influence of a cooperative early field experience on preservice elementary teachers' science...

SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION

Thomas Dana and Vincent Lunetta, Section Editors

Influence of a Cooperative Early Field Experience on Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Science Self-Eff icacy

JOHN R. CANNON Elementary Science EducationlEducational Research, College of Educationl282, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557-0214, USA

LAWRENCE C. SCHARMANN Center for Science Education, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA

The influence of a cooperative early field experience on preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy was investigated in this study. The sample was comprised of 120 preservice elementary education students enrolled in an elementary science methods course at a large midwestem university. Cooperative learning groups were formed within each of five laboratory sections of the methods course. Each cooperative group witnessed several modeled science lessons employing cooperative techniques prior to planning and teaching a cooperative elementary science lesson in a local public school. Two randomly selected elementary science methods laboratory sections were tested directly before and three other sections immediately after the performance of a cooperative teaching field experience. Testing involved obtaining scores from subjects’ response to the Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Inventory, form B (STEBI-B). The STEBI-B measures science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. A random sample of personal interviews were also given by the researcher to a selected subsample of study participants at the end of the semester. The significant ANOVA findings reported for the data collection subgroup (time of teaching) main effect ( F = 8.63, p < O.OI), lack of significant correlations between the alternative predictor variables, and the STEBI-B scores provides evidence to support an inference that early cooperative field experience had a positive influence on the subjects’ science teaching self-efficacy. 0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Science Education 80(4): 4 19-436 (1996) 0 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/96/0404 19- 18

420 CANNON AND SCHARMANN

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Educational researchers continue to investigate the attributes and characteristics associated with effective science teaching and what role each factor plays in enhancing science instruction at the elementary school level (Ashton, Webb, & Doda, 1983; Bakken & Yeotis, 1992; Czerniak, 1992; Enochs, 1994; Enochs & Riggs, 1990; Enochs, Riggs, & Shroyer, 1995; Barba & Keig, 1993; Hall, McCurdy, Tilgner, & Staley, 1989; Ramey-Gassert, 1993; Ramey-Gassert & Shroyer, 1992; Riggs, 1994; Scharmann, 1988; Shrigley, 1974; Patterson, 1994; Westerback & Long, 1990). In addition, science methods courses at colleges and universities are also involved in in- vestigating and sharing ideas that will foster and ultimately enhance effective science teaching in the public schools (Schafer, 1994).

Research efforts have provided important but only partial insights into developing greater self-confidence among preservice elementary teachers with respect to science instruction. Hence, three factors associated with effective science teacher preparation were considered simultaneously in this study: self-efficacy; cooperative learning processes; and the influence of early field experiences. The specific intent of the researchers, therefore, was to investigate the influence of a cooperative early field experience on preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy.

SELF-EFFICACY

The National Science Teachers Association’s Handbook on Research on Science Teaching and Learning (Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994) cites self-efficacy for being “redefined, employed, and studied extensively . . . including science teacher education” (p. 63). Bandura (1977, 1981) proposed that people develop a universal hope about events based upon prior life occurrences and suggested that one’s abilities are mediated by individual expectations. Furthermore, people develop definite beliefs about how to cope with different situations. Bandura referred to this as self-efficacy.

Bandura’s speculations are manifest in science teaching and learning. For example, if one has had a negative experience with a science course, one probably will expect the next science course to be much the same based upon experience. The person also will likely behave in and cope with the course as they have in the past. Self-efficacy continues to be an important attribute in effective science teaching (Czerniak & Waldon, 1991; Enochs & Riggs, 1990; Riggs, 1991).

Ramey-Gassert and Enochs (1990) reported that:

Behavior is enacted when people not only expect certain behaviors to produce desir- able outcomes [outcome expectancy], but they also believe in their own ability to perform the behaviors [self-efficacy].

Bandura (1977, 1981) speculated that people with a high sense of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy would act in a confident, determined manner. A mixture of the two behaviors might cause individuals momentarily to increase their labors, but in the end, this increase will lead to frustration. People with a low sense of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy would succumb readily if the desired results were not

INFLUENCE OF COOPERATIVE 421

reached immediately (Ramey-Gassert & Enochs, 1990). In science teaching, self-efficacy is “a teacher’s confidence in his or her own teaching abilities” and outcome expectancy as “a teacher’s belief that student learning can be influenced by effective teaching” (Ramey-Gassert & Enochs, 1990). Considering the apparent importance self-efficacy has in relation to effective science teaching, preservice teachers should ideally possess a high degree of self-efficacy involving the teaching of science in or- der for their students to be positively influenced about learning science.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Cooperative learning strategies have been used with students in British education since the late 1500s. The idea was brought to the United States for use in a New York City school in 1806 (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). One basic premise of cooperative learning is based on students doing certain assigned roles working together to accomplish shared goals, such as those suggested in the Learning Together model by Johnson and Johnson ( 199 1). The model is explained as, “Every formal cooperative lesson has two types of objectives-academic and social skills. In planning the lesson the teacher has made a number of preinstructional decisions” (line 76). Johnson and Johnson (1991) continue with discussing: (a) group size; (b) group formation (heterogeneous); (c) group objects and learning materials, that is, textbooks, hands- on science manipulatives and report forms; (d) room arrangement; and (e) roles assigned to students in the group. The ideal use of the model incorporates heterogeneous student groups of four to five that work on assignment sheets specifically designed for this method. Each group hands in a single assignment sheet, and receives rewards and praise for their ability to work cooperatively based on the group product.

