nurturing confidence in preservice elementary science teachers

Journal of Science Teacher Education (2006) 17:165–187DOI: 10.1007/s10972-006-9016-5 c© Springer 2006

Feature Article

Nurturing Confidence in Preservice ElementaryScience Teachers

Robert E. BleicherCalifornia State University Channel Islands, 1 University Drive, Camarillo, CA 93012, U.S.A.e-mail: [email protected].

Published online: 27 June 2006

The purpose of this study was to examine changes in personal science teachingself-efficacy (PSTE), outcome expectancy (STOE), and science conceptual under-standing and relationships among these in preservice teachers. Seventy preserviceteachers enrolled in science teaching methods courses participated in this study.PSTE, STOE, and science conceptual understanding increased significantly dur-ing participation in the course. The study established that novice learners withminimal prior knowledge couldn’t be expected to understand and employ coreconcepts in their learning schema without extensive guidance. The relationshipbetween science learning confidence and science teaching confidence has notbeen theoretically delineated in the area of science teacher education. Findingssuggest that there may be important connections between the two for preserviceteachers that would be fruitful areas for future research.

Keywords: Science content knowledge; Self-efficacy; Preservice elementary teachersmethods courses.

Introduction

Teacher preparation programs are designed to build the foundation for strongpedagogical knowledge. However, preservice teachers’ science understanding isoften insufficient to provide the confidence required to teach science effectively, ina manner that achieves positive factual and conceptual learning outcomes in theirstudents (Bleicher, 2004; Darling-Hammond & Hudson, 1990; King, Shumow, &Lietz, 2001; Schibeci & Hickey, 2000). This study examined changes in personalscience teaching self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and science conceptual under-standing in preservice teachers. This research was informed by Bandura’s (1977)theory of social learning, literature on conceptual understanding, and other studiesof preservice elementary science teaching self-efficacy.

166 BLEICHER

Bandura’s Theory of Social Learning

Bandura’s theory of social learning (Bandura, 1977) provides a useful frame-work to examine the construct of personal science teaching self-efficacy from acognitive science perspective. Simply put, Bandura’s theory posits that we are mo-tivated to perform an action if we believe that the action will have a favorableresult (outcome expectation) and we are confident that we can perform that actionsuccessfully (self-efficacy expectation). Self-efficacy has been studied from manyperspectives (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). However, within science ed-ucation, Bandura’s model has been widely taken up due to its utility in research onscience teaching and teacher education.

Self-efficacy is expressed in everyday terms when we talk about feeling confi-dent to do something (e.g., the ability to get the job done, answer the right question,or come up with the best plan). Thus, teachers who have high personal scienceteaching self-efficacy expectations will express that they are confident that theycan teach science effectively. Regardless of their confidence in their own abilities,there is not always an equal confidence in how well students will achieve in theirlearning. Thus, Bandura’s second construct of “outcome expectation” is critical tounderstanding the whole activity of science teaching.

Self-efficacy and outcome expectations are shaped by four sources of infor-mation: performance accomplishment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion andemotional arousal (Bandura, 1977). Performance accomplishment derives frompersonal practical experience. Vicarious experience involves a person observing an-other’s performance and gaining confidence from this in a manner akin to Lave andWenger’s (1991) notion of legitimate peripheral participation involved in craft ap-prenticeship situations. Verbal persuasion from others can influence our confidenceeither positively or negatively. Finally, the stress of performance relays emotiveinformation that can affect our self-efficacy.

From an exhaustive review of the literature (Bandura (1997)) concluded thatthe evidence across studies is consistent in showing that “perceived self-efficacy”contributes significantly to level of motivation and performance accomplishments.Bandura (2000) embraces an integrated perspective for human performance inwhich social influences operate through psychological mechanisms. Bandura (2000)has written a concise, yet profound statement about the complex interrelationshipbetween human activity and social systems

People are producers as well as products of social systems. By exercis-ing self-influence, human agency operates generatively and proactivelyrather than just reactively. Social structures are created by efficacioushuman activity. The structural practices, in turn, impose constraints andprovide resources and opportunity structures for personal developmentand functioning (p. 29).

NURTURING CONFIDENCE 167

Conceptual Understanding

Donovan, Bransford, and Pellegrino (1999) argue that in order to be ableto teach for understanding, preservice teachers must be given the opportunity toexperience learning for understanding themselves. From their extensive literaturereview, they conclude that this is rarely the case in most teacher training programs.They emphasize that teacher education programs must provide preservice teacherswith subject specific training that helps develop what they call “deep understanding”of the key organizing principles of the subject. This is equivalent to the construct of“conceptual understanding” being employed in this study.

Conceptual understanding refers to the interrelationships among facts, con-cepts, and principles in a content area (Resnick, 1989). Conceptual understandingreflects concept relationships represented in the form of propositions which, whenused as constituents within procedures, algorithms, or rules, become forms of pro-cedural knowledge necessary for problem-solving proficiency that serve as a foun-dation for future learning (DeJong & Ferguson-Hessler, 1996). Vosniadou (1996)suggested that core concepts within a discipline have a relational structure that di-rectly affects conceptual understanding. The relatedness among these core conceptsmust be reflected in course curriculum and text-based materials. Similarly, Romanceand Vitale (1997, 1999) suggested that instructional activities should be designedto require learners to demonstrate how they would represent their understandingof core concept relationships. The TIMSS study (Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen,1996) found that instructional materials used in the United States typically consistedof many diffusely arranged concepts that inhibited meaningful learning. Further, theamount of information presented is so vast that it results in the mere “mentioning”of concepts rather than developing student understanding of core concepts and theirrelationships. As a result, most students do not achieve a conceptual understandingof the subject content knowledge. According to Donovan et al. (1999), findingsfrom cognitive science research indicate that conceptual understanding allows forgreater transfer (application to new problems).

