the influence of methods instruction on the beliefs of preservice elementary and secondary science...
TRANSCRIPT
14
The Influence of Methods Instruction on the Beliefs of PreserviceElementary and Secondary Science Teachers: PreliminaryComparative Analyses
Linda Cronin-Jones
Edward L. Shaw, Jr.
Department of Curriculum and InstructionThe University of FloridaGainesville, Florida 32611
College of EducationThe University of South AlabamaMobile, Alabama 36688
For many years, both researchers and practitioners havehighlighted the many striking differences between the contentarea knowledge and teaching practices of elementary andsecondary level teachers. In addition, numerous studies havecompared the instructional repertoires and effectiveness ofteachers at the elementary and secondary levels. Althoughhundreds of studies have documented the performance andbehaviors ofelementary and secondary level teachers, very fewofthese studies have included an examination ofthe underlyingbeliefs influencing these observable behaviors. As Munby(1983) has indicated, researchers must go beyond the realms ofbehavior and knowledge and conduct studies of teacher beliefsin order to develop a truly accurate description of the teachingprocess.
Recently, researchers and practitioners have begun toacknowledge the important, yet poorly understood, influencethat teacher beliefs have on virtually every aspect of theteaching/learning process (Cronin, 1986). dark and Peterson(1986) have documented the strong link between teacher beliefsand teacher actions but the majority of research conducted inthis area has focused almost exclusively on veteran teachers(i.e. teachers with three ormoreyears ofexperience). Whilethedata generated from these studies indicate that the beliefs ofveteran teachers are typically well-grounded and extremelyresistant to change (Munby, 1982). it appears that the beliefs ofpreservice and novice teachers might be quite amenable tochange as a result of instruction and/or experience.
Researchers such as Maycr and Goldsberry (1987) haveindicated that the ideal time to explore the beliefs of teachers isduring the early stages of a teacher’s development. Theyhypothesize that during these early stages teacher beliefs tendto be in a state of flux. Other researchers, including Peterson,Fennema, Carpenter, and Loef (1987), have also highlightedthe importance ofstudying teacher beliefs within the context ofparticular subjects such as science and mathematics. They haveidentified the limitations of studies focusing on teacher beliefsacross a wide range of curriculum areas. Other researchers,including McNair (1979), have indicated that grade level couldcontribute significantly to the differences in teacher beliefs andperformance and warrants more study. Finally, Hollon and
Anderson (1987) have stated that more detailed comparisons ofthe beliefs ofelementary versus secondary teachers are needed.
Objectives
This study attempted to address the concerns ofresearchersin the area of teacher beliefs by: (a) focusing on the beliefs ofteachers during the early stages of their development, (b)concentrating on the beliefs of teachers within one subject area(science), and (c) exploring the belief structures of teachersfrom different grade levels. This study was designed to utilizequalitativeand quantitative research techniques to: (a) determinethe beliefs ofpreservice elementary and secondary level scienceteachers before and after participation in a science methodscourse, (b) describe the changes in preservice teacher beliefsresulting from participation in a science methods course, and (c)compare and contrast the belief structures of preserviceelementary and secondary level teachers both before and aftercompletion of a science methods course.
Design and Procedures
The data collection and analysis techniques used in thispreliminary study were designed to elicit more reliable andvalid data by minimizing the potential distorting influence ofresearcher-imposed perspectives. In order to accomplish thisgoal, the methodology employed in this study consisted of therepertory grid technique fortified with factor analysis. Thisinterpretiveresearch study wasdesigned to providepreliminarydata for use in the development ofa grounded theory regardingthe differences in preservice elementary and secondary scienceteacher beliefs; therefore, small samples for the initial studywere selected from each preservice teacher group.
Data Collection
Preservice elementaryand secondary scienceteacherbeliefswere elicited in interviews conducted both before and after thecompletion of a science methods course during the 1987-88school year. Repertorygrids weregeneratedbyaskingpreservice
School Science and Mathematics
Methods Instruction
15
teachers two sets ofquestions. First, each student was presentedwith the following scenario and questions: "Imagine you areteaching the grade level you like best and the subject you likebest in a school and classroom in which you feel comfortable. IfI were to observe you teaching for one full class period, whatwould I see going on from start to finish? What would you doand what would the students do?" Students were reminded tofocus on events, behaviors, and activities rather than descriptionsof what the room would look like.
