{"id":10845,"date":"2021-07-14T19:49:23","date_gmt":"2021-07-14T19:49:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2021-12-08T15:44:29","modified_gmt":"2021-12-08T15:44:29","slug":"effects-of-an-asynchronous-online-science-methods-course-on-elementary-preservice-teachers-science-self-efficacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-21\/issue-3-21\/science\/effects-of-an-asynchronous-online-science-methods-course-on-elementary-preservice-teachers-science-self-efficacy","title":{"rendered":"Effects of an Asynchronous Online Science Methods Course on Elementary Preservice Teachers\u2019 Science Self-Efficacy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
To address a statewide demand for elementary teachers, a midsized Midwestern university created a new licensure pathway for paraprofessionals, or para-educators, who were already working full-time in schools. Students in this Teacher Apprentice Program (TAP) were categorized as returning adult learners (age 21 or older) or transfer students. As with undergraduate students in the traditional on-campus program, these TAP participants were considered to be preservice teachers (PSTs) as they worked to complete a Bachelor of Arts in Early Childhood Unified\/Elementary Education and state requirements for full teacher licensure (certification).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Since the TAP preservice teachers were full-time para-educators, their fieldwork requirements (practicum, internship) occurred in the school in which they worked. They were mentored by school teachers and faculty in their workplace, along with an assigned success coach from the university, who communicated with the TAP PSTs primarily through online interactions (email, discussion board, and videoconference meetings such as Zoom, Skype, and Google Hangout).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To accommodate the PSTs\u2019 full-time work schedules and wide-ranging geographic distances, all college coursework in TAP was completed via online classes. This included teacher preparation courses such as foundations, philosophy, psychology, and management, as well as all methods courses featuring subject-specific pedagogy. Online courses were taught through the Blackboard learning management system with course readings, writings, discussion board, and videoconference class sessions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition to online methods courses in literacy, language arts, mathematics, social studies, and the fine arts, the TAP featured a science methods course titled Inquiry-Based Learning. It was a two-credit-hour course, taught asynchronously over 8 weeks in the summer. Like all TAP courses, class size was capped at 30 students. This class was typically taken near the middle of the program, after TAP PSTs had spent at least one academic year completing field experience\/internship requirements in their school placement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Courses taken before the science methods class, including Principles of Mentoring, Engaging and Motivating Learners, Early Childhood Assessment and Methods, Elementary Teaching Early Literacy, and Family Collaboration. Depending on the amount of General Education courses needed, the TAP PSTs may also complete additional methods, management, or content courses in mathematics or science over the summer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the science methods course, the expectation was that PSTs would spend approximately 96 hours on course-related activities, or an average of 12 hours each week for 8 weeks. Primary learner outcomes for the science methods course included the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Learner outcomes aligned with those in other TAP courses (lesson planning, assessment, and differentiation for diverse learners and language learning). An overview of the course sequence, major topics and tasks is located in Appendix A<\/a>, with a detailed summary in Appendix B<\/a>. Different instructors may teach one or multiple sections of the class. Nevertheless, all sections aligned in terms of course outcomes, readings and resources, activities and assignments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The textbook used in all sections of the science methods course was Teaching Science Through Inquiry-Based Instruction<\/em> (Contant et al., 2018). Additional primary resources feature Next Generation Science Standards <\/em>(NGSS Lead States, 2013) and the 5E Learning Cycle Model (Brown & Abell, 2007; Bybee, 2002; Bybee et al., 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2019). Besides text readings, the course provided several video and multimedia resources with overviews of inquiry-based learning, as well as example classroom footage of model activities with students (Australian Academy of Science, 2016; Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the course had no face-to-face classroom sessions, all science activities were designed as home experiments. PSTs completed inquiry activities through prompts and recommended materials. Any procedures provided were designed to initiate investigations and model inquiry-based thinking, as opposed to procedural or cookbook verification activities. In addition to the activities, PSTs completed written reflections on their experiences, with prompts focused on both the science content and the learning process and elements of inquiry (5Es, modifications, questioning, etc.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the course, PSTs designed an inquiry-based science lesson framed around the 5E model and aligned with NGSS<\/em> performance expectations and three dimensions of Science and Engineering Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Disciplinary Core Ideas. Since the course occurred in the summer, PSTs did not teach the lesson to school children. However, they were encouraged to select standards and content that aligned with an age group or grade with whom they worked during the school year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to getting instructor feedback on their lesson plans, PSTs also applied decookbook strategies provided from example activities and articles (Everett & Moyer, 2007; Shiland, 1997). Other topics addressed were safety, evaluation, the teacher\u2019s instructional role, and interdisciplinary connections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The TAP is an example of the growing online presence in higher education and teacher preparation programs. According to the most recent report by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; Institute of Education Sciences, 2018), the percentage of undergraduate students enrolled in at least one online class during 2015-2016 was 43.1%, up from 32.0% in 2011-2012. Numbers were even higher for students specifically in the field of Education: 45.7% in 2015-2016, versus 33.8% in 2011-2012. Among the 13 identified fields of study in the NCES report, Education was third highest in the percentage of students taking at least one online class in 2015-2016, behind Business\/management and Computer\/information science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar trends have occurred for students enrolled in programs that are entirely online. In 2015-2016, 10.8% of all undergraduate students in a degree program were enrolled in one offered entirely online, compared to 6.5% in 2011-2012. Slightly fewer Education students were enrolled in an entirely online program, but still gaining. In 2011-2012, 6.4% of all students in the field of Education were in entirely online programs. However, this proportion increased to 9.7% in 2015-2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the growing numbers of online courses and programs, only 9% of postsecondary faculty members prefer to teach classes that are entirely online (Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017). This survey of over 11,000 faculty members in U.S. postsecondary institutions also found that instructors have a love-hate relationship with online learning. While most faculty respondents believed an experience with online teaching would improve their instruction, a majority still believed that students did not learn as well as in face-to-face courses. Past research, however, finds that learning gain differences are insignificant when comparing online and face-to-face courses, with a blended approach resulting in stronger learning outcomes than either format by itself (Means et al., 2009, 2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The issue of online instruction becomes even more complex in the contexts of science and teacher education. Science courses face the challenge of going beyond content and incorporating laboratory techniques and inquiry approaches. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Online lectures by video are fine for conveying facts, formulas and concepts, but by themselves they cannot help anyone learn how to put those ideas into practice. Nor can they give students experience in planning an experiment and analyzing data, participating in a team, operating a pipette or microscope, persevering in the face of setbacks or exercising any of the other practical and social skills essential for success in science. (Waldrop, 2013, p. 268)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The rise of MOOCs \u2014 massive open online courses \u2014 has pushed educators and universities to explore new ways to practice science investigations, including remote control of laboratory equipment, smartphone applications, and video games (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014; Waldrop, 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the same way that online science content classes are limited without an authentic laboratory, online teacher education courses lack a tangible classroom in which to model and practice pedagogy. Moreover, the particular focus on science teaching methods creates even greater complexity. Historically, teachers have often struggled in identifying their roles in inquiry-based science lessons, which emphasize student-centered instruction and more intangible strategies on the part of the teacher (Crawford, 2000; Riga et al., 2017; Walker & Shore, 2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A robust body of research into online professional development for in-service teachers and science education already exists (e.g., Annetta & Shymansky, 2006; Davis & Zhang, 2013; Goldenberg et al., 2014; Herbert et al., 2016; Ingber et al., 2014; Kokoc et al., 2011; McFadden, 2013; Randle, 2013; Roehrig et al., 2013; Vanides, 2007; Watkins et al., 2020; Wong et al., 2016). Although not as extensive, undergraduate online science methods courses for PSTs are growing, along with research into this endeavor (Colon, 2010; Fulton &Yoshioka, 2017; Gonz\u00e1lez-Espada, 2009; Kern, 2013; Miller, 2008; Pope, 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Studies of these courses have examined various elements (technology, student views, and beliefs) as well as general overviews of successes, challenges, misconceptions, and tips. Beyond the impact of an online science methods class, teacher candidates\u2019 level of inquiry lesson planning also depends on additional factors, such as technology expertise, time demands, and school context (Colon, 2010). Nevertheless, the impact of online science methods courses can be examined with respect to multiple outcomes. This study reported in this article, for example, examined science self-efficacy beliefs of elementary PSTs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on the work of Albert Bandura (1977, 1997), efficacy beliefs have long been strong predictors of teacher behavior (Pajares, 1996; Stripling et al., 2008; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Bandura (1994) himself defined self-efficacy as \u201cpeople\u2019s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave\u201d (p. 71).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Historically, teachers\u2019 efficacy in science has been found to correlate with their instructional behaviors and student performance. For example, a higher self-efficacy relates to improved pedagogy and achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Enochs et al., 1995; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Henson, 2001; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). Conversely, teachers with lower self-efficacy typically have negative views about science and may even avoid teaching it altogether (Koballa & Crawley, 1985). Moreover, teachers with low self-efficacy, in general, often have higher stress and are more likely to leave the profession (Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given self-efficacy\u2019s importance in teacher perceptions and behaviors, teacher educators have applied a multitude of approaches to improve elementary PSTs\u2019 science self-efficacy. In his seminal work introducing self-efficacy, Bandura (1977) described four sources affecting one\u2019s efficacy expectations: performance accomplishments (or \u201cpersonal mastery experiences\u201d), vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal (\u201cphysiological states\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n These sources are illustrated in Figure 1, including corresponding treatments provided by Bandura as well as specific elements in the online science methods course featured in this study. Some course elements are listed more than once since, as described by Bandura (1977), \u201cAny given method, depending on how it is applied, may of course draw to a lesser extent on one or more other sources of efficacy information\u201d (p. 195). The organization in Figure 1 is not intended to be an exhaustive catalog of course elements, but rather an overview to support instruction and study. More information about course structure, sequencing, and tasks is shared in Appendices A<\/a> and B<\/a>, with links to sample content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure 1 <\/strong>Illustration of Theoretical Framework Outlining Self-Efficacy Sources and Treatments (Bandura, 1977) With Corresponding Course Elements<\/p>\n\n\n\nOnline Teacher Education<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Theoretical Framework for Science Teaching Self-Efficacy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n