Kozma, Russell, Jones, Marx, and Davis (1996) have shown that novice learn-ers cannot be expected to direct their attention to core concepts in a discipline.Rather, novices require extensive guidance from experts (teachers) to develop deepthought processing and conceptual understanding. This extensive guidance providesa scaffold to support learners as they proceed on an intellectual apprenticeship fromtheir current state of understanding to a state that is progressively closer to experts’understanding.

Studies of Preservice Personal Elementary Science Teaching Self-Efficacy

A number of science education researchers have examined various factorsthat contribute to personal science teaching self-efficacy (e.g., Balunuz, Jarrett,& Bulunuz, 2001; Cakiroglu & Boone, 2002; Cantrell, Young, & Moore, 2003;Palmer, 2006; Rice & Roychoudhury, 2003). Based on their conviction that pre-service teachers’ beliefs about science and science teaching and learning were a

168 BLEICHER

limiting factor to their development as teachers in elementary preservice methodscourses, Enochs and Riggs (1990) developed a research program based on Ban-dura’s self-efficacy theory. An important contribution was the development of avalid and reliable instrument (the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument,STEBI-B) that could be easily administered to measure the two components inthis theory. Based on Bandura’s two-component model, the STEBI-B is composedof two scales, Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Belief (PSTE) and Science Teach-ing Outcome Expectancy (STOE). They urged that the early detection of low self-efficacy in elementary science teaching was critical to any teacher preparationprogram. Several researchers have heeded this advice and used the STEBI-B toexplore issues of self-efficacy in preservice teachers. For example, Bleicher andLindgren (2005) conducted a study of the learning cycle and self-efficacy. Tosun(2000) studied the effects of prior science coursework on self-efficacy. Schoonand Boone (1998) studied alternative conceptions and self-efficacy. Scharmann andHampton (1995) examined self-efficacy in relation to cooperative learning. Settlage(2000) examined learning cycles and self-efficacy. Three other studies have beenparticularly helpful in informing this current study and are discussed in more detailbelow.

Jarrett (1999) studied 112 preservice teachers participating in a field-basedelementary science teaching methods course. The course was designed to “teachscience content and inquiry methods in such a way that those teaching childrenK-5 would feel confident, skilled, and motivated to integrate inquiry science intothe curriculum.” To measure change in confidence, the participants were asked torespond to only one prompt pre and post (Are you confident in your overall abilityto teach science?). The study showed that both interest and confidence in teachingscience increased. Jarrett argues that increases in science content knowledge (oftenbased on hands-on science activity experiences) was the most important factor inthis improvement.

Wingfield, Freeman, and Ramsey (2000) carried out a study aimed at measur-ing the impact of a teacher education program on preservice teachers by the end oftheir first year of teaching (N = 131 for the pre/post program and 31 in the follow-upafter one year teaching group). This program was a site-based preservice programin which the preservice teachers attended the science teaching methods class at anelementary school. They observed science lessons taught by the site-based elemen-tary teachers, assisted in small group instruction, and planned and taught a sciencelesson at the end of their experience. This study showed that participants increasedin their self-efficacy after this program. A follow-up administration of the STEBI-Bshowed that these same preservice teachers maintained this higher level of self-efficacy at the end of their first year of teaching. Wingfield et al. (2000) concludethat the gains were attributable to the mastery experiences of direct practice withelementary school students and vicarious experiences of peer reviews, critiques andlesson planning activities they experienced in the program.

Science teacher education has many aims, but from a novice teacher’s perspec-tive, feeling confident that they will be able to teach science successfully when theyfinally get into the classroom is a real concern. There are a number of reasons for


this, but at the elementary level, one factor is a lack of confidence to teach in unfa-miliar subject areas, particularly science and mathematics (Czerniak & Chiarelott,1990; Silvertsen, 1993). A growing body of research supports the view that personalscience teaching self-efficacy increases when teachers learn more about a subjectand participate in guided and safe practice of new strategies with new curriculum(Clarke & Hollingsworth, 1994; Hawley & Valli, 1999; Supovitz & Turner, 2000).For preservice teachers, strengthening their science conceptual understanding is acritical area of concern.

Purpose

This study aimed to examine changes in PSTE, STOE and science conceptualunderstanding in preservice teachers after participation in an innovative sciencemethods course. Specifically, the following research questions guided the study:

1. Were there significant changes in PSTE or STOE after participation in the inno-vative elementary science methods course in this study?

2. Were there significant changes in science conceptual understanding after partic-ipation in the innovative elementary science methods course in this study?

3. Were there any group differences among different sections of the course?4. Were there any significant relationships between PSTE, STOE, and science

conceptual understanding?

Context of the Study: The Science Teaching Methods Course

Course Philosophy

The course focused on supporting conceptual understanding in the area of earthscience by immersing preservice teachers in engaging hands-on activities, referred toas a hands-on, minds-on science approach. This aim was premised on the assumptionthat success strengthens confidence which leads to continued willingness to learnmore science. This was consistent with national and international education reforminitiatives designed to produce a more literate generation of school graduates.

Course Curriculum

The course was designed to introduce preservice elementary and middle schoolteachers to a learning for understanding approach to the teaching and learning ofscience (Donovan, Bransford, & Peltegrio, 1999). Pedagogical topics included vari-ous approaches to teaching science (e.g., inquiry, direct instruction); the importanceof conceptual understanding as the basis for explaining everyday events and phe-nomena through participation in class discussions, cooperative group work, andproblem solving; how language arts skills and mathematics can be effectively in-tegrated into science lessons to improve student learning of core science concepts;how technology can be effectively used for planning science lessons, teaching sci-

170 BLEICHER

ence including data collection and analysis and as a tool to be used by students (e.g.,video, laser videodisc, Curriculum Planning Tool, a lesson plan software developedby the Florida Department of Education, videos, internet); and accommodatingdiverse learners and limited English proficient students.