The specific descriptions of behaviors generated from thisscenario and questions were listed on the horizontal elementsaxis ofthe grid. After each student was finished responding, thelist of behaviors he or she generated was read aloud, and thestudent was asked to make changes, additions, or deletions.
Next, each student was asked to look over his or her list ofbehaviors and was asked, "Why would you do the things youlisted and why would the students do the things you listed? Youdon’t have to identify a specific reason for each individualbehavior but rather think about your reasons in general terms."The set of reasons generated from this question formed thevertical constructs axis of the grid. After each student wasfinished responding, the list of reasons was read aloud, and thestudent was asked to make any changes, additions, or deletions.Each respondent was allowed to list as many behaviors andreasons as he or she wished, and no time limit for respondingwas imposed. Although some of the descriptions of behaviorsand reasons were paraphrased, they still contained only theactual words used by each student.
After the axes ofthe grid were completed, each student filledin all of the cells of his or her grid with numbers ranging from 1to 3. These numbers (1 = definitely not related, 2 = neutral -might or might not be related, 3 = definitely related) indicatedeach student’s perceived relationship between each behavior(element) and each reason (construct) on his or her own grid.Figures 1 and 2 contain sample completed repertory grids for anelementaryand secondary sciencemethods student, respectively.
Each completed grid was factor analyzed using a computergenerated principal components analysis with varimax rotation.The expectation was that the variables (constructs) with somecommonality would be placed in the same factor. Summaries offactors and their component student-generated constructs fromboth the principal components and varimax rotation analyseswere then developed. Constructs which had negative loadingsfor all factors or which showed no variance were not included inthe summaries. A sample factor analysis summary sheet for anelementary student is included in Figure 3 while Figure 4contains a secondary student’s factor analysis summary sheet.
Data Sources
The sample for this study consisted of two groups. Group 1wascomposed of 12 undergraduateelementary education majorsenrolled in a teacherpreparation program in Alabama. All ofthestudents were females whose ages ranged from 21 to 39 years.
At the time of the study, all of the elementary educationstudents were completing their senior year and were enrolledin the same science methods course.
Group 2 was composed of 12 secondary science educationmajors enrolled in agraduate level teacherpreparation programin Florida. All 12 of these students had bachelor’s degrees intheir science subject areas (e.g. biology, chemistry, andphysics). Eight of the students were female and four weremale. They ranged in age from 22 to 45 years. At the time ofthe study, all of the students were beginning their first fullsemester of graduate work, and all were enrolled in the samescience methods course.
The predominance of female participants in this studyreflects the gender distribution commonly encountered inpreservice elementary and secondary teacher educationprograms. Due to the lack of available male subjects in theelementary sample, gender-related differences in beliefs werenot examined.
Data Analysis
The repertory grids and factor structures generated for eachstudentwere analyzed on two levels. First, they were reviewedto determine major categories on focus. Next, componentsubcategories were identified until all factors, constructs, andnarrative statements could be assigned to a particularsubcategory. In the second level ofanalysis, comparisons weremade between the organization and content of the grids andfactor structures developed before and after completion of thescience methods course. These changes were examined onboth individual and collective levels for both groups.
Results
For the preservice elementary students, the number offactors generated from a given grid ranged from 1 to 3 for gridsgenerated both before and after completion of the sciencemethods course. Themean numberoffactors generated for thegroup as a whole was 2 for both pre- and post-methods grids.The total number of constructs generated ranged from 4 to 17for pro-methods instruction grids (mean= 10) and from 5 to 15for post-methods instruction grids (mean = 8.2). The numberof constructs contained in individual factors ranged from 3 to11 (mean =6.6) for pro-methods grids from 3to 8(mean=5.1)for post-methods grids.
For theproservico secondary students, thenumberoffactorsgenerated from agiven grid ranged from 2 to 5 forpro-methodsgrids and from 2 to 6 for post-methods grids. The meannumber of factors generated for the group as a whole was 3 forboth pre- andpost-methods instruction grids. The total numberof constructs generated ranged from 4 to 20 for pro-methodsinstruction grids (mean =10) and from 5 to 19 for post-methodsgrids (mean = 11). The number of constructs contained inindividual factors ranged from 1 to 7 for both pre- and post-
Volume 92(1), January 1992
Methods Instruction
16
Figure 1. Sample repertory grid for elementary education student.
