investigating the use of vicarious and mastery

8/12/2019 Investigating the Use of Vicarious and Mastery

1/18

Investigating the Use of Vicarious and Mastery

Experiences in Influencing Early Childhood EducationMajors Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Nazan Uludag Bautista

Published online: 1 May 2011 The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2011

Abstract This study investigated the effectiveness of an Early Childhood Education

science methods course that focused exclusively on providing various mastery (i.e.,

enactive, cognitive content, and cognitive pedagogical) and vicarious experiences

(i.e., cognitive self-modeling, symbolic modeling, and simulated modeling) in

increasing preservice elementary teachers self-efficacy beliefs. Forty-four preservice

elementary teachers participated in the study. Analysis of the quantitative (STEBI-b)

and qualitative (informal surveys) data revealed that personal science teaching effi-cacy and science teaching outcome expectancy beliefs increased significantly over the

semester. Enactive mastery, cognitive pedagogical mastery, symbolic modeling, and

cognitive self-modeling were the major sources of self-efficacy. This list was

followed by cognitive content mastery and simulated modeling. This study has

implications for science teacher educators.

Keywords Self-efficacy Early childhood education Elementary science

education Science methods course Sources of self-efficacy

The self-efficacy of elementary teachers has received considerable attention in

teacher education literature over the last three decades. Scholars have reported that

preservice elementary teachers usually have low self-efficacy beliefs when it comes

to teaching science (Bleicher and Lindgren2005; Schiver and Czerniak1999). Their

low self-efficacy has been associated with their lack of understanding of science

concepts (Bleicher and Lindgren 2005; Schibeci and Hickey 2000; Trundle et al.

2002) and of exposure to good science teaching and learning (Jarrett 1999). As aresult, science teacher educators have been urged to explicitly include increasing

J Sci Teacher Educ (2011) 22:333349

DOI 10.1007/s10972-011-9232-5
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


2/18

teacher self-efficacy among the objectives of the science methods courses (Bandura

1997; Bleicher 2007; Cantrell et al. 2003; Jarrett 1999; Scharmann and Orth

Hampton1995; Tosun2000; Wingfield et al. 2000).

Several studies have investigated various factors contributing to the self-efficacy

beliefs of preservice elementary teachers in science methods courses. These studieshave provided evidence that gaining content knowledge (Bleicher and Lindgren

2005; Jarrett 1999; Schoon and Boone 1998; Tosun 2000), learning about the

learning cycle (Settlage 2000), viewing case studies demonstrating exemplary

science teaching practices (Yoon et al. 2006), participating in cooperative learning

groups (Scharmann and Orth Hampton 1995), and time spent teaching science to

children in a elementary classroom (Cantrell et al. 2003; Wingfield et al. 2000)

contribute significantly to their self-efficacy beliefs. Thus, in order to address the

issue of low self-efficacy beliefs, science methods instructors must include these

instructional practices reported effective by the aforementioned studies.This study was informed by Banduras social cognitive theory of behavior and

motivation (1977) and the studies that have focused on preservice elementary

teachers self-efficacy beliefs in science methods courses, and investigated the

effectiveness of a science methods course that utilized instructional practices

reported effective in self-efficacy literature (e.g., learning cycle) in increasing

preservice elementary teachers self-efficacy beliefs. What is significant about this

research study is that the instructional practices only provided mastery and vicarious

experiences, as defined by Bandura (1997) and Palmer (2006).

Theoretical Background

Self-efficacy is grounded in Banduras social cognitive theory of behavior and

motivation (1977), and is defined as a persons belief that he or she can perform a

difficult activity or overcome a difficult situation (Bandura 1982). According to

Bandura (1977), self-efficacy beliefs have two dimensions: personal efficacy and

outcome expectancy. He claims that people carry out actions if they believe in their

abilities to perform (personal efficacy) and if they believe that their action will result

in a desirable outcome (outcome expectancy). When applied to elementary science

teaching, this means that elementary teachers will be more likely to teach science if

they believe in their abilities to teach science effectively (personal science teaching

efficacy or PSTE) and if they believe that their teaching practice will result in

improved student achievement and learning (science teaching outcome expectancy

or STOE). Therefore, teachers have high self-efficacy beliefs, when they have both

high PSTE and STOE beliefs.