Science educators have supported the use of cooperation as a vehicle in hands-on science curricula and subsequent instruction (Marcuccio, 1987). One recent example is the Full Option Science System (FOSS) (1990) developed by the Lawrence Hall of Science. Very often, however, cooperative strategies occur by default because of a shortage in science materials available for use in the elementary classroom (Kyle, Volkman, & Wrhen, 1991).

COOPERATIVE LEARNING, EARLY FIELD EXPERIENCES, AND TEACHER PREPARATION

Although the literature is replete with more than 90 years of research supporting the use of cooperative learning techniques by teachers with children in schools, it is important to note its lack of use or notoriety with preservice elementary science teachers in early field experiences, methods courses, or practicum experiences. The use of multiple early field experiences is associated often with recommendations for teacher preparation programs (Applegate & Lasley, 1985; Book, Byers, & Freeman, 1983). In this study, an early field experience was defined as one formal teaching situation, scheduled within an elementary science methods course, that allowed preservice teachers to teach elementary aged children a science learning cycle in a public school setting just before entering into student teaching.


An Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) data base inquiry yielded no citations directly relating to the combination of cooperative learning strategies and teacher preparation programs. When the ERIC descriptors c-ooperatiw learning, cn- operation, or collaboration were used in the search, the few resulting citations referred to only team-teaching strategies. The context of the citations on team teaching discussed departmentalized elementary schools by which teams of teachers would teach specific subjects to several classrooms. In effect, the team teachers became the content specialists for their grade level (Earl & Winkeljohn, 1977).

Harty, Andersen, and Enochs (1984) reported that, “The available evidence now indicates that field experiences [for preservice elementary teachers] have little or no measurable impact on attitudes toward science teaching” (p. 58). Malone’s (1984) meta-analysis of research associated with teacher education field experiences, however, revealed that methods courses were generally the most effective in improving preservice teachers’ teaching behaviors. More recently, Powell ( 1994), and Foster and Thomas (1995) spoke of similar findings concerning the influence and importance of field experiences in teacher preparation programs.

The literature repeatedly suggests a theoretical value for early field experiences in influencing self-efficacy; however, this influence in practice is often reported in negative terms as it is in positive terms (Harty et al., 1984; Rowe, 1974; Sunal, 1980). While various authors have published in the domain of field experiences, the reader is left unclear regarding how the preservice teachers performed the field experience. Hall, McCurdy, Tilgner, and Staley (1989) probed the intellectual development, science anxiety, and content achievement in preservice elementary teachers. The final report mentioned that, “. . . subjects presented on-site science lessons in small groups in local elementary schools” (p. 3). Miller (198 1) recounted a study on teachers’ behaviors during science activity lessons in which “the behaviors of each preservice teacher were assessed on two science activity lessons, one taught to peers in a microteaching situation and one taught to a class of public school students” (p. 36). Sunal (1980) described an additional research project appraising the effects of a field experience on preservice teacher behaviors during an elementary methods course in which the preservice teachers, “were given a task of planning and teaching a short three lesson science unit for students in an elementary school” (p. 18). As these authors did not explicitly reference the use of cooperative groups of preservice teachers, teaching a lesson together in the schools, one can only assume that the field experiences were done by individuals and not cooperative groups preservice teachers. Perhaps Didham ( 1992) best summarizes much of the murkiness surrounding the definition and use of field experiences by concluding that “Little is known about the effectiveness of the various models of field experiences” (p. 2).

The scope of preservice teacher field experiences reported by Didham (1992) is similarly supported by Tolman and Campbell’s (1989) essay entitled “What Are We Teaching the Teachers of Tomorrow?” that summarizes 239 surveys from teacher preparation institutions across the nation concerning emphasized topics in elementary or secondary science methods courses. The survey results do not include reports of any cooperative learning activities or cooperative field experiences for preservice teachers. A moderate emphasis, however, was reported for microteaching experiences with peers within science methods courses (median = 3; on a six- point scale).


Other studies, on the other hand, do support the use of pairs of preservice teachers planning and presenting science lessons in field experiences. Roberts, Chiapetta, and Jones ( 1974) discuss field experience research where “each two-student team [preservice teachers] is assigned to a specific group of children . . .” (p. 26). Cox and Carpenter (1 989) report on research with in-service teachers where “teachers are required to generate an original activity-based science unit” and that “participants are allowed to work in groups if they desire” (p. 18). Nevertheless, readers of that research are left unclear about what actual teaching, not just planning, methodologies (i.e., cooperative learningheaching strategies) were carried out in the classroom.

Clearly, teacher education programs of the recent past have used early field experiences with preservice science teachers. Most of these field experiences appear to have involved preservice science teachers working as individuals than as part of an instructional group, or team, of teachers in the schools. A review of the literature did not uncover any substantive evidence of the specific use of cooperative or collabora- tive learning strategies by groups of preservice teachers, expressly combined with early field experiences in public schools, in developing greater science self-efficacy among elementary preservice teachers. Many previous research studies have investigated influencing in-service teachers’ self-efficacy (Enochs & Riggs, 1990; Patterson, 1994; Ramey-Gassert, 1994; Riggs, 1994). The research literature surrounding self- efficacy and preservice elementary science teachers, however, is not nearly as developed, specifically focusing on the relationship between cooperative learning and science self-efficacy. Based on these indistinct and ambiguous issues encompassing the use of cooperation in field experiences, the intent of this research was to investigate the influence of a cooperative early field experience on preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy.

