducted 1-6 hours of whole class instruction, and 24-28 hours of small group instruction within the practicum under the guidance of the university instructor and in collaboration with a cooperating teacher at the field site. Lessons for the classroom instruction component were drawn from a ten lesson unit plan developed by the candidates that was focused upon a specific topic as dictated by the curricular topics of the cooperating teaching.4InstrumentThe Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001)Two versions of the TSES long form (24 items) and short form (12 items) TSES score - sum of most positive responses on items written along a 9-point continuum from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal)Example: How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?Includes domain-specific subscales to measure efficacy in student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management High overall reliability for scale ( = .90) and sub-scales: student engagement ( = .86)instructional strategies ( = .81)Management ( = .86)Measurement at beginning of foundations and end of practicum for three delivery formatsEach sub-scale on the short form features four questions focused upon the respective construct. 5Looping

1st admin (n = 16)2nd admin (n = 16)TSESMSDMSDMean ScoreDifferencest-test (df=30)Total Score67.068.3283.638.8316.575.46**SE25.564.0829.813.764.253.06**IS17.502.7323.252.355.756.38**CM24.003.8330.563.756.564.89**BlockedNote.SE = Student Engagement; IS = Instructional Strategies; CM = Classroom Management*p < .05, **p < .01

Traditional Group

Data Analysis & ResultsANOVA #1 to investigate differences on scores at first administrationIndependent variable: context (looping, blocked, traditional)Statistically significant differences based on group membership at p < .01 Total score (F = 23.65) Classroom management (F = 14.97)Instructional strategies (F = 19.12)Student engagement (F = 18.07) Post hoc analysis - Tukeys HSD Candidates enrolled in looping section signficantly higher in overall efficacy and for each domain-specific subscale

Data Analysis and Results (cont.)ANOVA #2 to investigate differences on final administrationIndependent variable: context (looping, blocked, traditional)Statistically significant differences based on group membership at p < .01 Total score (F = 16.89) Classroom management (F = 9.14)Instructional strategies (F = 23.97)Student engagement (F = 10.75) Post hoc analysis - Tukeys HSD Traditional program was significantly lower than looping and blocked groups

TOTAL TSES SCORE

Student Engagement

Instructional Strategies

Classroom ManagementConclusions and ImplicationsBlocked Section benefited from:Multiple opportunities to implement instructional and management strategies described in coursework immediately in contextMastery and vicarious experiencesTheory to practice connectionContinuity and coherence between program purposes and field experiences (see Hammerness et al., 2005)Vicarious experiencesReinforces selecting competent, skilled teachers for practicumDirect access to a university supervisor, cooperating teacher, and peers at several points during the daySocial PersuasionAccesscandidates in the blocked courses to apply theoretical constructs to everyday classroom practices, something that has been theorized as lacking in many teacher education programs (Moore, 2003).

As a result, the candidates in the blocked group experienced dramatic improvements in efficacy to instruct, manage, and engage students. This success was likely enhanced through the careful attention that was directed at selecting the practicum site that ensured the candidates viewed competent and skillful teachers,

15The Rest of the Story?

Total Score All Administrations

Student Engagement18

Instructional Strategies

Classroom ManagementNoting the malleability of the efficacy beliefs of preservice candidates and the long-term implications of these beliefs on behaviors, it is important that this research is incorporated within programs at multiple junctions to ensure conclusions are not specific solely to field experiences that occur within student teaching. Investigators must examine how the multiple contextual elements within programs, include coursework and field experiences, differentially impact the efficacy and enact programmatic change based on findings.

20Select ReferencesBall, D., Sleep, L., Boerst, T., & Bass, H. ( 2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 458-474.Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289.Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 184-205.Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 358-389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

21Select References (cont.)Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, A. (2008). Maybe I can teach those kids. The influence of contextual factors on student teachers efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 166-179.Oh, D. M., Ankers, A. M., Llamas, J. M., & Tomjoy, C. (2005). Impact of pre-service student teaching experience on urban school teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 82-98.Posnanski, T. J. (2007). A redesigned Geoscience content courses impact on science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55(2), 152-157.Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356.Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 89-99.Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education (pp. 645-735). New York: Routledge.