1 / 22

Examining the Impact of Context on Preservice Teachers’ Sense of Teaching Efficacy

Examining the Impact of Context on Preservice Teachers’ Sense of Teaching Efficacy. Dr. S. Michael Putman University of North Carolina at Charlotte Michael.Putman@uncc.edu. Background Literature. Teacher Preparation Theory-Practice Disconnect

cece
Download Presentation

Examining the Impact of Context on Preservice Teachers’ Sense of Teaching Efficacy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Examining the Impact of Context on Preservice Teachers’ Sense of Teaching Efficacy Dr. S. Michael Putman University of North Carolina at Charlotte Michael.Putman@uncc.edu

  2. Background Literature • Teacher Preparation • Theory-Practice Disconnect • Ball, Sleep, Boerst, & Bass, 2009; Grossman & McDonald, 2008 • Field Experiences • Zeichner, 2010 • Capraro, Capraro, & Helfeldt, 2010 • Teaching Efficacy • Bandura, 1997 • Posnanski, 2007; Clift & Brady, 2005 • Teaching Efficacy and Field Experiences • WoolfolkHoy & Spero, 2005; Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008 • Oh, et al., 2005; Zeichner & Conklin, 2005

  3. Research Questions • What is the impact of variations in programmatic delivery on the teaching efficacy of teaching candidates? • How do programmatic variations impact teaching candidates’ efficacy for classroom management, instructional strategies, and student engagement?

  4. Context and Participants • Elementary education majors admitted to the teaching curriculum • Combination of convenience and purposive sampling techniques (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). • Two courses: foundations and practicum • Independent variable - specific delivery format • looping (n = 25; 7 self-removed) • blocked (n = 16) • traditional (n = 25)

  5. Instrument • The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) • Two versions of the TSES – long form (24 items) and short form (12 items) • TSES score - sum of most positive responses on items written along a 9-point continuum from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal) • Example: How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? • Includes domain-specific subscales to measure efficacy in student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management • High overall reliability for scale (α = .90) and sub-scales: • student engagement (α = .86) • instructional strategies (α = .81) • Management (α = .86) • Measurement at beginning of foundations and end of practicum for three delivery formats

  6. Looping

  7. Blocked • Note. SE = Student Engagement; IS = Instructional Strategies; CM = Classroom Management • *p < .05, **p < .01

  8. Traditional Group

  9. Data Analysis & Results • ANOVA #1 to investigate differences on scores at first administration • Independent variable: context (looping, blocked, traditional) • Statistically significant differences based on group membership at p < .01 • Total score (F = 23.65) • Classroom management (F = 14.97) • Instructional strategies (F = 19.12) • Student engagement (F = 18.07) • Post hoc analysis - Tukey’sHSD • Candidates enrolled in looping section signficantlyhigher in overall efficacy and for each domain-specific subscale

  10. Data Analysis and Results (cont.) • ANOVA #2 to investigate differences on final administration • Independent variable: context (looping, blocked, traditional) • Statistically significant differences based on group membership at p < .01 • Total score (F = 16.89) • Classroom management (F = 9.14) • Instructional strategies (F = 23.97) • Student engagement (F = 10.75) • Post hoc analysis - Tukey’s HSD • Traditional program was significantly lower than looping and blocked groups

  11. TOTAL TSES SCORE

  12. Student Engagement

  13. Instructional Strategies

  14. Classroom Management

  15. Conclusions and Implications • Blocked Section benefited from: • Multiple opportunities to implement instructional and management strategies described in coursework immediately in context • Mastery and vicarious experiences • Theory to practice connection • Continuity and coherence between program purposes and field experiences (see Hammernesset al., 2005) • Vicarious experiences • Reinforces selecting competent, skilled teachers for practicum • Direct access to a university supervisor, cooperating teacher, and peers at several points during the day • Social Persuasion • Access

  16. The Rest of the Story?

  17. Total Score – All Administrations

  18. Student Engagement

  19. Instructional Strategies

  20. Classroom Management

  21. Select References Ball, D., Sleep, L., Boerst, T., & Bass, H. ( 2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 458-474. Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re imagining teacher education. Teachers andTeaching, Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 184-205. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 358-389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  22. Select References (cont.) Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, A. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids.” The influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 166-179. Oh, D. M., Ankers, A. M., Llamas, J. M., & Tomjoy, C. (2005). Impact of pre-service student teaching experience on urban school teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 82-98. Posnanski, T. J. (2007). A redesigned Geoscience content course’s impact on science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55(2), 152-157. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 89-99. Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teachereducation (pp. 645-735). New York: Routledge.

More Related