Preservice teachers were engaged in learning selected core concepts and prin-ciples of introductory earth science both to provide firsthand learning experiencesand to model many of the pedagogical strategies discussed in the course. Specificscience topics included temperature, heating, cooling, expansion/contraction, mass,volume, density and the force of dynamic pressure as they underlie the understandingof convection and its application in the explanation of crustal, oceanic and atmo-spheric movement. The topic sequence began with understanding heat energy interms of molecular motion, the relation of temperature to heat, and the effectsof heating and cooling on different states of matter including expansion, contrac-tion, and conduction. Next, attributes of matter (e.g., mass, volume) were exploredin building an understanding of density, a very difficult and often misunderstoodconcept. The idea of a force being a push or a pull was next explored leading tounderstanding the force of dynamic pressure in fluids (e.g., ocean water and airin the earth’s atmosphere). The core concepts of expansion, contraction, density,and the force of dynamic pressure were then combined to lead to an understandingof how convection cells operate in masses of water or air. Finally, the effects ofconvection were then examined in various high-interest elementary science topicssuch as earthquakes, volcanoes and weather.

Instructional Approach

A mastery learning instructional approach (Aviles, 2001) was employed whichprovided immediate feedback to learners continuously throughout the semester.Preservice teachers were given ample opportunities to revisit and recycle throughthe material to be mastered on a weekly basis. A typical journal entry illustrates thispoint:

Now that I’m older and have a richer knowledge base, the topics we coverare easier for me to learn. I find them interesting and worth knowingnot just as a future teacher but as a “regular’, person. It seems thatI misplaced most of this previously learned information. The lessons,videodisc, and workbook have allowed the information to resurface. Theideas and concepts are more meaningful to me now as I’m able to seetheir purpose and how they tie into each other and I feel I will be able toapply them in my future classroom (Laura, journal entry # 18).

The lessons that Laura refers to included a variety of instructional strategiesand curriculum design features that aimed to enhance student achievement includinghands-on science activities, use of a laserdisc, written tests, science demonstrations,cooperative learning, general classroom and group discussions, and reflective jour-


naling. Two of these, hands-on science activities and the laserdisc, will be explainedin more detail.

Hands-on Science Activities Every class meeting, preservice teachers en-gaged in several hands-on activities that either introduced or further developedscience concepts. These activities were designed to allow participants the freedomto explore discrepant event phenomena through the senses of sight, hearing, andtouch. For example, participants were told to touch the metal leg of their chairs(which felt “cold”) and then the top of their wood desks (which felt “warm”) andshare their perceptions with their lab partner. After this, they measured the tempera-ture of each object using thermometers. Thermometers revealed that the metal chairlegs and tabletops were the same temperature. This created a discrepant event, forclearly they perceived the metal chair legs to be much colder than the tabletops. Eachpair of lab partners was charged to pursue this problem by further experimentationand discussion and propose an explanation for the two conflicting observations.Success in the course required creativity.

Students were constantly reminded of the course philosophy—“hands-onminds-on” science. It was clear from their journals that the hands-on activitiesachieved this philosophy. The majority of journal reflections on this issue showedstudents were making explicit connections between the activities and the concep-tual understanding of science content in the course. From the many possible entriespertaining to this, the following are typical:

The conductometer experiment was my favorite—it was neat to actuallybe able to test 5 different metals at the same time. The results were clearand I feel like I discovered something that was new information for me—kind of gave me an idea what it might be like when a scientist finally doesan experiment that helps him understand something! (Guadalupe, journalentry #22).

Using the triple beam balance was a fun hands-on activity and as I waslearning to weight things on it, I noted down several teaching ideas Iknow I can use in my classroom (Burt, journal entry #11).

I was never proficient with weights and measurements or metric conver-sions, but the weighing and sinking vs floating activities helped me sort alot of the problems I used to have understanding the differences betweenweight and mass and how they relate to density (Clara, journal entry#18).

The combination of short clear lectures, videodisc, and homework hashelped me see the authentic purpose in learning the science concepts.Questions have been cleared up and I understand things now. Worksheetsand dittos will not help younger students learn science—they need activ-

172 BLEICHER

ities, modeling, and authentic purposes for learning (Anacelia, journalentry #36)

Laserdisc. Along with hands-on activities and instructor lectures, a laserdiscformat instructional program (Hofmeister, Engelmann, Carnine, & Berkheimer,1993), was employed to assist learning. In a typical 3 h class meeting, studentsspent about 20 min interacting with this laserdisc program. The strengths of thisparticular laserdisc were its interactive nature and the excellent graphics whichhelped students visualize difficult core concepts in earth science. For the 15-weekmethods course, the first 15 lessons in this program were explored.

The instructional design of these materials was based upon presenting basicfacts about the earth and atmosphere and fundamental rules dealing with the in-teractions among mass, volume, heating, temperature, density, force and pressure(Grossen, Carnine, Romance, & Vitale, 1998). These then formed the basis forunderstanding phenomena such as plate tectonics, volcanoes, earthquakes, weather,and landforms. Vitale and Romance (1992) found that the laserdisc instructionalprogram was an effective tool to improve preservice teacher content knowledge.A typical student comment about the graphics in this program was, “I found thevideodisc lesson today on conduction to be very effective. The pictures are still veryclear in my mind. I can still see the molecules bouncing all around,” Juan, journalentry # 12. The main aim was to provide a conceptual framework for the learnerand present all information in such a manner as to support exceptional retention.As one student put it, “the videodisc lessons help break science down into easilyunderstood parts and puts the parts back together in a way that really helps meunderstand and remember things,” Linda, journal entry #28.

Methodology

Design and Participants

The study design was a one-group pre-post quantitative design. The 70 par-ticipants in this study were preservice teachers enrolled in an elementary scienceteaching methods course offered at a large urban university (over 50 Teacher Ed-ucation faculty, 2,000 students). The 15-week, one semester course was offered asa multi-section course. Of the 70 participants, 22 attended an evening section, 20attended a morning section, and 28 attended an afternoon section.