Three basic questions provided a foundation upon which to conduct the research:

(a) Does a successful cooperative field-based experience during a course of study in elementary science teaching methods influence science teaching self-efficacy? Does the cooperative grouping of preservice elementary teachers during early field experiences influence their science teaching self-efficacy? Can alternative predictor variables, such as standardized test scores, number of science course hours obtained, or process orientation to science, be identified that can explain a significant degree of common variance among preservice elementary teachers concerning their science self-efficacy?

(b)

(c)

SUBJECTS

The subjects included all students (N = 120) enrolled in a terminal science teaching methods course at a large midwestern university during the spring semester of 1992. Seven males and 113 females comprised the sample group of 25 juniors, 94 seniors, and 1 graduate student. The teacher education program, in which the preservice elementary teachers were matriculated, complied with a typical 4-year course of study. After completing approximately 2 years of general education coursework, students applied for entrance into the College of Education, in which all other required content area methods courses were offered.


The methods course was composed of two different large lecture sections taught by two different instructors meeting twice weekly. It was complemented by five smaller 1 hour 50 minute weekly laboratory meetings also taught by the different instructors, respectively. Both course lecture laboratory sections practiced cooperative learning science activities based on the Learning Together model (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). Both lecture laboratory sections also modeled instruction, learning, and teaching through modified learning cycles (Biological Sciences Cumculum Study, 1992).

To eliminate the research subjects’ sensitivity to the data collection instrument, the laboratory groups were formed by using another instrument that positively correlates to self-efficacy postulates and internal locus of control using student scores on the Science Locus of Control Questionnaire (SciLOC I; Haury, 1984a). Using the SciLOC I scores, students were cooperatively grouped on a heterogeneous basis (1 = high, 2 = medium, 1 = low). The SciLOC I grouping questionnaire produced goodness-of-fit chi-square scores of 2.26 (df = 1, N = 39), p < 0.05 for instructional group 1 (teacher l), and 2.37 (df = 2, N = 81) p (0.05 for instructional group 2 (teacher 2), and did not significantly differ from a normal distribution.

In addition, a median test revealed all sections to be from the same population (N = 120; grand median = 9.5; chi-square = 3.78; p < 0.05). Therefore, the data were pooled and a parametric analysis of quantitative data was adopted.

METHODS

Pilot data had been gathered during the spring, summer, and fall semesters of 1991. It consisted of preservice elementary teachers’ scores on the Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Inventory (STEBI-B) (Enochs & Riggs, 1990), SciLOC I (Haury, 1984a), and Process Orientation to Science Scale (POTSS) (Scharmann, Harty, & Holland, 1986).

The STEBI includes 23 Likert-scaled statements relating to personal beliefs about teaching science. Riggs (1988) originally designed the STEBI (form A) to assess in- service teachers on two subscales: science self-efficacy and science teaching outcome expectancy. Further research by Enochs and Riggs (1990) produced another version of the STEBI (form B) designed to assess preservice teachers on the same subscales of science self-efficacy and science teaching outcome expectancy. The STEBI-B subscale for science teaching self-efficacy numbers 13 statements (range of possible scores 0-65). Only the self-efficacy subscale was selected for analysis in this study.

It should be noted that, in several previous administrations using STEBI-B (Enochs, Scharmann, & Riggs, 1990; Hampton, 1991; Wilson & Scharmann, 1994), significant changes have not been detected for outcome expectancies. An assessment of the potential problems preservice teachers may have in more adequately respond- ing to this subscale, especially in the early stages of their preprofessional program, can be found in Enochs and Riggs (1990). Therefore, in this study, the researchers concentrated their efforts on detecting changes in personal self-efficacy. All future references to STEBI-B scores refere exclusively to the self-efficacy subscale.

The STEBI (form A) questionnaire (Riggs, 1988) was developed by Dr. Iris Riggs, California State University, San Bernardino. The reliability of STEBI-B for internal


consistency was reported as 0.90 (Cronbach’s alpha) (Enochs & Riggs, 1990). Enochs and Riggs (1990) state:

Construct validity for STEBI-B was established by way of factor analysis. Confirrna- tory factor analysis was utilized to determine the construct validity of each hypothesized scale. . . . Considering Bandura’s theory, two factors, outcome expectancy beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs, were requested in the analysis. Since the two scales were found to be modestly correlated (Y = 0.046), an oblique minimum rotation was used. (p. 697)

This analysis revealed that all 13 self-efficacy items in the STEBI-B scale obtained a corrected item correlation of 0.49 to 0.70, and were loaded highly with their own scale.

The SciLOC I (Haury, 1984a), was developed by Dr. David Haury, The Ohio State University. The reliability of SciLOC I was established by an internal consistency coefficient of 0.75 (Cronbach’s alpha). Construct validity for SciLOC I was established by correlating scores from the Expressed Attitude Toward Teaching Science Scale (EATTS; Haury, 1984b). Haury (1 984b) reports that the EATTS Scale matches the SciLOC I dimensions. The SciLOC I questionnaire consists of 18 Likert-scaled statements to which subjects register their agreement or disagreement to a series of questions (range of scores 0-80). By using multiple regression techniques, it was determined that 47% of the variance ( r = 0.69, p IO.001) in EATTS Scale total score can be explained by SciLOC I score variance. Therefore, the SciLOC I results account for a significant proportion of the variance in expressed attitudes as measured by EATTS Scale.

