nach oben

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Erschienen in:

01.04.2015

Exploring the Impact of TeachME™ Lab Virtual Classroom Teaching Simulation on Early Childhood Education Majors’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs

verfasst von: Nazan Uludag Bautista, William J. Boone

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Teacher Education | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of a mixed-reality teaching environment, called TeachME™ Lab (TML), on early childhood education majors’ science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Sixty-two preservice early childhood teachers participated in the study. Analysis of the quantitative (STEBI-b) and qualitative (journal entries) data revealed that personal science teaching efficacy and science teaching outcome expectancy beliefs increased significantly after one semester of participation in TML. Three key factors impacted preservice teachers’ (PST) self-efficacy beliefs in the context of participation in TML: PSTs’ perceptions of their science content knowledge, their familiarity with TML technology and avatars, and being observed by peers. Cognitive pedagogical mastery (TML practices), effective/actual modeling, cognitive self-modeling, and emotional arousal were the primary sources that increased the PSTs’ perceived self-efficacy beliefs. Overall, the results of this study suggest that the TML is a worthwhile technology for learning to teach in teacher education. It provides a way for PSTs to have a highly personalized learning experience that enables them to improve their understanding and confidence related to teaching science, so that ideally someday they may translate such an experience into their classroom practices.

Vorheriger Artikel An Analysis of Argumentation Discourse Patterns in Elementary Teachers’ Science Classroom Discussions

Nächster Artikel A Blended Professional Development Program to Help a Teacher Learn to Provide One-to-One Scaffolding

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Unless it is specifically stated as personal efficacy or outcome expectancy, the term “self-efficacy” is used to refer to one’s both personal efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs together in this study.

More information about the TeachME™ lab can be found at the University of Central Florida’s website: http://srealserver.eecs.ucf.edu/teachlive/.

The duration of the TML sessions was determined based on participants’ daily schedules, the availability of the TML interactors, and the total number of participants. Since the PSTs were in cohorts and have schedules determined by the early childhood education program, the researchers easily identified the days in which the PSTs had the most available time. To eliminate the any possible interactor effect on the TML performances, we reserved the same interactor who was available for 7 h, including a 15-min lunch break. Finally, we calculated the average time per participant (5–7 min).

The original STEBI-b consisted of a five-step Likert scale which included a middle category of “Undecided”. In the current study, we forced participants to express a definite opinion one way or another to better detect overall change, if any, in their self-efficacy beliefs over the semester. Detailed reliability information is provided in the “Data Analysis” section.

Alonzo, A. C. (2002). Evaluation of a model for supporting the development of elementary school teachers’ science content knowledge. In Proceedings of the annual international conference of the association for the education of teachers in science, Charlotte, NC.

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2011). Normal adolescent development part I. Retrieved from http://www.aacap.org/App_Themes/AACAP/docs/facts_for_families/57_normal_adolescent_development.pdf

Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an understanding of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33, 1–25.CrossRef

Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education (pp. 31–54). London, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

Bautista, N. U. (2011). Investigating the use of vicarious and mastery experiences in influencing early childhood education majors’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 333–349.

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

Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1, 237–269.CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1995). On rectifying conceptual ecumenism. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 347–375). New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRef

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

Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education and Behavior, 31, 143–164.CrossRef

Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 521–539.CrossRef

Bleicher, R. E., & Lindgren, J. (2005). Success in science learning and preservice science teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 205–225.CrossRef

Bolshakova, V. L. J., Johnson, C. C., & Czerniak, C. M. (2011). “It depends on what science teacher you got”: Urban science self-efficacy from teacher and student voices. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 961–997.CrossRef

Boone, W., Staver, J., & Yale, M. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 485–499.CrossRef

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

Corcoran, K. J. (1991). Efficacy, “skills”, reinforcement, and choice behavior. American Psychologist, 46, 155–157.CrossRef

Corcoran, K. J. (1995). Understanding cognition, choice, and behavior. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26, 201–207.CrossRef

Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K., & Jones, A. (2003). The development of the Chemistry Attitudes and Experiences Questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 649–668.CrossRef

Dieker, L. A., Hynes, M., Hughes, C., & Smith, E. (2008). Implications of mixed reality and simulation technologies on special education and teacher preparation. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40, 1–20.

Dreikurs, R., & Cassel, P. (1972). Discipline without tears (2nd ed.). New York: Hawtorne Books.