Data Collection

Summative changes in preservice teachers’ science conceptual understandingwere measured by administering (pre and post course) a science conceptual under-standing test on the main concepts examined in the course. The test consisted of14 multiple choice questions and 6 short answer items that tested similar conceptsas the multiple choice questions but provided the opportunity to demonstrate moredepth of understanding without the chance of a guess at the answer. Each multiple


choice was weighted as 1 point and each short answer as 2 points, giving a totaltest score of 26 points. Raw scores were converted to a percentage for statisticalanalysis. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for reliability was 0.85. The test has beenadministered to ten different classes of preservice teachers enrolled in the elemen-tary science teaching methods course over a three-year period. The mean for thepre test (M = 46) and range (23–69) and the mean for the post test (M = 85) andrange (60–96) have been consistent across groups and time establishing a degreeof trustworthiness within the population of preservice teachers at the universityin which this research has taken place. Rubrics were developed to score the shortanswer questions. One point was awarded for the identification of the correct coreconcept and one point for an adequate explanation of how that core concept whenapplied helps answer the question.

Formative changes in conceptual understanding were examined from results onthree midterms given at 4-week intervals during the 15-week course. The structurewas 60% multiple choice and 40% short answer. The items were selected fromthe professor’s own test bank developed over the past two years by interviewingpreservice teachers about the items and revising both stem (probe) and answerchoices in terms of wording and substance. Bloom’s taxonomy was employed to helpconstruct the tests according the following specifications: one-fourth knowledge/factlevel, one-half application, and one-fourth analysis, synthesis and/or evaluationlevel. The midterms were cumulative in order to provide feedback to preserviceteachers as to how they were developing in conceptual understanding. For example,it was necessary to understand the concepts represented on midterm one since theywere also included on midterm two along with new concepts and new applications ofthe previous ones. All three midterms were moderately and significantly correlatedto the post conceptual understanding test scores (0.556, 0.470, 0.595). Thus, thevalidity of using them as formative assessments of the development of conceptualunderstanding was strengthened.

Summative changes in preservice teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy andoutcome expectations were measured by administering Enochs and Riggs’ (1990)STEBI-B before and after participation in the study. It contains 23 statements aboutteaching science. For each statement, respondents can choose one of 5 levels ofagreement on a 5-choice, Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to stronglydisagree for each item. A “strongly agree” choice was rated as 5 points, “agree”as 4 down to “strongly disagree” as 1. Thus, the highest possible score was 65 forPSTE and 50 for STOE. These total scale scores were employed in the analysis.The Cronbach alpha coefficient of reliability was 0.84 for PSTE and 0.72 forSTOE.

Formative assessment of teaching confidence was based on research fieldnotesand preservice teachers’ verbal statements and written entries in their journals.Participants kept reflective journals during the semester. The protocol includedthree parts: 1) self-rating their confidence as a learner of science and as a teacherof science after each class meeting (on a 5 point scale–5 very confident, 4 con-fident, 3 undecided, 2 not confident, 1 extremely not confident); 2) commentingon what science concepts were new and challenging and what curricular mate-

174 BLEICHER

rials and instructional strategies helped them learn these; and 3) how they en-visioned teaching the same concepts given the instructional strategies modeledby the instructor in teaching the concepts to them. Participants made journal en-tries each week for a total of 12 entries and a final reflection summarizing theirexperiences in the class overall. Data also included the course professor’s (au-thor) reflections on his own practice written down in his journal on a regularbasis.

Analysis

The Science Conceptual Understanding Test and STEBI-B data were ana-lyzed using Windows, ver 13.0 to conduct a comparison of means on the pre andpost administrations to the whole group of 70 participants employing a two-tailed,paired sample t-test. ANOVA was conducted to compare performances among thethree methods course sections. Relationships between variables were examined byconducting a correlation analysis.

Journals were analyzed using an ad hoc analytic system based on the three-part protocol participant’s used to write in their journals. Self-ratings of confidenceto learn and confidence to teach science were statistically analyzed to determineevidence of growth over time as the course progressed. Particular science conceptsand effective instructional strategies noted were tallied across all 70 journals to de-termine specific concepts that were found challenging across the whole population.

Results

Student Background Data

Table 1 shows demographic data for the three sections of the methods course.All sections were predominately Caucasian (non-Hispanic), female preserviceteachers. The daytime classes were overall a younger group than the evening section.The evening preservice teachers were overall more experienced in teaching thanthe day preservice teachers. For the most part, those who had taught had done soseveral years previously. They were taking the class to refresh their understandingand gain a little confidence.

These demographic variables were applied as grouping variables in order totest for any possible associations with self-efficacy and conceptual understanding.No significant associations were found for gender, ethnicity, age, prior courseworkin science or mathematics, teaching experience, prior degrees, or prior negative orpositive experiences in science classes.

Evidence of Gains in Conceptual Understanding

Summative-Pre-Post Results. The results of a two-tailed paired t-test of thepre and post administrations of the science conceptual understanding test are pre-sented in Table 2. Analysis revealed that participants’ science conceptual under-


standing increased by the end of the fifteen-week methods course. Participants’journals were replete with entries attesting to specific concepts they were beginningto understand and their excitement about it. For example:

I’m really excited that I’m understanding this science stuff. Not only doI understand it, I can apply it. I finally understand the force of dynamicpressure. It amazes me with just a small piece of knowledge (or should Isay, concept) one can build upon so much. I’m looking forward to learningmore about this, so that I can watch the weather and really understand(Brad’s journal entry #18).

These increases in science conceptual understanding are even more significantwhen the larger context of the university careers of participants is taken into consid-eration. Preservice teachers most often pursue undergraduate education or liberalstudies majors (O’Sullivan, Weiss, & Askew, 1998). Several studies (e.g., Raizen& Michelsohn, 1994) have established that they take the minimum number of sci-ence course required. Most science educators agree that increasing their scienceconceptual understanding is a desirable outcome for teacher education programs.