However, studies have reported that these two dimensions of self-efficacy can

operate independently (Enochs and Riggs 1990; Gibson and Dembo 1984; Tosun

2000; Tschannen-Moran et al.1998). For example, a teacher may believe that she can

teach science effectively (high PSTE), but may not be sure whether her teaching

334 N. U. Bautista
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/18

preparation courses can result in changes to either personal science teaching efficacy

(e.g., Schoon and Boone1998; Tosun2000) or science teaching outcome expectancy

(e.g., Ginns et al. 1995), and sometimes to both (e.g., Bleicher and Lindgren 2005;

Wingfield et al.2000). Bleicher and Lindgren (2005) reported that a science methods

course that was designed to increase preservice teachers conceptual understandingof certain science concepts increased both their PSTE and STOE beliefs. However, in

a similar study, Schoon and Boone (1998) reported that their intervention only

increased teachers PSTE beliefs and no significant changes in the STOE beliefs

resulted. Increasing preservice teachers self-efficacy in either dimension is certainly

a success. However, in order to increase the possibility of them teaching science in

their future elementary classrooms, both personal efficacy and outcome expectancy

should increase over the course of their preparation.

Four major sources of informationenactive mastery experiences, vicarious

experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousalcan reportedly affectpersonal-efficacy (or PSTE) and outcome expectancy (or STOE) (Bandura 1997).

When applied to teacher education, enactive mastery experiences refer to the

successful authentic classroom teaching practices that preservice teachers perform.

They are also considered to be the most powerful sources of teacher self-efficacy

(Bandura1997; Mulholland and Wallace2001; Tschannen-Moran et al.1998) since

they are based on actual classroom teaching performances. Vicarious experiences

are those preservice teachers acquire by observing other teachers model the

successful classroom teaching practices. This modeling can be in various forms:

(a) effective actual modeling (e.g., preservice teachers observe other teacherperform a classroom practice); (b) symbolic modeling (e.g., preservice teachers

watch other teachers perform effective classroom practices on television or other

visual media); (c) self-modeling (e.g., preservice teachers video-tape their

classroom practices and reflect on their performances); (d) cognitive self-modeling

(e.g., preservice teachers imagine themselves performing a classroom practice

successfully) (Bandura1997). The third source of self-efficacy, verbal persuasion,

refers to the positive feedback or encouragement that a preservice teacher receives

from his or her peers, course instructors, supervisors and/or cooperating teachers on

his/her classroom performance. Finally, emotional arousal refers to how preservice

teachers respond to their own stress and anxiety regarding teaching.

Palmer (2006) argued that cognitive content mastery (i.e., success in under-

standing science content), cognitive pedagogical mastery (i.e., success in under-

standing how to teach) and simulated modeling (e.g., preservice teachers are

involved in simulated classroom practices by role playing) could also be considered

as the sources of self-efficacy in addition to the ones reported by Bandura. His

findings revealed that these three additional sources indeed significantly affected

preservice teachers self-efficacy beliefs.

The results of the studies that have investigated the importance of different

sources of self-efficacy showed that enactive mastery experiences (Cantrell et al.

2003; Mulholland and Wallace 2001; Wingfield et al. 2000) or vicarious

Influence of Vicarious and Mastery Experiences 335
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/18

were the most important sources of self-efficacy and were able to increase

participants self-efficacy beliefs in the absence of enactive mastery experiences.

This study investigated the effectiveness of a science methods course that the

author designed based on the findings of the aforementioned studies and that

contained instructional practices reported effective in increasing preservice teachersself-efficacy beliefs in methods courses. What is different and significant about this

study is that the instructional practices were designed in a way to provide only

mastery and vicarious experiences. Mastery experiences refer to enactive, cognitive

content, and cognitive pedagogical mastery experiences and vicarious experiences

refer to effective actual modeling, symbolic modeling, self-modeling, cognitive self-

modeling, and simulated modeling. The decision to focus exclusively on mastery and

vicarious experiences was made based on the studies that have reported that they

were more effective in increasing teacher self-efficacy (e.g., Palmer 2006).