Name SueDate 4/88
3= definitely associated2== neutral1= definitely NOT associated
V1- Science class should bestructured for creativity
V2- Science class shouldnot turn kids off
V3- Students need to dosomething that is fun
V4-Comprehension isimportant
V5- Students should havehands-on experience
V6- Time factor for completingactivities should be considered
V7- Motivational activities shouldbe included
o> S</) u3 .^
^1�S-12 rt10 fc
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
W
.S</) .£CD rc
^ Ek- a
^ ^"5 fcCO cCD f»- 8
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
>TO
C
a
</) i<D c0
"2.1fi -c�5 a<a EQ rh- S
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
20-^? -w £"S tt<D p�§ S2 fw T3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
C/3(D
s c<D c
^ is s" cs ^»-^
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
-»;00.0�e x2 10 =2 .£
2
3
3
1
3
3
2
'<D(/)
^ Sc c�a b^ ,=3 Co5o
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
(/3T3?0S
c c§ ^�£�=
^-g £3 ^co.E:
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
V.
TC
^ ^C ^<D-J(0 C
^2 £c�
it(0
3
3
3
2
1
2
3
0;
^<r</) y�uc c<D C0- (/�(/) <];t- -t:0) =0 "CCO cQ) 0H ^
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
5 ^4^ a-0 .*-Q) >t^ �-«=
^w <t
o |e-2h-
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
�c S<D ^�S >.9-^o rc�C a:5 =a. c
^ ^t= C:Q ^~-o ci §w u
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
£ Cc .c-S ^2 -t/) ^jn cc0 ci- .£fi ^:
’§ aco E<D cI� Cf
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
Figure 2. Sample repertory grid for secondary education student.
Name ElizabethDate 1 /d/flfl
3» definitely associat&d2« neutral1- dofinitaty NOT associated
VI � need to considertonq-term retenb’on
V2 - students should eryoyooirtatoschoof
V3 - students should feelcomfortable h class
V4 - important to teach studentshow to learn successfully
V5 � need to stimulatedearetoteam
V6 � students should beencouraged
V7 - students should realizescience is important
V8 - need to have a rfceabnosphere
V9 � students should fed theyare working toward a goal
"Viu-students should feel "
actively InvolvedVII- students should feet re-
sponsible for own learningV12 � students should know
V13- students should feelthev can achieve
V14- variety is important
9
c.
9 >.ss(A CO
?
1
3
3
3
3
?
?
3
3
3
3
?
2
15w
15&
0
&§S
1
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
a
1(Q
11 C
PSS2
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
t9
1^Qii11
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
c&1Sc
if
]S3
1
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
1PSs
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
Q.3
IU
S"U
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
2
1
d0
3
S3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
"5£0
jtf(0at »
Sl*» 0
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
«S"5S
w
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
0
£
S2
2
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
18U
£U
S2
2
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
11115 �§3^2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
,
S,|j1^a 5|°S 5
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
a
i§1111HI55
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
S§
^ fej|u»
H3
3
3
2
�2
3
3
3
5
2
2
3
3
£3
ii11SI3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
?
3
3
Ii3 °-«�fi ’Sto ^f=»lSi2
3
3
?
2
2
1
3
2
2
3
?
3
1
E00
10
a o
s!ii3
3
2
3
2
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
aS11S .a:
§-81.23
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
S$
ga ’P
^ -E
§’51
3
3
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
?
2
2
11a
isf3 -0
S|
?
3
3
?
?
3
1
3
?
?
?
?
3
2
i
J1f,S2
3
3
?
2
3
1
3
2
2
?
?
2
1
^j|"I1155
i
3
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
0
11s
ii§£2
2
2
2
2
3
?
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
c0
I11fi-«S Ef^3g3
?
?
3
3
3
?
3
3
3
3
?
1
2
0
-0
11»£B’?0 �C. 0U C
§s3
3
?
3
3
3
?
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
School Science and Mathematics
Methods Instruction
17
Figure 3. Sample factor analysis summary sheet forelementary education student.