Formative Testing Results. The midterms allowed for a formative assess-ment of conceptual understanding. Since the midterms were constructed from thesame test specifications and were cumulative, it was informative to compare re-sults between the three. Most (80%) preservice teachers achieved about a 15%

Table 1

Demographic Data for the Three Sections of the Methods Course

Afternoon class(N = 28) Morning class(N = 20) Evening class(N = 22)

Gender 27 female, 1 male 20 female 20 female, 2 maleEthnicity 27 white, 1 afro-am 14 white, 3 hisp, 3

afro-am16 white, 3 hisp, 2

afro-am, 1 otherAge 13: 18–21, 8: 22–25, 4:

26–30, 3: 40 +10: 18–21, 5: 22–25, 1:

26–30, 2: 31–39, 2:40 +

2: 18–21, 7: 22–25, 5:26–30, 3: 31–39, 5:40 +

No. ScienceCourses

17: 1–2, 10: 3–4 1: 6 11: 1–2, 6: 3–4, 2: 6 1:10

2: 0, 12: 1–2, 8: 3–4

No. MathCourses

7: 1–2, 19: 3–4, 2: 6 8: 1–2, 12: 3–4, 2: 6 1:10

1: 0, 8: 1–2, 12: 3–4 1:6

Degree (s) 24: none, 4: BA 15: none, 4: BA, 1: MA 11: none, 7: BA, 4: MATeaching

Experience25: none, 2: sub 1: 1–3 yr

tch16: none, 2: sub, 1: 1–3

yr 1: 3 + yr tch11: none, 4: sub, 3: 1–3

yr 4: 3 + yr tchPrior Science

Experi-ences

13: neg, 15: pos 11: neg, 9: pos 9: neg, 8: pos, 5:neither

176 BLEICHER

Table 2

Paired Sample t-test (Two-Tailed) Results for Science Conceptual Understanding Test(N = 70)

Mean SD t p

Pre Test 45.778 9.968 34.808 0.001Post Test 85.400 7.628

gain in test scores between the first and second midterms. For example, a par-ticipant who scored 60% on the first midterm would typically score 75% on thesecond midterm. A two-tailed paired sample t-test showed that this was a statisti-cally significant gain (t = 3.137 at the 0.001 level of significance). There was nostatistically significant gain from the second to the third midterm. However, bythe third midterm, results showed that at least 82% of the preservice teachers hadachieved 80% or better mastery of the earth science concepts highlighted in thecourse.

Participants wrote reflections that provided insights into study habits, moti-vation, and the effect of testing on their science learning and teaching confidence.Twenty-five percent wrote comments on their feelings about the “fairness” of spe-cific test items, and this information was helpful for revising the midterms and, aswell, for encouraging further discussion in office hours. No matter what the aimsof the course, undergraduate students were concerned with their grades and theassessment items being used to determine those grades.

In the methods course, new vocabulary and concepts were introduced onlyafter careful linking to prior concepts. Despite this modeling, preservice teachersexpressed real concerns about fielding tough questions from their future students.In line with findings from Bird and Weller (1997), they were particularly concernedthat they would not know the answer and this might lead to undermining theircredibility as science teachers in their future students’ eyes and to possible classroommanagement problems. As one participant put it, after the professor had facilitateda small group discussion of convection cells:

Yes, I get it now, but it’s all the things you added in between that helped theexplanation. I don’t know all those things. How will I be able to answermy students when they ask questions? (Sally, journal entry #12)

There were occasions when the course professor demonstrated that he didnot know the answer, but had a strategy for researching the answer. Throughthis modeling, preservice teachers learned that the teacher does not have toknow everything. Teachers should, however, be knowledgeable resource man-agers. Also, the technique of making written records of all difficult and/or in-teresting questions in a class journal book was demonstrated. These questionscan be as valuable to the teacher as to students in improving and extending theirknowledge.


Interviews with participants after the course indicated that cramming for themidterms or final was not an effective strategy for success. A typical comment:

You couldn’t wait to the last minute to study for the tests—it was importantto go to all the classes, do the activities and pay attention to the video(laserdisc)—I asked all the questions I wanted to when the exams werepassed back and made notes . . . but the important thing was to reallyunderstand the concepts and do the exams with a clear head ready tothink hard (Bill, journal entry #25).

Although course participants were forewarned that the tests in the methodscourse required them to demonstrate creative thinking and application of coreconceptual understanding on some of the items, they needed the experience oftaking the first midterm to fully understand. This turned out to be a good learningexperience for preservice teachers. About 80% of them wrote journal reflectionsthat supported this. A typical reaction to the course tests follows:

I also feel now that I did not spend enough time on the density math partas when I came to the calculations it was only vaguely there, which isnot good enough. It is amazing though how things will come to you afterthe fact, even when you have been puzzling over something for a while. Idon’t think I did as well as I would have liked. I will be better organizednext time; this was a good learning experience, looking forward to thenext test (Isabel, journal entry #27)!

All preservice teachers felt that the hands-on activities were very helpful indeveloping their understanding of specific concepts. For example, confused bottleswas an activity designed to help them begin to understand convection. In this activity,participants took a bottle filled with red colored hot water and placed another bottleof undyed cold water inverted on top. The colored hot water moved immediatelyupwards to color the cold water above. When reversed, nothing happened—the colddyed water stayed on bottom when the hot water was on top. This activity provided aconcrete model of convection. Through such activities, preservice teachers began todevelop and exhibit scientific habits of mind, particularly creativity. The followingreflection mentions this particular activity.

After the laserdisc I was still confused about convection. First, the “con-fused bottles” investigation really cleared up “my confused ideas”! Afterthis, when the teacher applied the convection idea to the earth’s atmo-sphere I began to really understand the concept. In fact, it really camehome when I applied it to how my air conditioner uses convection to coolmy room (Felicia, journal entry #20).

Course participants began to appreciate that there was more than one way toexamine a problem, and sometimes working backwards from a possible solution was

178 BLEICHER

Table 3

Paired t-test (two-tailed) Results for PSTE and STOE (N = 70)

Mean SD t p

PSTEPre 45.857 6.189 9.003 0.001Post 51.271 5.939

STOEPre 35.571 4.701 4.266 0.001Post 37.800 4.948

more effective than posing a hypothesis and testing it. Relating course conceptualunderstanding to their everyday experiences was an important course feature asnoted in the following typical journal entries:

Since taking this class, I find myself thinking differently about mundanethings. Life is so much more interesting when you think about why thingsare the way they are in the world. We take so much for granted (Bob,journal entry #24).