Additionally, mastery and vicarious experiences would easily be part of the coursecurriculum through activities and assignments, and every preservice teacher would

engage in them regardless of their field placement or level of self-efficacy.

Conversely, emotional arousal and verbal persuasion might occur differently for

every student, depending on their classroom experiences and relationship with their

cooperating teachers.

The specific hypothesis of this study was that an elementary science methods

course containing instructional practices and learning situations that have been

reported effective and that only provide mastery and vicarious experiences should

result in changes in both dimensions of self-efficacy (PSTE and STOE). Theresearch questions that shaped this study were

1. How does an early childhood science methods course containing instructional

practices and learning situations that have been reported effective and that only

provide mastery and vicarious experiences impact preservice elementary

teachers self-efficacy beliefs?

2. How do preservice elementary teachers perceive the relative importance of the

sources of self-efficacy provided in the methods course?

3. How do the designed instructional practices and learning situations serve as the

intended sources of self-efficacy?

Context of Study

The Early Childhood Education science methods course is a two-credit hour course

that each preservice teacher completes during his/her junior or senior year.

Depending on the total number of students, there are two to four sections of the

course offered every semester, and each section typically enrolls between 15 and 24

students. Sections meet once a week and the face-to-face instruction occurs 13 times

per semesterexcluding the 2 weeks that preservice teachers spend in the field. The

336 N. U. Bautista
http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/18

science teaching, assessment in science, national and state science standards, and

science for all. Students emphasized and practiced most of these concepts (e.g.,

inquiry-based science, and conceptual change) throughout the semester.

The specific course objectives were to enhance preservice teachers science

teaching self-efficacy beliefs, acquire inquiry-based and hands-on science teachingstrategies that are developmentally appropriate and address the National Science

Education Standards (NSES) (NRC 1996) and State Science Academic Content

Standards (Joint Council of the State Board of Education and the Ohio Board of

Regents 2002), and demonstrate skills in planning effective instruction in which

there is a meaningful connection between the objectives, assessment and the

activities.

The instructor prepared the instructional activities and the course assignments

based on the mastery and vicarious experiences reported by Bandura (1997) and

Palmer (2006) (Table1).

Table 1 Course assignments and activities, and the intended sources of self-efficacy they provide

Activities/

assignments

Intended sources

of self-efficacy

The content of the assignments/activities

Field assignment 1:

interview a child

Mastery: enactive, cognitive

content, and cognitive

pedagogical

Preservice teachers interview a child to elicit his

or her understanding of a science concept, and

report in the form of a research paper

Field assignment 2:

option 1

Mastery: enactive Preservice teachers create their own lesson plan

or modify the lesson plan their cooperating

teacher provided, will teach and reflect on their

classroom practices

Field assignment 2:

option 2

Mastery: enactive Preservice teacherswho are given a lesson plan

by their cooperating teachers but are not

allowed to make any changes in the plan or the

activityteach and reflect on their classroom

practices

Field assignment 2:

option 3

Vicarious: cognitive

self-modeling

Preservice teachers who are not able to teach or

observe science in their field placements createan interdisciplinary science lesson plan that

integrates one or more content areas with

science. They also reflect on their plan

Video-case studies Vicarious: symbolic

modeling

Preservice teachers watch videos of experienced

teachers, created by Annenberg Foundation,

practicing science teaching in real primary

grade level classrooms. They then reflect on the

teachers practices by answering 9 open-ended

questions

Classroom inquiry

activities

Vicarious: simulated

modeling

Preservice teachers participate in several

inquiry-based hands-on activities where thecourse instructor models the effective teaching

practices throughout the semester

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/18

Two field assignments provided preservice teachers with mastery experiences.