The Process Orientation to Science Scale (POTSS) (Scharmann, Harty, & Holland, 1986) questionnaire was developed to assess one’s orientation to teaching science using science process skills. The POTSS reliability coefficient for internal consistency was reported as 0.83 (Cronbach’s alpha). The POTSS validity coefficients were reported as three types: content; predictive; and construct. Content validity was determined through a Scott coefficient of interrater reliability and reported to be of 0.83. Predictive validity was determined by a Spearman’s rho correlation with achievement resulting in R = 0.57, p < 0.001. Construct validity was determined by a Kruskal- Wallis one-way analysis of variance (by ranks) for “known-group differ- ence” discrimination, chi-square = 33.59, p < 0.001.

The pilot studies conducted and prior evidence reported in the literature suggested various relationships between the constructs of self-efficacy, science locus of control, and process orientation to teaching science leading to the present study. Subse- quently, a posttest-only, control group design was adopted.

The sensitizing of the subjects’ responses to the posttest questionnaire was a potential concern. To perform a posttest-only design, however, it was necessary to form cooperative groups using one questionnaire and yet another to obtain scores upon which to conduct an analysis.

Campbell and Stanley (1963) state “. . . In the repeated-testing setting of much educational research, if appropriate antecedent variates are available, they should cer- tainly be used for blocking or leveling, or as covariates” (p. 26). Underwood (1957)


asserts that blocking on subject variables such as prior grades or test scores can be used. This in turn provides an increase in the power of the significance test very similarly to that provided by a pretest.

Campbell & Stanley (1963) argue that the “. . . identicalness of [a] pretest and posttest is not essential” (p. 26), and that a posttest only design aids in “. . . avoiding an experimenter-introduced pretest session, and avoiding the ‘giveaway’ repeti- tion of identical or highly similar unusual content (as in attitude change studies)”

SciLOC I and STEBI-B measure a related construct (i.e., science teaching self- confidence) and were significantly correlated (Y = 0.43; p < 0.01) for this population. Thus, the SciLOC I was selected for use in forming groups. The STEBI-B was selected to collect data for experimental and interpretive analysis. The SciLOC scores also served as a covariate to STEBI-B scores.

Other collateral data were collected by administering to the sample the Pupil Con- trol Ideology Inventory (PCI) (Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1973). Data were also gathered as Preprofessional Skills Test (PPST) scores in reading, mathematics, and writing, and the number of completed credits in science content courses taken by preservice elementary teachers in the sample.

Cooperative preservice teacher groups were then formed within each of the laboratory sections. All groups witnessed several science learning cycles, modeled by their instructor, that employed cooperative techniques. Each session also employed cooperative learning techniques. Eventually, all preservice teacher cooperative groups en- gaged in the teaching of a science learning cycle in a local public elementary school. The learning cycles emulated the 5 E learning cycle (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 1992). Included in the 5 Es are an engagement, exploration, explanation, elab- oration, and an evaluation phase. The learning cycles, developed for the elementary school children by the preservice teachers’ cooperative groups, were very diverse in content. Each learning cycle was required to include a cooperative learning compo- nent in which to engage the children and provide a basis for exploration.

All cooperative preservice teacher groups (n = 30) were split, for study purposes, into two subsections, which would serve as levels of the independent variable, and placed in an elementary classroom, that ranged in level from first through sixth grade. The resulting number of preservice teacher cooperative groups (n = 14; n= 16) required that 2 days be used in the schools to allow for each cooperative group to teach one learning cycle. Each of the elementary schools serviced largely middle class neighborhoods.

All preservice teacher cooperative groups selected a grade-appropriate topic for their learning cycle or used a topic supplied by the classroom teacher in whose room they would be teaching the learning cycle. Some classrooms actively practiced cooperative learning. Others did not. Therefore, in the classes that did not practice cooperative learning, the preservice teacher groups needed to place the children into cooperative groups. The grouping methodology was kept very simple due to time constraints. Typically, the preservice teacher groups passed out playing cards, or “se- cret numbers” and grouped the children according to card suits or special groups of numbers.

(P. 26).


After the topic selection, each member of the preservice teaching group selected a specific phase of the learning cycle, developed the phase, and consequently taught it, with the other members of their cooperative group. This was the cooperative feature of the study. Each preservice teacher had a specific task (developing a learning cycle phase) to accomplish and carry out in coordination with the other members of the teaching group. This accounts for the individual and group accountability in cooperative learning activities.

No formal “in-school’’ assessment of the preservice teaching groups performance by the instructors followed. The instructors did, however, carefully assist in the development of the final draft of the learning cycle before being taught in the schools. Each learning cycle was formally assessed by the instructor and recorded as a course assignment after completing the early field experience. In addition, a debriefing session for each group followed the field experience in which the instructors reviewed some general observations about the group’s performance in the elementary classroom. These observations included the preservice teachers’ attire, mannerisms, “with- it-ness,” voice, classroom management, and overall application of the learning cycle.

The main purpose of the elementary science methods course’s early field experience was to foster a very well-planned, albeit brief, teaching experience with children. The major intent was to provide a positive reinforcement for “hands-on” science teaching. No early field experiences were done in other methods courses during the semester of this study. The most preparation for field experience the preservice teachers received was either through microteaching or whole class teaching to their peers in on-campus methods classes.