I know it sounds stupid, but when I pull the coffee pot from its base andit’s still hot and as I’m rinsing the bottom with cold water, I’m thinkingof conduction! What a riot! Never thought I’d think about these things(Priscella, journal entry #28).

PSTE and STOE

There was a significant gain in PSTE. Table 3 presents the results of the two-tailed paired sample t-test. This finding was supported by the weekly ratings forscience teaching confidence that preservice teachers entered in their journals. Atthe end of each week’s entry, they rated their teaching confidence using a 5 pointscale on which 1 is low confidence, 5 high. In the first week of the course, themean for these ratings was 1.2, representing low teaching confidence. At the endof the course, the mean was 4.3, representing a high teaching confidence, whichwas a statistically significant increase in teaching confidence. In addition, there werenumerous written reflections in their journals from all 70 participants that supportedthe assertion that they finished the course with significant gains in both PSTE. Thefollowing journal quotes are representative:

At the beginning of the semester I was nervous about this class. It wasreally hard this semester to make the transition from student to teacherand now I can honestly say that I am strong enough to go into a classroomand teach a science lesson (Janette, journal entry #42).


My confidence has soared and I leave this class more knowledgeableabout science and determined to make a difference with my students(Lola, journal entry #39).

Science is not one of my strong subjects so taking this class has helpedme in a lot of ways. I feel a lot better going into a classroom as a teacherand helping the children understand science (Erica, journal entry #36).

I have never really been good at science. This class really helped me someto enjoy science more. I am more comfortable about teaching science toelementary students now also (Camille, journal entry #44).

There were also significant gains in STOE as noted in Table 3. These data werealso supported by written reflections that indicated that the preservice teachers werenot only perceiving higher science teaching self-efficacy but felt that their teachingwould make a difference to student achievement. Having been successful learningscience through the instructional strategies modeled in the methods course, theyperceived that, if they employed similar strategies, their future preservice teacherswould also have success in learning science. These findings are in agreement withSchoon and Boone (1998), who found a significant positive correlation betweenscience content knowledge and both PSTE and STOE.

A comparison of means, using ANOVA, was conducted to test for differencesamong the three sections of the methods course. There were small differences inpre and post measures in all three sections. However, none of these differences werestatistically significant in regards to PSTE or STOE.

Relationships Between Variables

Correlations were run to determine any possible relationships between vari-ables measured by the STEBI-B, science conceptual understanding test, andmidterms. Table 4 summarizes these relationships in a Pearson correlation coef-ficient matrix. There were significant correlations between the pre and post mea-sures for science conceptual understanding and self-efficacy beliefs. Furthermore,all three midterms were significantly correlated to the post conceptual understand-ing test. This adds support that the midterms were useful instruments to gatherformative measures of conceptual understanding during the progress of the study.

There was a significant correlation between post conceptual understanding andpost PSTE. This indicates that the two are linked in some manner and, while notsuggesting a cause and effect relationship, either may be a predicator of the other. Inthis case, findings indicate that higher conceptual understanding outcomes predictthat preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs will be more positive or vice versa.This study suggests that it is important for methods course instructors to take bothfactors into consideration when evaluating the impact that course preparation mayhave on teaching practice.

180 BLEICHER

Tabl

e4

Pear

son

Cor

rela

tion

Coe

ffici

entM

atri

xfo

rVa

riab

les

inSt

udy

(N=

70)

Pre

Und

er.

Post

Und

er.

Mid

term

1M

idte

rm2

Mid

term

3Pr

ePS

TE

Post

PST

EPr

eST

OE

Post

STO

E

Pre

Und

erst

andi

ng1.

000

Post

Und

erst

andi

ng0.

440

1.00

0M

idte

rm1

0.32

90.

556

1.00

0M

idte

rm2

0.21

50.

470

0.45

71.

000

Mid

term

30.

209

0.59

50.

456

0.67

91.

000

Pre

PST

E0.

218

0.09

9−

0.02

60.

072

0.14

21.

000

Post

PST

E0.

213

0.31

20.

278

0.11

90.

199

0.65

61.

000

Pre

STO

E0.

117

0.24

00.

020

0.15

00.

215

0.21

00.

290

1.00

0Po

stST

OE

0.08

50.

167

0.12

00.

150

0.18

00.

017

0.24

20.

591

1.00

0

Inbo

ld,s

igni

fican

tval

ues

(exc

eptd

iago

nal)

atth

ele

velo

fsi

gnifi

canc

eal

pha=

0.05

0(T

wo-

taile

dte

st)


Discussion

This study takes the same stance as Enochs and Riggs (1990), Jarrett (1999),Tosun (2000), and Wingfield et al. (2000), that personal teaching self-efficacy shouldbe explicitly addressed in teacher education programs. All of these studies pointout different factors and methods course strategies that might account for increasesin teaching confidence. In the discussion that follows, this study aims to comparefindings and extend some of the assertions made in these previous studies.

Sources of Information Shaping Confidence

The course instructor modeling specific teaching strategies was an exampleof students participating in vicarious experience, the second of Bandura’s (1977)sources of information for self-efficacy. Some of these strategies included facil-itating whole class and small group discussions and conducting demonstrations.Participants’ journal reflections demonstrated that they felt more confident aboutteaching science from observing the instructor model these strategies. This findingis in agreement with research by Enochs, Scharmann, and Riggs (1995).