The first field assignment required preservice teachers to conduct a pre-assessment to

elicit one childs understanding of a science concept. This assignment emphasized

the importance of pre-assessment to determine the knowledge each child brings to

the classroom and the role of pre-assessment in effective instructional planning.Preservice teachers focused on a science concept of their choice that is addressed in

the State Standards for K-3 (e.g., seasons or water cycle) as they prepared their

interview protocol. To ensure that they have a complex understanding of the

concepts (e.g., what causes seasons), the preservice teachers studied them by using a

variety of resources and conducted research about the common misconceptions

children have about the concept (e.g., distance between the earth and the sun causes

seasons). After conducting the one-on-one interview with a child and analyzing the

responses, students reported their experiences in the form of a research paper at the

end of the first week of the field experience. In this paper, preservice teachersdemonstrated their own understanding of the science concept and provided a brief

literature review about common misconceptions related to the concept, state

standards, and indicators that the concept addressed, interview protocol, analysis of

the responses where the interviewees voice was provided, discussion about the

findings, and implications of their findings for their future classroom practices.

The second field assignment required students to plan and teach a science lesson,

and reflect on their classroom performances. However, it is not always certain if

ECE majors will teach science during the 2-week field experience because of heavy

emphasis on literacy and mathematics in local school districts. Thus, the instructorprovided preservice teachers with three options. The first option invites preservice

teachers to create their own lesson plan, or to modify the lesson plan their

cooperating teacher provided. The second option targeted students who receive a

lesson plan from their cooperating teachers and are not permitted to make any

changes in the plan or the activity. The final option targets students who could not

teach or observe any science instruction in their field placements. The third option

required teachers to create an interdisciplinary science lesson plan in which they

would integrate science into one of the lessons they taught in another content area

during the field. Since they would not actually teach science in this last option, it

could not be considered as mastery experience, even though it involved teaching

performance with actual settings. Rather, this option provided a cognitive self-

modeling in which preservice teachers visualized themselves teaching the interdis-

ciplinary science lesson they created. All three options also included a reflection

component where preservice teachers reflected on their performances based on the

principles of inquiry-based science teaching. In the third option, students had to

explain how the proposed interdisciplinary lesson plan would effectively promote

learning in the content areas included in the lesson as well.

Vicarious experiences happened during the weekly class meetings in the form of

effective actual modeling and symbolic modeling. In every class meeting,

preservice teachers participated in several inquiry-based hands-on activities where

338 N. U. Bautista


7/18

technique while learning science concepts. Following the activities, preservice

teachers discussed their learning experiences both from the student and teacher

perspectives.

Symbolic modeling occurred when preservice teachers watched videos of

experienced teachers practicing science teaching in real elementary grade levelclassrooms. Produced by the Smithsonian Institution Astrophysical Observatory in

association with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (1997), each

video presented a case in which an experienced K-3 teacher would share his or her

problem regarding science teaching (e.g., how to involve childrens ideas in

instructional planning) and work with a professor of science education to take

necessary actions. At the end of each case, teachers utilized the ideas and skills they

learned, and provided more examples of effective and authentic science teaching.

Additionally, seeing that experienced teachers could also struggle with science and

seek for ways to overcome these problems could also encourage preservice teachersto acknowledge and work through their perceived difficulties, and improve their

self-efficacy beliefs.

The final assignment, planning an inquiry-based science lesson plan and

presentation, also promoted cognitive self-modeling. This assignment provided

preservice teachers with an opportunity to plan an inquiry-based, student-centered,

and developmentally appropriate science lesson. They created a meaningful

connection between the objectives, assessment plan, and the activity, and visualized

themselves teaching their lessons to foresee possible misconnections. They

presented their lesson plans during class meetings at the end of the semester,during which they described how the lesson would take place and explained what

made it student-centered, hands-on, and inquiry-based.

Methodology

Participants

This study solicited research participants from Early Childhood Education (ECE)

majors at a Midwestern University. Forty-four preservice teachers, registered for the

three sections (i.e., A, B, and C) of the course during the spring of 2008, were

invited to participate. All participants were white females.

Data Collection

The study collected both quantitative and qualitative data. One benefit of this design

is that validity of results can be strengthened through triangulation of findings from

different data sources (Frechtling and Sharp 1997).