To summarize key methodology, experimental and control groups were established across two instructors’ lab sections. The control groups were those preservice teachers’ cooperative groups surveyed concerning self-efficacy directly before their field experience, and the experimental groups were those preservice teachers’ cooperative groups surveyed concerning self-efficacy directly after their field experience. The treatment in this study was the opportunity to participate in a cooperative early field experience (cooperatively teaching an elementary science learning cycle).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To investigate self-efficacy enhancement, the STEBI-B was administered to one laboratory section from each of the large lecture groups directly before the cooperative early field experience in a public school setting. The remaining three laboratory sections from both large lecture groups were given the STEBI-B test promptly after returning from their early field experience. Table 1 displays the descriptive measures of the study sample with respect to self-efficacy.

An analysis of covariance, or ANCOVA (instructor by time), using the SciLOC I scores as a covariate (Campbell & Stanley, 1963), revealed a significant statistic for the main effect of time as presented in Table 2. In addition, no significant interaction effect between instructional groups (instructor) and data collection subgroups (time) were evident.


TABLE 1 Means and Standard Errors of STEBI-B Scores on Self-Eff icacy for Instructional Groups (Instructor) and Timea when Efficacy Was Measured Relative to Early Field Experience (Time)

Term N Mean SE

All A: Instructor 1 2 B: Time 1 2 AB: Instructor, time 1,1 1 2 2,1 2 2

120

39 81

50 70

17 22 35 46

53.74

52.78 54.70

52.69 54.79

51.90 53.66 53.48 55.92

0.69 0.50

0.61 0.53

1.04 0.92 0.75 0.65

aTime was defined as when the STEBI-B was administered to the cooperative groups of preservice teachers either directly before or after the field experience; 1 = before, 2 =

after.

No significant statistic was obtained for the main effect of instructor (A; F = 2.15; p = 0.146). The significance of the second main effect, time (B; F = 5.17; p = 0.025), indicates the positive influence and value of cooperative early field experience in developing science self-efficacy among preservice elementary teachers. Furthermore, this effect is independent of the influence of instructor since no interaction was indi- cated.

QUALITATIVE MEASURES

To explore the aspects of the quantitative findings of increased self-efficacy further based upon a cooperative early field experience resulting from responses to the

TABLE 2 ANCOVA of Instructor (A) by Time (B) STEBI-B Scores [with SciLOC I Scores (X) as a Covariate]

~~

Source df ss MS F-Ratio Prob> F

X (SciLoc 1) 1 24.92829 24.92829 1.29 0.259 A (Instructor) 1 41.49238 41.49238 2.1 5 0.146 B (Time) 1 99.94376 99.94376 5.17 0.025 AB 1 2.60485 2.60485 0.13 0.71 4 Error 116 2243.143 19.33744 Total 120 2707.835


STEBI-B, interviews were conducted with a random subsample ( n = 22) from each instructor’s lecture sections (Creswell, 1994). The interviews were done to gather data on the lecture section’s perceptions about the cooperative learning components of the course and not to substantiate the increase in self-efficacy scores as reported on the STEBI-B. Students reporting further high STEBI-B might do so merely because they were nearing the end of their methods course. One could presume that any increase in self-efficacy could be attributed to completing the course and, by that, natu- rally feeling better equipped to teach elementary science. The influence of cooperative learning on self-efficacy needed to be more extensively and exclusively studied. Hence, personal interviews were determined to be adequate for such an ex- amination of perceptions concerning cooperative learning techniques.

The interview data coding and analysis used a variation of Glaser and Strauss’ ( 1967) constant comparative analysis technique. Each research question represented a guiding, or working, hypothesis. Each question also represented a working category for data collection. The researchers conducted interviews that lasted approximately 30 minutes each. Interviews were scheduled at the convenience of the preservice teacher.

During the data review, transcriptions of the interviews were finished and com- pared with each other to identify emerging themes within the subjects’ responses. The documentation used for comparison included, but was not limited to, the subjects’ understanding of cooperative learning techniques, feelings about cooperative laboratory assignments, and feelings about the cooperative teaching field experience. Stated in quantitative terms, it was hypothesized that no content differences in the responses between the interviewed preservice teachers would be found.

Once transcribed, a discriminate sampling procedure was applied to the interview data under which “a researcher chooses the sites, persons, and documents that will maximize the opportunities for verifying the story line” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; p. 187). Therefore, selected ksponses from only 12 of the 22 interviews are reported

It is evident from the r sponses that the preservice elementary science teachers in Tables 3-5.

both enjoyed and professionally benefited from working in cooperative groups. Moreover, the positive experiences reported by the preservice teachers, both in the course lecture section’s class laboratories and work in the field, appeared to bolster personal beliefs regarding science and science teaching self-efficacy.

Previous research by Hampton (1991) and Scharmann and Hampton (1995) revealed no significant differences in the development of science teaching self-efficacy from various cooperative grouping types, such as heterogeneous versus random or self-selected grouping, of preservice teachers in an elementary science methods laboratory. Consequently, this research effort focused on the early field experience, accen- tuated by cooperative grouping of preservice elementary science teachers, to enhance science self-efficacy. The results of this study support the conclusion that cooperative early field experiences, and not the accompanying means of grouping, have a positive influence on enhancing preservice teachers’ science self-efficacy.

Finally, an attempt was made to explain the significant results through an alternative group of variables, selected based on evidence indicative of their potential positive influence upon the general population from which these subjects were taken. The variables, determined from either pilot study interview responses, other pilot data, or

4


TABLE 3 Preservice Teachers’ (PT) Selected Responses to Interview Question 1 :

“Do you, personally, like to work in cooperative groups in the elementary science methods lab?”