FACTOR STRUCTURES - SUE (4/88)
Normal
Factor 1
V2 Science class should not turn kids offV6 Time factor for completing activities should be
consideredV7 Motivational activities should be included
Factor 2
V4 Comprehension is important
V1,V3,V5 OUT: not enough variance occurred
Varimax Rotation
Factor 1
V2 Science class should not turn kids offV3 Students need to do something that is funV6 Time factor for completing activities should be
consideredV7 Motivational activities should be included
Factor 2
VI Science class should be structured for creativityV4 Comprehension is important
V5 OUT: Not enough variance occurred
Figure 4. Sample factor analysis summary sheet forsecondary education student.
FACTOR STRUCTURES - BETH (1/88)
Normal
Factor 1
VI Need to consider long term retentionV4 It’s important to teach studentshowto leam successfullyV5 Need to stimulate the desire to leam
Figure 4. (continued)
V6 Students should be encouragedV7 Students should realize science is importantV9 Students should feel they are working toward a goalV10 Students should feel actively involvedVI 1 StudentsshouldfeelresponsiblefortheirownleamingV12 Students should know theteacherhas high expectationsV14 Variety is important
Factor 2
V2 Students should enjoy going to schoolV3 Students should feel comfortable in classVI 3 Students should feel they can achieve
Factor 3
V3 Need to have a nice atmosphere
Varimax Rotation
Factor 1
V9 Students should feel they are working toward a goalV10 Students should feel actively involvedVI 1 Students should feel responsibility for their own
learningV12 Students shouldknow theteacherhas high expectations
Factor 2
VI Need to consider long term retentionV4 It’s important to teach studentshowtoleam successfullyV7 Students should realize science is importantV14 Variety is important
Factor 3
V5 Need to stimulate the desire to leamV6 Students should be encouraged
Factor 4
V2 Students should enjoy going to schoolV3 Students should feel comfortable in classV8 Need to have a nice atmosphereVI3 Students should feel they can achieve
Volume 92(1), January 1992
Methods Instruction
18
methods grids and the mean number ofconstructs per factor was
3.3 for pro-methods grids and 3.6 for post-methods grids.
Characteristics of Factor Structures
When factors and their componentconstructs were examinedfor the elementary students, four major categories or areas of
focus were identified. These same four categories were present
to at least some degree in both pro- and post-methods data sets.
Two of these categories focused on specific concerns while two
other categories focused on more broad or general concerns.Specific categories included concerns related to the outcomes,needs, or characteristics of students and concerns related to the
task of teaching. Broad categories included concerns regardingthe complex concepts of teaching and learning. A summary of
the types of specific and broad concerns identified in pre- andpost-methods factor structures is included in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Specific and broad concerns ofpreserviceelementary science education students.
Name-
Sandy
Kitsy
Mary
Mar/Ann
Sue
Unda
Carolyn
Bessie
Mary Jo
Diana
Ann
Angle
BeforeMethods Course
SpecificStudent
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Task
X
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
BroadTeach
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
Leam
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
AHerMethods Course
SpecificStudent
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Task
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
BroadTeach
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Leam
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
As indicated in Figure 5, all 12elementaryeducation studentsfocused on task-oriented concerns both before and after
completion of the methods course. In addition, while 11 of the12 students included a focus on student needs and characteristicsbeforecompletionofthemethodscourse,alll2students includedstudent-oriented concerns in theirpost-methods factor structures.Broad concerns related to the complex concepts of teaching andlearning were less common in the pro-methods factor structuresbut these broad concerns were evident in all 12 elementarystudents’ post-methods factor structures.
Although the major categories or types of concerns evidentin the elementary students’ factor structures were all rathersimilar, variability did occur in the specific construct selectedfor different students’ factor structures. Upon examining the
specific variables included in different factors. 10 different
subcategories on both the pre- and post-methods data sets. All
12 elementary students selected at least five of these
subcategories. A summary of the types of subcategoriesincluded in pre- and post-methods instruction grids and factor
structures is included in Figure 6.When factors and theircomponentconstructswereexamined
for the secondary education students, five major categories or
areas offocus were identified. These same five categorieswere
present to some degree in both pre- and post-methods data sets.