Quantitative data were collected by using the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief

Instrument Form B (STEBI-b) (Enochs and Riggs 1990). The STEBI-b was

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


8/18


9/18

STEBI data collected as a part of this research project were evaluated by the

widely used Winsteps program of Linacre (2009). This is the same program that the

State of Ohio uses for the analysis of high stakes student data.

Raw STEBI data was first entered into a spread sheet. Items which needed to be

flipped due to item wording were entered in their flipped form. Then data wereutilized for a Rasch analysis using the Winsteps program. The pre and post data for

measures were stacked for the two separate Rasch analyses (one for the PSTE data

and one for the STOE data). A wide range of validity and reliability issues were then

investigated for both PSTE and STOE- in particular item ZSTD outfit, item MNSQ

outfit, person ZSTD outfit, person MNSQ outfit, item separation, person separation,

item reliability, and person reliability. Additionally, aspects of construct validity

were evaluated through construction and review of Wright Maps (Wilson 2005).

Analysis of this data set did not suggest any clear evidence to remove either items or

respondents prior to a statistical analysis of student personal science teachingefficacy measures or science teaching outcome expectancy measures.

Analysis of the science teaching outcome expectancy data suggested a person

separation of 2.40 and a person reliability of .85. The computed item separation

value for the STOE data set was 3.65, and the item reliability was .93. Analysis of

the personal science teaching data suggested set suggested a person separation of

3.50 and a person reliability of .92. The computed item separation value for the

PSTE data set was 6.79 and the item reliability was .98. Generally the STEBI

instrument provided person measures of high reliability. Review of the Wright maps

also suggested, from a measurement perspective, that the set of 10 PSTE items and13 STOE items define the constructs that have been suggested by Enochs and Riggs

(1990) in their original work reporting on the use of this instrument.

Data then were analyzed by running paired ttests on the pre- and post-test scores

on STEBI-b. The PSTE and STOE scales were analyzed separately. Because using

two paired t tests could increase error margins, the author adopted a lower

significance level of .01 instead of .05 to compensate. SAS statistical analysis

software (version 9.1.2, Copyright 2004) was used to conduct dependent ttests.

Pre- and post- PSTE and STOE scores were calculated for each participant. These

pre- and post-scores were then compared for all three sections together and for each

section separately.

Perceived self-efficacy was determined by checking the number of teachers who

reported that they felt very/extremely confident, somewhat/relatively/fairly confident,

and not confident (or no change). The author used the categories created by Palmer

(2006) to analyze preservice teachers responses to the open-ended questions to

determine the relative importance of each source and whether the instructional

practices worked as the sources of self-efficacy as intended. The categories included

sources of self-efficacy described by Bandura (1997) and Palmer (2006) and an

additional category of unspecified cognitive mastery was included since some

responses indicated a successful learning experience, but it was not clear if it was

content learning or pedagogical learning. The final list contained the following

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


10/18

(i) Self-modeling; (j) Verbal persuasion; (k) Emotional arousal; and (l) Other (e.g.,

students whose responses could not be categorized).

To check the reliability of the categories, forty-four students responses were

independently coded by the author and a second person who has a higher degree in

education. Calculated inter-rater reliability was 92%. The disagreements werefurther discussed and resolved by the two coders.

Results

Paired ttest results summarized in Table 2reveal that both PSTE and STOE mean

scores of preservice teachers significantly increased at the end of the semester

(PSTE: Prob[ |T| B .0001, p B .01; STOE: Prob[ |T| = .0057, p B .01). Effect

size for the PSTE scale is large (g1 = .799) and for STOE scale is medium(g2 = .427). Effect size was calculated by finding the difference between the group

means and dividing it by the mean standard deviation (Cantrell et al.2003). These

results suggest that preservice teachers science teaching efficacy and outcome

expectancy beliefs both significantly increased over the period of the course.

Preservice teachers became more confident in their abilities to teach, and they

believed that their teaching practices would result in improved student achievement

and learning.

Dependentttest analysis revealed similar results for all three sections. As shown

in Table3, PSTE and STOE post-means in all three sections increased, and thesechanges were statistically significant. These results indicate that the science

methods course helped preservice teachers increase their self-efficacy in teaching

science.