Probing Statement: “Please give some examples for your answer.”

PT 001 “Yes. I am not very good at science so it provides me a way to get new ideas and work

with people who are enthusiastic about science which I am not always. It’s encouraged me to excel.” PT 003

it. We get to share some ideas and sometimes they are really off the wall but, I got to know them [lab group] better.” PT 015

“I have enjoyed it because I had a really successful group and we have worked really well together. I have worked some in other classes with the groups and maybe they have not gone quite so well. I have ended up doing more work than others. It’s been more evenly distributed in this class. I think it has to do partially with the people in the group. PT 007

“Yeah. It’s better than lecturing or being lectured to. It makes it more interesting when we come up with our own ideas. To be in a lab for two hours, it makes it easier to be in cooperative groups because I can’t sit there that long. This is my first experience with cooperative learning in school.” P T l l O

“For the most part, I really enjoy it in the science labs . . . sometimes I feel, though, that you are not held to some kind of accountability [within the preservice teachers’ cooperative groups] because I feel that if there is not some kind of responsibility put on a person that they have to account for later. . . not really a teacher or anything, but even to your peers because if it’s not there, somebody is not going to do the work and then you are responsible for whoever doesn’t do it, or somebody’s responsible for the other person, so I think if you are going to use cooperative groups, you need to make sure there is some kind of accountability. When you go out and teach [field experience], it may not show it in the classroom . . .who has done all of the work . . . in front of all the students, but when somebody sits at home all night and does all the work, and then you tell them what they are going to teach its not very fair. I don’t know if we need to evaluate each other, a personal evaluation of yourself and your group members and then give it to your professor, or something like that but I think there is some accountability . . . something needs to be done with that part of just the teaching [field experience] part, but the rest of it is fine in the lab.”

“Yes, I think it works pretty good. We all get to participate. It’s not just somebody doing

suggested in the literature reviewed were: process orientation to science; pupil control ideology; standardized test scores; and science content coursework. A correla- tional analysis was conducted between STEBI-B scores and measures of these selected variables. No significant correlations existed between any predictors and subjects’ science self-efficacy scores. Therefore, the variance among preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy scores can only be accounted for in the present study by the positive influence of the cooperative early field experience.


TABLE 4 Preservice Teachers’ (PT) Selected Responses to Interview Question 2:

“How has the cooperative grouping affected your attitude about the elementary science methods lab?”

~

PT 029 “I like it a lot better. I mean, I probably wouldn’t be thrilled to come [to lab] if I had to

work on my own or with somebody different each time. It’s nice to work with the same people each time you come.” PT 007

two or three other people will understand it or they can explain it to me. I think it’s a positive aspect. Before the first day, I was very unsure. I thought it [the lab] was going to be where they tell you what to do but it’s been great.”

“It’s made it more positive. It’s good to know that when I don’t understand things, maybe

CONCLUSIONS

The inference drawn from this study is that cooperative early field experiences appear to have a crucial, positive influence on elementary preservice teachers’ science self-efficacy. Although this conspicuous influence is welcomed, especially considering the myriad of critical educational reform reports, special attention needs to be di- rected at how to best apply cooperative early field experiences in the public schools. Therein lies the problem.

Teaching elementary school is largely an individual and personal effort, usually undertaken by a single person teaching multiple subjects during a typical day. The resulting teaching style or method in elementary school is often rooted in a combination of the new teacher’s childhood personal experiences in public schools, and experiences in coursework of teacher education programs. If, however, teacher education institutions fail to recognize the apparent value in cooperative early field experiences, they may be adding to the feeling of professional isolationism experienced by many in-service teachers (Jinks & Lord, 1990). A report from Stanford University (Stanford study, 1993) on teachers’ self-perception defends this assertion by citing that, “no teacher is an island . . . they are part of a learning community” (line 252). Often, skeptical beliefs held by preservice teachers arise from “being an island” working alone, unaccompanied by peer influences.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION

Teacher preparation field experience courses should consider moving toward a model that encourages preservice teachers working in cooperative groups, both in class and in the public schools. Barba and Keig (1994) studied potential factors that influence science teaching self-efficacy. One factor that emerged from their study of preservice teachers’ perceived educational needs was for assistance in organizing lessons. They concluded that, “Findings from this study indicate that science teaching efficacy beliefs are the best predictors of classroom teaching practice” (p. 20).


TABLE 5 Preservice Teachers’ (PT) Selected Responses to Interview Question 3:

“How hns the cooperative grouping affected your attitude toward teaching science?”