The fact that preservice teachers worked with lab partners throughout all as-pects of the coursework provided for shaping of teaching confidence by verbalpersuasion, Bandura’s third source of information for self-efficacy. There are nu-merous entries in the professor’s journal attesting to lab partners bolstering theconfidence of one another. Lab partners worked well pulling one another alongon the “conceptual journey” that was being promoted in the methods course. Thisrelates to the peer learning model that is used in many innovative K-16 settings.The idea of peers teaching their peers is especially successful as there is less anx-iety of trying out new explanations privately to one’s peer rather than publicly tothe teacher in front of the rest of the class (Gossert et al., 2001). Desouza andCzerniak (2003) and found that verbal persuasion through peer interactions helpedfoster more positive attitudes towards teachers engaging in collaborative reflectivepractices. In this study, peer teaching promoted success in developing conceptualunderstanding and added proportionately to the sum total of confidence.

Science Conceptual Understanding. Tosun (2000) concludes that “sciencecontent knowledge may play a role, but it is not the primary factor that determinesthe success of a teacher. This should not be taken as to totally dismiss the role ofscience content knowledge but, instead, to point to the notion that teacher educationprograms must be sure to address teacher efficacy beliefs” (p. 29). This present studyconcurs that science content knowledge, particularly a conceptual understandingof that knowledge, and self-efficacy beliefs should be highlighted in preserviceteacher education. The findings of this study support the notion that the instructionalapproach employed is crucial to insure increases in preservice teachers’ conceptualunderstanding.

Gains in conceptual understanding were demonstrated by the positive achieve-ment results on the three midterms and the post conceptual understanding test.

182 BLEICHER

The course professor’s reflective notes, and participants’ reflections concurred thatthree factors were critical to achieving this conceptual understanding. These wererepetition of concepts (particularly the repetition of derivations of links betweenconcepts), alternations between videodisc and hands-on activity experiences, andwhole class and small group discussions of concepts and teaching and learningissues as they came up. Once in place, this three-part instructional cycling ofactivity was associated with increases in preservice teachers’ achievement resultsand confidence as science learners.

Preservice teachers were able to understand science concepts and constructconnections between those concepts as they progressed on their conceptual journeyin the course. The findings of this study support the development of conceptualunderstanding as a first principle in an elementary science teaching methods course.This is in accordance with findings by Stevens and Wenner (1996) and Schoon andBoone (1998), among others.

Schoon and Boone (1998) worked in the area of alternative conceptions andtheir possible relationships to self-efficacy. They concluded that the holding of al-ternative conceptions of science might be one factor in explaining the generallylow self-efficacy in preservice teachers. Findings from this present study wouldsupport this conclusion. Many of the preservice teachers in this study expressedeither weak conceptions or even misconceptions about concepts examined in thecourse (e.g., mass, density, temperature and heat, conduction). In the early stagesof the course, most exhibited difficulty in recalling facts or linking concepts. Yet,these areas strengthened during the course and, by completion, all course partic-ipants expressed that they felt more confident to learn science and also that theythought they would be more capable of teaching science in their future teachingcareers.

Prior School Science Experiences. Both Jarrett (1999) and Tosun (2000)focus on predicting increases in teaching confidence by either prior elementaryschool experience or high school science content knowledge courses. While priorexperience is an important consideration, this present study argues that even if suchexperiences were negative, a science teaching methods course that can offer a “firsttime” success experience in learning science will increase confidence in learningscience and may have the consequence of increasing confidence in envisionedfuture teaching. This claim is supported by similar findings from other studies thatfocused on other areas such as cooperative learning (Scharmann & Hampton, 1995)and learning cycles (Settlage, 2000).

Conclusions

Preservice teachers in this study participated in a science teaching methodscourse based on nurturing science conceptual understanding and confidence tolearn science. In the area of conceptual understanding, it is informative to considerKozma et al.’s (1996) notion that novice learners with minimal prior knowledge


cannot be expected to understand and employ core concepts in their learning schemawithout extensive guidance. This guidance was provided by intensive classroominteractions between the professor and preservice teachers in class discussionsand in small group guidance during hands-on activities. The use of well-designedinstructional aides (e.g., the videodisc) provided a second voice to the professor’sto further enhance this guidance. The teacher modeled effective teaching strategiesand provided learning opportunities that integrated conceptual understanding withhands-on learning experiences. Preservice teachers expressed that they felt theywould be able to teach science in their future careers. The trustworthiness of thisstudy’s findings is strengthened by agreement between multiple data sources.

The relationship between learning confidence and teaching confidence hasnot been theoretically delineated in the area of science teacher education. Whilethe research design of this study does not allow for proposing causal models, itsuggests that there may be important connections between confidence in learningscience and confidence in teaching science for preservice teachers that would befruitful areas for future research. This study demonstrates that science teachingself-efficacy is associated with innovative approaches in the university classroomsetting for science teaching methods courses. Preservice teachers can be exposedto ways of thinking and practicing science education in a methods course that canhave a strong effect upon their beliefs that form the foundation for their futurepractice (Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). Understanding of beliefs aboutteaching and learning in preservice teachers is an important educational concern inthe new millennium (Yost et al., 2000). Early examination of preservice teachers’confidence about learning science and teaching it is crucial to ensuring that newteachers will succeed in their practice (Enochs & Riggs, 1990).

Some of the suggestions emerging from the implications of this study are be-ing implemented into the teaching of current elementary science teaching methodscourses. The aim is to provide an opportunity for preservice teachers to experi-ence success at developing a conceptual understanding of science and increasedconfidence in learning science. In agreement with other researchers (Jarrett, 1999;Richardson, 1996), longitudinal studies of these preservice teachers in their earlyteaching careers are an important area for future research. In closing, the voiceof participants through summative journal reflections is a fitting testimonial to thesuccess of the methods course in nurturing their science learning confidence:

I find science the most practical course for living compared to othermethods course content or foundation courses. I never thought I wouldtake science courses. It was unexpected. My confidence increased from 2to 5 (Felix, journal entry #21).

I was scared of science on the first day of class; I became more confidentwith each class and now feel fully confident (Sarah, journal entry #32).

184 BLEICHER

References

Bleicher, R. E. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring Self-Efficacy in Pre-service Elementary Teachers. School Science and Mathematics Journal, 104,383–391 .