The survey responses supported the results from the STEBI B as 93% of the

students (n = 41) stated that their confidence had increased as a result of the course

and they felt more comfortable teaching science. The following are two of the

selected responses.

This course has made me even more excited and comfortable about teaching

science in the future. (A17)I feel much more confident and prepared to teach science after this course and

I am excited about it. (B17)

Table 2 Means and standard deviations (SD) for two dimensions of science teaching efficacy beliefs and

paired t test results

Pre-test Post-test N t

Mean SD Mean SD

342 N. U. Bautista
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


11/18

Table4 presents the relative importance of the sources of self-efficacy for thisintervention. Among the mastery experiences provided, enactive mastery and

cognitive pedagogical mastery were the two major sources of self-efficacy students

mentioned the most. Forty-one of the participants had a chance to teach a science

lesson that either they or their cooperating teacher created. These students reported

that teaching science and receiving positive student reaction boosted their

confidence level.

It was very effective. I proved to myself that students can and do learn through

hands-on, inquiry-based lessons. I also got practice on creating a lesson that

was inquiry-based. (A17)It boosted my confidence because I was able to teach a concept and the

students were able to apply and demonstrate their knowledge that I taught.

I was able to see that what I taught them actually stuck. (B2)

Thirty-seven participants reported that they had learned the effective approaches to

science teaching (e.g., inquiry-based teaching) and teaching strategies (e.g., learning

Table 3 Means and standard deviations (SD) for the two dimensions of science teaching efficacy beliefs

and results of paired t tests for sections A, B and C

PSTE STOE

Pre-test Post-test N t Pre-test Post-test N t

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

A 43.92 6.11 53.67 5.60 12 7.38** 32.92 4.38 36.50 3.71 12 2.73*

B 42.22 5.55 51.56 4.74 18 7.77** 33.83 2.90 36.89 3.94 18 3.37**

C 43.21 2.49 52.79 6.39 14 7.14** 34.71 4.92 36.57 2.82 14 3.54**

* p\ .05

** p\ .01

Table 4 Frequency of sources

of self-efficacy (percent) Sources of self-efficacy n (N = 44) %

Enactive mastery 42 95

Cognitive content mastery 18 41

Cognitive pedagogical mastery 37 84

Unspecified cognitive mastery 16 36

Cognitive self-modeling 35 80

Simulated modeling 6 14

Effective actual modeling 0 0

Symbolic modeling 39 89Self-modeling 0 0

Verbal persuasion 3 1

http://-/?-http://-/?-


12/18

cycle, 5Es, and simulations). Following are examples of the types of responses

included in this category:

Because I have learned about the learning cycle and 5Es, and used them

during the course, I have confidence in engaging students to learn science

concepts. (A7)

I especially feel more confident about teaching science after learning about

inquiry and practicing inquiry by creating inquiry-based lessons. (B10)

Eighteen participants reported cognitive content mastery as a source of self-

efficacy. These students reported improved understanding of science concepts and

improved ability to answer childrens questions about science. For example,

After taking this course I feel as though I better understand science concepts.

(C3)

I feel more informed about the content and standards required, as well as

ideas on how to meaningfully present the concepts. (C4)

Comments by 16 participants indicated the methods course had improved their

understanding, but the nature of the learned material was not clear. These responses

were categorized as unspecified content mastery. For example,

Now that I have more knowledge I have more confidence because I have a

better understanding of what I am doing. (A3)

Among the vicarious experiences, cognitive self-modeling and symbolicmodeling were the most important sources of self efficacy. Responses were

categorized as cognitive self-modeling if they referred to future teaching, or future

use of ideas for teaching or potential use of ideas or techniques, and if they stated

that the course had provided resources for teaching, as this was taken to indicate

they had thought about whether they could use the ideas in a classroom. The

comments indicated cognitive self-modeling occurred as participants watched video

case studies, conducted student interviews, and participated in classroom activities

implemented by the methods instructor:

[The science methods course has] given me ideas on experiments to use in myfuture classroom. (A12)

As I was reading the students answers (after the interview), I was thinking

about how I could teach the concepts. (A13)

I have numerous resources and lessons from this class that I will take with me.