PT 099

science. I come from a generation where you just sit in your seats and you watch the teacher up front do the science and you make notations on whatever. This has really made me feel positive. As a matter of fact, I’m going to take a class in the fall to have a second emphasis in science which I wouldn’t have done if I had not experienced this class.” PT 003

groups. The people I worked with made it a good group. They just enhanced what I was anxious to do anyway.” PT 119

“It made me want to teach science more because when I grew up we did not really do stuff in groups and you were afraid to try things. But when you’re in a group of people, you tend not to be afraid because you know you are all working together.” PT 100

‘I. . .that I don’t have to be perfect; that I do not need to know everything about science to teach it . . . it makes me feel more comfortable in that I can teach my children, or my students, to know that they don’t have to be absolutely correct and right all of the time . . . that there is no one right answer dealing with the ‘why’ of science . . . there are many different ideas. I know a lot more about teaching science than before.” PT 117

“It changed for the positive because before I started this class, I liked science but I didn’t really think of science in correlation with all the other subjects. Now we know ways that language arts can be with reading and math, it can be with art, just integrate it, so you can find time to teach it. I remember in school, science was one of the last things we did so if we did not get to it then it was cut. I think it [science] is important.” PT 068

“I see how cooperative learning works better from this class. In other classes, you kind of learn about it, you sort of do it, but you don’t actually really see how the roles are in there . . . like the teacher gives you a role or you decide among yourselves your role, you follow that role. I guess, just being in a science class, we saw and we did the actual role during our lab experiments and stuff, and I think that was really good. I have gotten more used to it as the class went on. I really like it. I want to do that in my class, especially in science and integrate it into other activities too, because you get so many more ideas by working together.”

“1 was not looking forward to the science methods because I’ve never been very good in

“My attitude was pretty good to start with. I think it is a good idea to work in cooperative

Riggs ( 1994) also investigated potential factors for increasing science self-efficacy in in-service teachers. Teachers were grouped by school and in-serviced by teams of educators and scientists in the FOSS elementary science program. Among many variables, which were found to affect science self-efficacy positively, Riggs describes the value of in-service teachers interacting with each other as they planned for teaching their group lessons. She reported that “teachers were able to share ideas, experiences,


and competencies as they reaped verbal encouragement” (p. lo). In a similar study of in-service teachers and science self-efficacy, Ramey-Gassert ( 1994) concluded that personal science teaching efficacy can be positively influenced through collegial support.

One common thread, which binds these studies together, is the opportunity for teachers, preservice, or in-service, to talk with and offer support to each other. As also concluded by Ramey-Gassert ( 1993), often teachers do not have the political support from school administration to gather for shared dialogue concerning science teaching collectively and collaboratively. This would be as true for other content areas as well. Sadly, public school teachers who band together to work toward a common goal are often viewed more as a threat than as a benefit by the local school district. New teachers must have positive experiences of cooperation and collaboration and extended practice in the requisite skills to talk openly and honestly with other professionals. In this way, future teachers have a better likelihood of becoming reflective practitioners.

DEPARTURES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This study provides two directions for future research. First, given that cooperative early field experiences appear to have a positive influence on elementary preservice teachers’ science self-efficacy, perhaps increased self-efficacy in other content areas, such as math and literacy, can also be stimulated through early cooperative field experiences. Second, teacher educators need to find precisely where, in a preservice teacher’s academic program, these cooperative experiences start to have a genuine impact on one’s beliefs about teaching and learning. Specifically, the problem is whether preservice teachers should be exposed to truly cooperative teaching field experiences early in their program of study. Both study directions are the subject of cur- rent research.

REFERENCES

Applegate, J . & Lasley, T. (1985). Students’ expectations for early field experiences. Tesas Tech Journal of Education, 12,21-36.

Ashton, P., Webb, R., & Doda, N. (1983). A study of teachers’ sense ofeflcacy: Final report, e.wcuriw surnrna1.y (Contract No. 400-79-0075). Washington, DC: National Institute of Ed- ucation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 23 1833).

Bakken, L. & Yeotis, C. G. (1992, March). The effects of science leadership training on self- efficacy and teaching strategy selection of elementary inservice teachers. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

Bandura, A. ( 1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psycholog- ical Reiiew, 84, I 9 I - 2 1 5 .

Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In J. H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive de\vloprnent: Frontiers and possible futures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200-239.


Barba, R. H. & Keig, P. (1994, March). An analysis of preservice elementary teachers’ science teaching eflcacy. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (1992). Science for life and living. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Book, C., Byers, J., & Freeman, D. (1983). Student expectations and teacher education tradi- tions with which we can and cannot live. Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 9- 13.

Campbell, D. & Stanley, J. ( 1963). Ex-perimental and quasi-esperiniental designs for research. Dallas, TX: Houghton-Mifflin.

Cox, C. A. & Carpenter, J. R. (1989). Improving attitudes toward teaching science and reduc- ing science anxiety through increasing confidence in science ability in inservice elementary school teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, I , 14-34.

Creswell, J. W. ( 1994). Research design: Qualitatiiie and quantitatii~ approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Czerniak, C. M. ( 1992, March). A qualitative comparison between preseriice elementary teachers identified as having high and low levels of personal science teaching selfeficacy. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Sci- ence Teaching, Boston, MA.

Czerniak, C. & Waldon, M. (1991). A study qf science teaching eflcacy using qualitative and quantitative research methods. Paper presented and the Annual Meeting of the National As- sociation of Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.

Didham, C. (1992). Rethinking field experiences: Designing a model for the 1990s (Eric Doc- ument Reproduction Service No. ED 348 338).

Earl, R. & Winkeljohn, D. (1977). Attitudes of elementary teachers toward science and science teaching. Science Education, 61,41-54.

Enochs, L. (1994, March). Defining the construct and measuring science efficacy beliefs. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.

Enochs, L. G. & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90,

Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. (1990, April). Further ididation of a preseriice science efficacy belief instrument: The contribution of pupil control ideology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Atlanta, GA.

Enochs, L. G., Riggs, I. M., & Shroyer, M. G. (1995, January). Enhancing preservice teachers’ science teaching sey-eflcacy beliefs. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education of Teachers of Science, Charleston, WV.