Eastman, C., & Marzillier, J. S. (1984). Theoretical and methodological difficulties in Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 213–229.CrossRef

Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 694–706.CrossRef

Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Education, 79, 63–75.CrossRef

Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27, 323–337.CrossRef

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.CrossRef

IBM Corp. (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., & Mayrath, M. C. (2008). Understanding project-based learning in second life with the pedagogy, training, and assessment trio. Education Media International, 45, 157–176.CrossRef

Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Mara, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Kahle, J. B., Anderson, A., & Damnjanovic, A. (1991). A comparison of elementary teacher attitudes and skills in teaching science in Australia and the United States. Research in Science Education, 21, 208–216.CrossRef

Khourey-Bowers, C., & Simonis, D. (2004). Longitudinal study of middle grades chemistry professional development: Enhancement of personal science teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 175–195.CrossRef

Kirsch, I. (1982). Efficacy expectations or response predictions: The meaning of efficacy ratings as a function of task characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 132–136.CrossRef

Kirsch, I. (1985). Self-efficacy and expectancy: Old wine with new labels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 824–830.CrossRef

Kirsch, I. (1986). Response expectancy and phobic anxiety: A reply to Wilkins and Bandura. American Psychologist, 41, 1391–1393.CrossRef

Kirsch, I. (1995). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy: A concluding commentary. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 341–345). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Linacre, J. M. (2014). Winsteps ^® Rasch measurement computer program. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.

Liu, X., & Boone, W. J. (Eds.). (2006). Rasch Measurement in Science Education. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.

Long, W. A. (2011). Your predictable adolescent. Charleston, SC: BookSurge Publishing.

Maddux, J. E. (1999). Expectancies and the social-cognitive perspective: Basic principles, processes, and variables. In I. Kirsch (Ed.), How expectancies shape experience (pp. 17–39). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRef

Mahon, J., Bryant, B., Brown, B., & Kim, M. (2010). Using Second Life to enhance classroom management practice in teacher education. Educational Media International, 47, 121–134.CrossRef

Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed-reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems, E77-D, 1321–1329.

Morrell, P. D., & Carroll, J. B. (2010). An extended examination of preservice elementary teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 103, 246–251.CrossRef

Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243–261.CrossRef

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425.

Palmer, D. H. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for primary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 36, 337–353.

Palmer, D. H. (2011). Sources of efficacy information in an inservice program for elementary teachers. Science Education, 95, 577–600.CrossRef

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4–15.

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut.

Rhodes, R. E., & Courneya, K. S. (2003). Self-efficacy, controllability and intention in the theory of planned behavior: Measurement redundancy or causal independence? Psychology and Health, 18, 79–91.CrossRef

Sanders, L. R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J. D. (1993). Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 723–736.CrossRef

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

Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 84, 43–50.CrossRef

Silva, K., Correia, A. P., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2010). A faculty mentoring experience: Learning together in second life. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26, 149–159.

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

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944–956.CrossRef

Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional commitment. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 303–310.CrossRef

Williams, D. M. (2010). Outcome expectancy and self-efficacy: Theoretical implications of an unresolved contradiction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 417–425.CrossRef

Wingfield, M. E., Freeman, L., & Ramsey, J. (2000). Science teaching self-efficacy of first year elementary teachers trained in a site based program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC reproduction document no. ED 439 956).

Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Davis, H. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the achievement of adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 117–138). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.

Wright, B., & Stone, M. (1979). Best test design. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.

Yoon, S., Pedretti, E., Bencze, L., Hewitt, J., Perris, K., & Van Oostvee, R. (2006). Exploring the use of cases and case methods in influencing elementary preservice science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 15–35.CrossRef

Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1036–1058.CrossRef

Titel: Exploring the Impact of TeachME™ Lab Virtual Classroom Teaching Simulation on Early Childhood Education Majors’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs
verfasst von: Nazan Uludag Bautista
William J. Boone
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2015
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Teacher Education / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1046-560X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1847
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9418-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2015

I Don’t Care What You Think, I Want to Hear What Science Says!

An Analysis of Argumentation Discourse Patterns in Elementary Teachers’ Science Classroom Discussions

Preservice Biology Teachers’ Professional Knowledge: Structure and Learning Opportunities

Integrating Service-Learning Pedagogy for Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Science Identity Development

A Blended Professional Development Program to Help a Teacher Learn to Provide One-to-One Scaffolding

Premium Partner