Two of these categories focused on specific concerns while
three other categories focused on more broad or generalconcerns. Specific categories included concerns related to the
outcomes, needs, or characteristics of students and concernsrelated to the task of teaching. Broad categories included
concerns regarding the complex concepts of teaching and
learning and the appreciation or value of science as a subject.Asummaryofthe typesofspecific andbroadconcerns identified
in the grids and factor structures generated before and aftermethods instruction for the secondary students is included in
Figure 7.Regarding the specific categories, student concerns were
the most stable and prevalentcomponents ofsecondary studentbeliefsystems both before and after completion ofthe methodscourse. All 12 secondary students’ grids and factor structures
reflected student-oriented concerns in both pre- and post-methods analyses. Task-oriented concerns were identified in
the pro-methods grids and factors structures of 10 students andwore evident in the post-methods grids and factor structures of
eight students. Two students did not identify any task-orientedconcerns in either pre- or post-methods data sets.
Regarding the broader categories. 4 of the 12 secondarystudents involved in the study included at least one broaderarea of focus in both pre- and post-methods grids and factor
structures. Two students included two broad categories priorto the completion of the methods course, and another two
students included two broad categories after completion ofthemethods course. Prior to completion of the methods course,five students identified a concern for the broad category ofteaching, and three students identified a concern for the broad
category of learning. After completion of the methods course,three students included a concern for the broad teachingcategory and two students identified a broad learning concern.Broad subject concerns were only identified by one student
prior to completion of the methods coursebutemerged in post-methods analyses of four students.
Although the major categories or types ofconcerns evidentin the students’ grids and factor structures were rather similar,the exact nature ofthe concerns within both broad and specificcategories differed greatly from student to student. Uponexamining the specific variables included in different factors,18 different sub-categories of concern were identified. Asummary ofthe types ofsub-categories included in thesecondarystudents pre- and post-methods instruction grids and factor
School Science and Mathematics
Methods Instruction19
Figure 6* Subcategories identified in factor structures ofelementary science education students.
Figure 7. Specific and broad concerns ofpreservicesecondary education students.
£�CU
^s’si0 -3 ^ 3
2. & i5 5-*oM D-
� S2£ c= (o o
tl9^Sgi&§E? c=5 fi&(0
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
DD
^ 3s g.
3) S-°- 5’CD (0
£.tU
§-(D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R1---D""
IIIo 5
I80X X
XXX
XXX
XXX
X X
X X
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
X X
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
X
X X
X X
XXX
V)
V ’§§ oi i§ ?8 s v
111.1IP"1M
X
X X
X X
X X
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
X
X
X
XXX
X X
X X
X X
.XX
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
XXX
??i2.
’§
I70
-D02
?(/)
�V5�D0is
T)5
?^7fi
?t/>
??2.
^5?tfl
-D5
?iS
^)s-00t^
??iS
7).u
1
:»;
^D3
u3>3-3
7)
5
U
0�a0<3
3Dx!-fl
5
.a
3"
3
311
>33
>3-D
Name
Sally
Beth
Chartotle
Owi
Lynda
Andy
Roteie
Amanda
Mke
Vonda
Chris
Pete
BeforeMethods Course
Specific
Stud
X
X
X
X
X
X
�X
X
X
X
X
X
Task
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Broad
Tchg
X
X
X
X
X
Lmg
X
x
x
Subf
X
AJterMethods Course
Specrlic
Stud
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Task
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Broad
Tch^
X
X
X
Lrno
X
X
Sub!
X
x
x
x
structures is included in Figure 8.It is interesting to note that analysis of the repertory gilds of
threepreserviceelementary students yieldedone factor solutionsboth beforeand after completion ofthe science methods course.In addition, the repertory grids generated after completion ofthe methods course yielded one factor solutions for six otherstudents. No one factor solutions were generated from analysesofthe secondary students’grids eitherbeforeoraftercompletionof the science methods course.
Specific Concerns
Student Concerns
For the elementary education students, subcategories in thestudent category centered around studentoutcomes and studentcharacteristics or needs. Beliefs about the importance of twodifferent studentoutcomes wereidentified. Cognitiveoutcomesincluded knowledge of explanations and conceptualunderstanding of material. Seven students included concernsfor cognitive student outcomes in their factor structures.Behavioral outcomes included desired student behaviors likemaking collections ofobjects forcertain activities ordiscoveringanswers by themselves. Ten students included an emphasis onbehavioral outcomes in their factor structures. Three studentsincluded an emphasisonboth cognitiveandbehavioral outcomes.Overall, the preservice elementary students focused primarilyon the behavioral aspect of student outcomes.