(C4)

Symbolic modeling was evident in participant comments about the video case

studies that they watched over the period of the course. Preservice teachers

commented that they benefited from the videos in three ways. First, the videos

provided them with examples of inquiry-based science teaching in elementary

classrooms performed by real and experienced classroom teachers. Second, the

344 N. U. Bautista


13/18


14/18

(Teaching a science lesson in the field) completely changed my confidence! It

was my most comfortable lesson and I felt very confident with the content and

teaching. A13

The student interview boosted my confidence level because I was able to use

resources to build more knowledge on a topic in science that I was not veryfamiliar with. B6

[The interview assignment] showed me common misconceptions, how they

form, and let me reflect on how I would address those in my future classroom.

(A8)

It is important to note that the three students did not teach a science lesson during

the field, and thus did not report any evidence of enactive mastery experience on

their self-efficacy beliefs.

Discussion and Implications

This study investigated the effectiveness of a science methods course that contained

instructional practices reported effective and provided only mastery and vicarious

experiences through these practices in increasing self-efficacy beliefs (PSTE and

STOE) of preservice elementary teachers. The results of the STEBI-b revealed that

participant preservice elementary teachers both personal science teaching efficacy

(PSTE) and science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE) indeed increased over the

period of the course. Supporting this finding, participants responses to the open-ended questions revealed that 93% of the participants perceived that their self-

efficacy increased.

These results are consistent with findings of the studies conducted by Palmer

(2006), Bleicher and Lindgren (2005), and Wingfield et al. (2000) who also

found a significant increase in both PSTE and STOE scores. However, it is

inconsistent with studies conducted by Cantrell et al. (2003), Schoon and Boone

(1998), and Tosun (2000) who found significant changes in PSTE, but not in

STOE, and with Ginns et al. (1995) who found significant changes only in STOE.

The author does not suggest that the intervention presented in this paper is betterthan these previous interventions. However, this study provides evidence that

focusing on providing variety of sources of self-efficacy, such as mastery and

vicarious experiencesas opposed to focusing on teaching a certain technique or

a science content to increase preservice teacher self-efficacy while designing

science methods coursesmight have more positive impact on both dimensions

of self-efficacy.

The author further argues that providing variety within the mastery and vicarious

experiences is also important. Indeed, participants comments showed that while

enactive and cognitive pedagogical mastery among the mastery experiences, andcognitive self-modeling and symbolic modeling among the vicarious experiences

th t i t t f ffi f j it f th ti i t th

346 N. U. Bautista
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


15/18

Effective actual modeling could not be included in this course simply because

many preservice teachers do not get the opportunity to observe effective science

teaching practices during the 2-week long field experience. This is due to the strong

emphasis on mathematics and language arts in K-3 classrooms in local elementary

schools. This was also the reason why the course did not require preservice teachersto videotape and reflect on their science teaching practices, which could provide the

self-modeling. Hence, these two vicarious experiences were not reported as sources

of self-efficacy by the participants in this course. Although, this research does not

provide any evidence of these two vicarious experiences being strong sources of

self-efficacy for preservice teachers, the author recommends science methods

instructors who have the opportunity to include these two in their methods courses

and to measure their relative importance for their students.

This study did not focus on the impact of verbal persuasion and emotional arousal

on preservice elementary teacher self-efficacy because these two sources could notbe controlled and might occur differently for every student. Over the semester,

preservice teachers received feedback on variety of instructional practices they

completed from their peers, cooperating teachers, and the science methods course

instructors. Thus, it is likely that verbal persuasion and emotional arousal were the

sources. However, only three of the participants provided evidence that these two

were effective in helping them gain self-confidence. This finding is inconsistent with

the findings of Zeldin et al. (2006) who reported that social persuasion and vicarious

experiences are the primary sources of self-efficacy beliefs for women. This might

mean that the participants of this study valued powerful vicarious and masteryexperiences as the sources of self-efficacy more than the other two.