Bleicher, R. E., & Lindgren, J. (2005). Success in learning science and preservicescience teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 205–255.

Aviles, C. B. (2001). Implementing mastery learning in the social work classroom.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 448 401).

Balunuz, M., Jarrett, O. S., & Bulunuz, N. (2001, March). Growth of scienceinterest and confidence among turkish pre-service elementary teachers. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research ofScience Teaching, St Louis.

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

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

Bandura, A. (2000). Self-efficacy: Foundation of agency. In: W. Perrig & A. Gorb(Eds.), Control of human behavior, mental processes, and consciousness,(pp.17–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bird, M. D., & Weller, H. G. (1997). Cultures in conflict: The role of teacherknowledge in inquiry science lessons. Paper presented at the annual confer-ence of he National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago,Illinois.

Cakiroglu, J., & Boone, W. J. (2002). Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs andtheir conceptions of photosynthesis and inheritance, Journal of ElementaryScience Education, 14, 1–14.

Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teachingefficacy of preservice teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14,177–192.

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (1994). Reconceptualising teacher change. In:G. Bell, B. Wright, N. Leeson, & J. Geeke (Eds.), Challenges in mathematicseducation: Constraints on construction, Proceedings of the Seventeenth AnnualConference of the Mathematics Education Research Group in Australasia. pp.(153–163). Lismore, New South Wales: MERGA.

Czerniak, C., & Chiarelott, L. (1990). Teacher education for effective science in-struction: A social cognitive perspective. Journal of Teacher in Education, 41,49–58.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Hudson, L. (1990). Precollege science and mathematicsteachers: Supply, demand, quality. Review of Research in Education, 16, 223–266.

DeJong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. (1996). Types and quality of knowledge.Educational Psychologist. 31, 105–113.

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


toward and beliefs about collaborative reflective practice. Journal of ScienceTeacher in Education, 14, 75–96.

Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1999). How people learn:Bridging research and practice (National Research Council). Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Enochs, L., & Riggs, I. (1990). Further development of an elementary scienceteaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. SchoolScience and Mathematics, 90, 694–706.

Enochs, L., Scharmann, L., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). Relationship of pupil control topreservice elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy.Science Education, 79, 63–75.

Gossert, D. K., Cracolice, M. S., Kampmeier, J. A., Roth, V., Strozak, V. S., &Varma-Nelson, P. (2001). Peer-led team learning a guidebook. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Grossen, B., Carnine, D., Romance, N., & Vitale, M. (1998). Effective strategiesfor teaching science. In E. Kameenui & D. Carnine (Eds.), Effective teachingstrategies that accommodate diverse learners (pp. 113–134). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Merrill.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional de-velopment: A new consensus. In: G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.),Handbook of teaching and policy. New York: Teachers College.

Hofmeister, A., Engelmann, S., Carnine, D., & Berkheimer, G. (1993). Instructor’smanual to earth science. Washington, DC: Learning 2000, Inc.

Jarrett, O. S. (1999). Science interest and confidence among preservice teachers.Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(1), 49–59.

King, K., Shumow, L., & Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elemen-tary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. ScienceEducation, 85, 89–110.

Kozma, R. B., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiplelinked representations to facilitate science understanding. In S. Vosniadou,E. De Corte, R. Glaser & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives onthe design of technology—supported learning environments. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Sullivan, C. Y., Weiss, A. R., & Askew, J. M. (1998). Students learning science:A report on policies and practices in U.S. schools. Washington, DC: NationalCenter of Education Statistics.

Palmer, D.H. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course forprimary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, OnlineFirst, 1–17.

Raizen, S. A., & Michelsohn, A. M. (Eds.). (1994). The future of science in elemen-tary schools: Educating prospective teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Resnick, L. B. (1989). Knowing, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Rice, D. C., & Roychoudhury, A. (2003). Preparing more confident preservice

186 BLEICHER

elementary science teacher: One elementary science methods teacher’s self-study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 97–126.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J.Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education, 2nd ed. (pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillan.

Romance, N., & Vitale, M. (1997). Knowledge representation systems: Basis for thedesign of instruction for undergraduate course curriculum. Paper presented atthe eighth National Conference on Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville, FL.

Romance, N., & Vitale, M. (1999). Concept mapping as a tool for learning: broad-ening the framework for student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 47,74–79.

Scharmann, L. S., & Hampton, C. O. (1995). Cooperative learning and preservice el-ementary teacher science self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education,6, 125–133.

Schibeci, R. A., & Hickey, R. (2000). Is it natural or processed? Elementary schoolteachers and conceptions about materials. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 37, 1154–1170.

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., & Raizen, S. (1996). A splintered vision: An in-vestigation of US science and mathematics education. Norwell, MA: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions ofscience of preservice teachers. Science Education, 82, 553–568.

Settlage, J. (2007). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities toembrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Ed-ucation, 84, 43–50.

Silvertsen, M. L. (1993). Transforming ideas for teaching and learning science.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Service No. ED 362 417).

Stevens, C., & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge andbeliefs regarding science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics,96, 2–9.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional developmenton science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 37, 963–980.

Tosun, T. (2000). The impact of prior science course experience and achievement onthe science teaching self-efficacy of preservice teachers. Journal of ElementaryScience Education, 12, 21–31.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher effi-cacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Education Research, 68, 202–248.

Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (1992). Using videodisc technology in an el-ementary science teaching methods course to remediate science knowledgedeficiencies and facilitate science teaching attitudes. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 29, 915–928.

Vosniadou, S. (1996). Learning environments for representational growth and cog-


nitive flexibility. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.),International perspective on the design of technology supported learning en-vironments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wingfield, M. E., Freeman, L., & Ramsey, J. (2000). Science teaching self-efficacy offirst year elementary teachers trained in a site based program. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in ScienceTeaching, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Reproduction Document No. ED 439956).

Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of theconstruct of critical reflection: implications for teacher education programmingin the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 39–49.

nurturing confidence in preservice elementary science teachers

Documents