Elementaryeducation students focused on student outcomesmoreoftenaftermethods instruction (18 total outcomeconcerns)than before methods instruction (14 total outcome concerns).Every student indicated at least one student outcome concern in
Volume 92(1), January 1992
Methods Instruction
20
Figure 8. Subcategories identified in factor structures ofsecondary science education students.
Ssre
l|8x
x
^
x
x
x
tillx
x x
x
x
x
en
? "h 52. g-a.^ x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ijiii15’1’ 2
x x
X XX
x x
XXX X
XX X
x x
XXX
x
X X XX X
XXX
x
x
x x
XXX
x
XX XX
x x
x
MT3
w m
0 0§ 3
llj^Sp °
I11X XX
XX XX
XX XX
XX XX
x
XX XX
x x
x
XX X
X XX XX
x x
XXX
XXX XX
XXX XX
XX X
XX X
x
x
x
XX X
x
X X XX
X X X XX
XX XX
?.Is?�&5?sil-D� 0
F?,-o 3
£2?>I1�o9~S
7 >� 3T ^?^r2^1s?0i5s,r
either the pro- or post-methods analyses.For the secondary education students, subcategories in the
student category also centered around student outcomes andstudent characteristics or needs but subcategories of emphasiswere more diverse than those identified by elementary students.Secondary students emphasized the importance offive differentstudentoutcomes. Cognitive outcomes included factual learningand conceptual understanding of material while affectiveoutcomes included student feelings of comfort or enjoyment ofclass activities. Six students included concerns for cognitiveoutcomes, and eleven students included concerns for affectiveoutcomes. Behavioral outcomes included desired studentbehaviors like listening or participating while social outcomesincluded the ability of students to get along with each other orfunction in group settings. Four students included an emphasison behavioral outcomes, and seven students included an emphasis
on social outcomes. Skill development outcomes focused onboth manipulative skills and thinking skills. Eight studentsincluded an emphasis on skill development.
Overall, secondary education students also focused onstudent outcomes more often in post-methods analyses (32total outcomeconcerns) than in pro-methods analyses (23 totaloutcome concerns). Only one student did not focus on studentoutcomes either before or after methods instruction.
Beliefs about student characteristics and needs includedboth positive and negative views of students. Examples ofidentified student needs included the need for direction ororientation, the need for personal contact, the need for concreteexperience, the need for multiple stimuli, and the need forpractice. Examples of beliefs about student characteristicsincluded statements such as, "Students are not automaticallyready to work," "Students are not well-trained listeners," and"Students sometimes try to bother teachers." Only seven oftheelementary students included a component focusing on studentneeds or characteristics while eleven ofthe secondary studentsincluded an emphasis on student needs or characteristics.
Task Concerns
For the elementary education students, task concerns werethe most stable and prevalent components of factor structuresboth before and after the methods course. Three subcategoriesoftask concerns were identified. These subcategories focusedon planning practices, instructional techniques, and strategiesfor creating a positive learning environment. Nine of theelementary students included a focuson instructional techniquesin either the pro- or post-methods analyses. Learningenvironment concerns were present in seven students’ pro-methods factor structures and in ten students’ post-methodsfactor structures. An emphasis on the importance of teacherplanning emerged in all 12 students’ factor structures after thecompletion of the methods course. All 12 students’ pro- andpost-methods factor structures included at least two taskconcerns while all three task concerns emerged in the pro- andpost-methods factor structures of seven students.
For the secondary education students, six subcategories oftask concerns were identified. These subcategories focused onplanning practices, instructional techniques, behaviormanagement techniques, strategies for creating a positivelearning environment, provisions for assessment of studentoutcomes, and administrative responsibilities associated withteaching. The most prevalent task concerns centered aroundthe area of instruction. Ten students included a focus oninstructional techniques inboth pre- andpost-methods analyses.Learning environment concerns represented the second mostcommon area of focus and were identified by seven students.Three students included time management and/or behaviormanagement concerns before methods instruction, and fourstudents included such concerns after methods instruction. Aneed for assessment of student outcomes was only expressed
School Science and Mathematics
Methods Instruction
21
by three students, andonlyonestudentincluded an administrativeprocedure component in her factor structures. Two students didnot indicate any task oriented concerns following methodsinstruction, and two other students did not express task orientedconcerns either before or after completion of the methodscourse. In general, task oriented concerns tended to remainstable before and after methods instruction, with a total of 21task concerns identified before the methods course and a total of22 task concerns identified after the methods course.