There are several opportunities for future research in this area. This study and

similar studies do not provide information about how long teacher candidates

maintain the high levels of self-efficacy after completion of their methods course or

the program, nor do they provide evidence of gaining self-efficacy resulting in

effective science teaching practices or in increased hours of science instruction in

elementary classrooms. However, high self-efficacy is the necessary step for effective

science teaching practices and future studies should continue to identify the factors

that influence teacher self-efficacy. Similarly, the long-term impact of various sources

of self-efficacy should be investigated. This will further shed the light on the relevant

importance of the various sources by answering questions, such as: Do enactive

mastery experiences have more long-term effect than other sources of efficacy?

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Dr. William Boone for conducting the RASCH

analysis of the data and the members of the Qualitative Writing Group at Miami University for their

feedback on the manuscript.

References

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

http://-/?-http://-/?-


16/18

Bezruczko, N. (2000). Rasch measurement in health sciences. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.

Bleicher, R. E. (2007). Nurturing confidence in preservice elementary science teachers. Journal of

Science Teacher Education, 18, 841860.

Bleicher, R. E., & Lindgren, J. (2005). Success in science learning and preservice science teaching self-

efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 205225.

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of preservice

elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 177192.

Desouza, J. M. S., Boone, J. W., & Ylmaz, O. (2004). A study of science teaching self-efficacy and

outcome expectancy beliefs of teachers in southern Indiana. Science Education, 88, 837854.

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, 694706.

Frechtling, J., & Sharp, L. (1997). The user-friendly handbook for mixed-method evaluations (NSF No.

97153). Arlington, VA: NSF.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 76, 569582.

Ginns, I. S., Watters, J. J., Tulip, D. F., & Lucas, K. G. (1995). Changes in preservice elementary

teachers sense of efficacy in teaching science. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 394400.

Jarrett, O. S. (1999). Science interest and confidence among preservice elementary teachers. Journal of

Elementary Science Education, 11, 4959.

Joint Council of the State Board of Education, & The Ohio Board of Regents. (2002). Ohio academic

content standards: K-12 Science. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.

Linacre, J. M. (2009). Winsteps (Version 3.68.0) [Computer Software]. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.

Liu, X., & Boone, W. (2006). Application of Rasch measurement in science education. Maple Grove,

MN: JAM Press.

Liu, O. L., Wilson, M., & Paek, I. (2008). A multidimensional Rasch analysis of gender differences in

PISA mathematics. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9, 1835.

Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing self-

efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243261.National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National

Academies Press.

Palmer, D. H. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for primary teacher education

students.Research in Science Education, 36, 337353.

Rasch, G. (1960).Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment test. Copenhagen, Denmark:

The Danish Institute of Educational Research.

SAS Institute Inc. (2004). SAS 9.1.2 qualification tools users guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Scharmann, L. C., & Orth Hampton, C. M. (1995). Cooperative learning and preservice elementary

teacher science self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 125133.

Schibeci, R. A., & Hickey, R. (2000). Is it natural or processed? Elementary school teachers and

conceptions about materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 11541170.

Schiver, M., & Czerniak, C. M. (1999). A comparison of middle and junior high science teachers levelsof efficacy and knowledge of developmentally appropriate curriculum and instruction. Journal of

Science Teacher Education, 10, 2142.

Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice

elementary teachers. Science Education, 82, 553568.

Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by

preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 84, 4350.

Smithsonian Institution Astrophysical Observatory and Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

(Producers). (1997).Case studies in science education. Available fromhttp://learner.org/resources/

series21.html.

Tosun, T. (2000). The impact of prior science course experience and achievement on the science teaching

self-efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12

,2131.

Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. E. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers conceptions

348 N. U. Bautista
http://learner.org/resources/series21.htmlhttp://learner.org/resources/series21.htmlhttp://learner.org/resources/series21.htmlhttp://learner.org/resources/series21.html


17/18

Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

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. Retrieved from ERIC

database, (ED 439 956).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, 1535.

Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). A comparative study of self-efficacy beliefs of

successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers.Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 45, 10361058.



18/18

Copyright of Journal of Science Teacher Education is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

investigating the use of vicarious and mastery

Documents