Full Option Science System (FOSS) (1990). Regents, University of California. Developed by Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley, CA.

Foster, G. W. & Thomas, J. (1995, January). Field experiences in elementary science and mathematics education: Inter-university perceptions via videotape. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education of Teachers of Science, Charleston, WV.

Glaser, B. & Straws, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Hall, D., McCurdy, D., Tilgner, P., & Staley, M. (1989). Intellectual development, science anxiety, and content achievement in preservice elementary teachers. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA, April 1989 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 304 341).

Hampton, C. M. 0. (1991). Science teaching self-efficacy of preservice elementary teachers as

694 - 706.


influenced by heterogeneous grouping. Unpublished master's thesis. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University.

Harty, H., Andersen, H., & Enochs, L. G. (1984). Science teaching attitudes and class control ideologies of preservice elementary teachers with and without early field experiences. Sci- ence Education, 68, 53-59.

Haury, D. L. (1984a). Science locus of control orientations and the attitudes expressed by elementary teacher interns toward science teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2429A (University Microfilms No. DA 8326875).

Haury, D. J. (1984b). The contribution of science locus of control orientation to espressions of attitude toward science teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA (ERIC Document Repro- duction Service No. ED 244 829).

Jinks, J. & Lord, R. ( 1 990). The Better Elementary Science Teaching Project: Overcoming the rural teacher's professional and academic Isolation. School Science and Mathematics. 90, 125- 133.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. (1991, October). Learning Together. [Electronic manuscript]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Cooperative Learning Computer Bulletin Board System, 1-800-457-7227.

Kyle, W., Volkman, M., & Wrhen, L. (1991). What you think: The Science and Children reader survey. Science and Children, 28, 10- 14.

Malone, M. ( 1984). Project MAFEX: Report on preservice jield esperiences in science education. Paper presented for the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 244 928).

Marcuccio, P. (1987). Forty-five years of science education. Science and Children, 2 , 12- 14. Miller, P. (1981, March). The effects of behavior model analysis on teachers' behaiiors during

science activity lessons. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Associa- tion for Research in Science Teaching, Ellenville, NY.

Patterson, B. P. ( 1994, March). Relationships between measures for attitude, behai*iot; esperi- ence, and self concern for science teaching among insenice elementary teachers. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teach- ing, Anaheim, CA.

Powell, R. (1994). From field science to classroom science: A case study of constrained emer- gence in a second-career science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 31,

Ramey-Gassert, L. ( 1994, March). A qualitatiiie analysis ($factors that influence perwnal science teaching efficacy and outcome expectanc'y beliefs in elementary teachers. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.

Ramey-Gassert, L. ( 1993). A qualitatiw analysis of factors that influence personal science teaching efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs in elementary teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.

Ramey-Gassert, L. & Enochs, L. (1990). Self-effica[.y as a consttwt in science teaching im- provement. Seminar presented at the Center for Science Education Seminar Series, Manhattan, KS.

Ramey-Gassert, L. & Shroyer, M. G. (1992). Enhancing science teaching self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Teaching, 4 , 26- 34.

Riggs, I . M. ( I 988). The development of an elementary teachers' science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.

Riggs, I. (199 1 , April). Gender differences in elementar-y science teacher self-efficacy A paper

273 -29 1 .


presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Riggs, I. (1994, March). Toward enhancing science teaching self-efficacy: An inservice project. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.

Roberts, R., Chiappetta, E., & Jones, H. (1974). A concerns-based elementary science methods course. Science Education, 58, 377-383.

Rowe, M. B. (1974). A humanistic intent: The program of preservice elementary education at the University of Florida. Science Education, 58, 369-376.

Schafer, L. E. (Ed.) (1994). Behind the methods class door: Educating elementary and middle school science teachers. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.

Scharrnann, L. C. (1988). The influences of sequenced instructional strategy and locus of control on preservice elementary teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 589-604.

Scharmann, L. C. & Hampton, C. M. 0. (1995). Cooperative learning and preservice elementary teacher science self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6 , 125- 133.

Scharmann, L. C., Harty, H., & Holland, J . (1986). Development and partial validation of an instrument to examine preservice elementary teachers’ process orientation to science. Sci- ence Education, 70,375-387.

Shrigley, R. (1974). The correlation of science attitude and science knowledge of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 58, 143- 15 1.

Stanford study: No teacher is an island. (1993, March) [5 paragraphs]. Daily Report Card [On-line serial], 3( 17). Available e-mail: [email protected]

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sunal, D. (1980). Effect of field experience during elementary methods courses on preservice

teacher behavior. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 17-23. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J . (1994). Research on instructional strategies for

teaching science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science reaching and learning. A project of the National Science Teachers Association. New York: Macmillan.

Tolman, M. & Campbell, M. (1989). What are we teaching the teachers of tomorrow? Science and Children, 17,56-59.

Underwood, B. J. (1 957). Psychological research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Westerback, M. & Long, M. (1990). Science knowledge and the reduction of anxiety about

teaching earth science in exemplary teachers as measured by the science teaching state-trait anxiety inventory. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 361 -374.

Willower, D., Eidell, T., & Hoy, W. (1973). The school and pupil control ideology (revised). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Studies.

Wilson, J . D. & Scharrnann, L. C. (1994, March). An evaluation of j e l d experiences for the preparation of elementary teachers for science, mathematics, and technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.

Accepted for publication 22 January 1996

influence of a cooperative early field experience on preservice elementary teachers' science...

Documents