Broad Concerns
For the elementary education students, the two majorcategories of broad concerns focused on teaching and learning.Teachingconcerns wereevident in all ofthe elementary students’structures. Only one subcategory of this broad concern wasidentified in elementary student factor structures, namely therole of a teacher. Nine students identified at least one concernin this subcategory in both the pro- and post-methods analyses.
Learning concerns were present in either the pro- or post-methods factor structures ofall 12 elementary education students.Two different types of learning concerns were identified. Onesubcategory focused on the intrinsic value of learning itself,regardless of subject area. Three students expressed a belief inthe intrinsic value oflearning. Another subcategory focused onthe future value of learning. All 12 students included anemphasis on the future value of learning in their post-methodsfactor structures. A final subcategory reflected an emphasis onthe need for a broad understanding ofscience as a subject. Onlyfour students included an emphasis on this need for broadlearning. Only one student identified concerns in all threesubcategories on both the pro- and post-methods analyses.
For the secondary education students, three major categoriesof broad concerns were identified. In addition to the teachingand learning concerns identified by the elementary students, athird unique category reflecting a strong belief in the value ofscience as a subject emerged. Teaching concerns were the mostcommon broad category of concern identified by secondarystudents. This category included concerns related to thecharacteristics or role ofa teacher as well as a belief in the valueor enjoyment of teaching. Five students included an emphasison the characteristics orroleofa teacherand one student stressedthe value or enjoyment of teaching in general. Beliefs about thecharacteristics or role of a teacher were reflected in statementssuch as, "Teachers shouldn’t have todo everything" and "Teacherenthusiasm is important."
Only two types of learning concerns were identified bysecondary students. These subcategories included a focus on thefuture, long-term value of learning and an emphasis on the needfor a broad understanding of the nature of science and sciencesubject matter. Learning concerns were only identified by threesecondary students. Finally, four students expressed a concernbased on the appreciation of love of science as a subject. Thissubject concern emerged most often in post-methods analyses
and was reflected in statements such as "Science is a dynamic,important subject" and "Biology is the greatest subject onearth."
Changes in Concerns
In general, for the elementary students, the types ofspecificconcerns (student and task) included in factor structures werestable in both pro- and post-analyses. For example, studentswith student and task concerns before the methods courseinstruction tended to retain such concerns after the completionof the instruction. Although the overall categories of focuswere consistent from pro- to post-analyses, the specificsubcategories emphasized often differed in pro- and post-analyses. The 12 students’ subcategories were similar but notall of the subcategories were identified each time by eachstudent.
Broad categories ofemphasis (teaching and learning) werevery similar in pro- and post-analyses for individual students.Four of the elementary students retained the identical teachingand learning concerns from pro- to post-analysis.
For the secondary students, the types of specific concerns(student and task) included in factor structures also remainedconsistent before and after methods instruction. For example,students with task concerns before completing the methodscourse tended to retain such concerns after completing themethods course. Like the elementary students, the specificsubcategories emphasized in each category often differed inpro- and post-analyses. Only two students exhibited the exactsame set of student concerns before and after completion ofthemethods course, and no students focused on the samesubcategories of task concerns before and after methodsinstruction. Broad categories of emphasis identified bysecondary students (teaching, learning, and subject) variedgreatly from pro- to post-methods analyses.
Discussion
The preliminary analyses conducted thus far indicate thatcertain basic differences may existbetween thebeliefstructuresand concerns ofpreservice elementary and secondary scienceteachers. For the elementary methods students participating inthis study, the following trends were observed: (a) the meannumberoffactors generatedbeforeand aftermethods instructionremained the same and (b) the mean number of constructsgenerated decreased from pro- to post-methods instruction.These results indicate that although the overall organization ofthe elementary students’ beliefs (as reflected in the number offactors generated) about teachers did not change much as aresult of participation in the methods course, the specific fociof their beliefs about teaching did change. Generally, itappears that the elementary students seemed to narrow theirfoci as a result of participation in the methods course.
Regarding the secondary methods students participating in
Volume 92(1), January 1992
Methods Instruction
22
this study, trends from pre- to post-methods instruction includedthe following: (1) the mean number of factors generated beforeand after methods instruction remained the same; (2) the meannumber of constructs generated increased from pre to post-methods instruction; (3) the mean number of constructs perfactor also slightly increased from pre- to post-methodsinstruction. Like theelementary students, itappearsthatalthoughthe overall organization ofthe secondary students’ beliefs aboutteaching did not change much as a result of participation in themethods course, the specific foci of their beliefs about teachingdid change. In contrast to the elementary students, however,secondary students seemed to broaden and vary their foci as aresult of participation in the methods course.
In addition, although both groups tended to retain the samenumber of factors from pre- to post-methods instruction, thebelief structures of the elementary students seemed to be moresimplistic, as evidenced by the high number of one factorsolutions and a mean of two factor solutions for the group. Incontrast, no secondary students elicited one factor solutions andthe mean number of factors generated per student was three.Thus, it appears that the secondary students possess morecomplex belief structures regarding teaching and learning andinclude an emphasis on some areas which are virtually absentfrom the belief structures ofelementary students. Examples ofareas of focus unique to the secondary students participating inthis study include student skill development concerns, taskconcerns related to assessment, and a general subject concern.
The results of this study affirm the predominant view thatpreservice teachers already possess some knowledge aboutteaching and have an organized belief structure regardingteaching when they entermethods instruction. In addition, theseresults support thefmdingsofMcNair(1979),Michelsen(1987),and others who report that preservice teachers possess uniquebeliefstructures regarding teaching bothbeforeand after methodsinstruction but also report that the basic categories of emphasiswithin belief structures are rather similar among teachers.
Finally, the results of this study are consistent with thosereported by researchers including McNair (1979) and Neale,Smith, and Wier (1987) who report that the primary area ofconcern for most teachers centers around students and thesecond most dominant area of concern centers around the taskof teaching.
Implications
The results of this study raise some important issues forscience teacher educators. First, these studies indicate that thebelief structures ofelementary teachers may be more simplisticthan thoseofsecondary teachers. Thus, itappears thatelementarymethods courses need to focus more directly on expanding andorganizing the belief structures of preservice elementaryeducation students. In addition, the results ofthis study indicate
that there is no such thing as a typical preservice teacher beliefstructure. As such, there can be no such thing as a generic ortypical methods course. These results support the views ofMichelson(1987) andHewson andHewson (1988) whocontendthat teacher educators should first find out what the existingbeliefstructures oftheir students arebefore methods instructionbegins and tailor instruction accordingly.
References
dark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thoughtprocesses. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook ofResearchonTeaching (3rd ed.) pp. 255-296. NewYork: Macmillan.
Cronin, L. L. (1986). Intended versus implemented curricula:An interpretive study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Georgia, Athens.
Hewson, P. W. & Hewson, M. G. (1988). Analysis and use ofa taskfor identifying conceptions ofteaching science. Paperpresented at theannual meeting oftheAmericanEducationalResearch Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hollon, R. E., & Anderson, C. W. (1987). Teacher’s beliefsabout students’ learning processes in science: Self-reinforcing belief systems. Paper presented at the annualmeeting oftheAmericanEducational Research Association,Washington, DC.
Mayer.R.H., &Goldsberry,L.(1987). The development of thebeliefs/practice relationship in t\vo student teachers. Paperpresented at theannual meeting ofthe American EducationalResearch Association, Washington, DC.
McNair. K. (1979). Capturing inflight decisions: Thoughtswhile teaching. Educational Research Quarterly, 3,26-42.
Michelson, S. S. (1987). Teacher candidates’ conceptualchange during methods instruction. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Washington, DC.
Munby, H. (1982). The place ofteachers’ beliefs in research onteacher thinking and decision making and an alternativemethodology. Instructional Science, 11, 201-225.
Munby, H. (1983). A qualitative study of teacher’s beliefs andprinciples. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Montreal,Canada.
Neale. D. C., Smith, D. C., & Wier. E. A. (1987). Teacherthinking in elementary science instruction. Paper presentedat theannual meeting ofthe American Educational ResearchAssociation, Washington, DC.
Peterson, P. L.. Fennema. E., Carpenter. T. P.. & Loef. M.(1987). Teacher’s pedagogical content beliefs inmathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Washington,DC.
School Science and Mathematics