MIGUEL DE UNAMUNO

The results of this study provide some illumination into the impact of university course design may impact on the beliefs of preservice teachers in relation to teaching and learning science. Through the qualitative data from the October 2014 interviews, all preservice teachers excluding Sarah and Alan indicated that they had a level of confidence in teaching science through the development in their understanding of the subject, their knowledge of the curriculum and their knowledge of appropriate teaching strategies. This provides some evidence that the students had met the relevant AITSL (2011) graduate requirement in this area. This was also supported by the students’ ability to pass required units and practical experiences as part of their degree. The university involved in the present study did meet the AITSL Initial Teacher

Education requirements for the number of science units incorporated within the degree, designed as science methods units in a way relevant to the context. The university also well exceeded the AITSL and ACECQA practical experience requirements, with undergraduate students completing 160 days of practical experience, and graduate students completing 100 days. This supports recommendations from the review into the Australian Curriculum, which highlights the importance of a balance between theory and practical experience (Australian Government, 2014).

However, meeting these minimum requirements may not create optimum experiences for preservice teachers in relation to their perceptions of teaching and learning science. As previously discussed, the majority of students who entered the undergraduate teacher education program at the university had limited positive previous science experiences and content knowledge, which supports data from previous research (e.g. Goodrum, Druham & Abbs, 2011; Moscovici & Osisioma, 2008). Both units in this current study, Environmental Science and Technology and Primary Science were viewed positively by the in-depth participants, which was supported by the wider STEBI-B findings, in relation to their perceptions of teaching and learning science. This finding endorses previous studies that found that science methods units positively influence science teaching efficacy (Bleicher, 2007: 2009; Brand & Wilkins, 2007; Palmer 2006a). However, questions could be raised as to whether increasing the number of science methods units in the degree could have further enhanced these perceptions, as discussed by Utley et al. (2005) and Mulholland et al. (2004). Having another science unit was referred to by three participants in this current study as a way to further enhance their beliefs and understanding, and it was particularly important for the participants who were experiencing the transition to the new early childhood degree.

Research by Ling and Richardson (2009) has raised questions as to whether the timing of the units within a preservice degree course structure can possibly further optimise engagement and learning in science. This current study provides an answer to this question to some extent. For Sarah, the Environmental Science and Technology unit being scheduled in the first year of her teaching degree was a factor that she cited as reducing her engagement with the unit, as she perceived it was too close to the negative

experiences of science that she had had in high school. The Primary Science unit, scheduled for most participants in the second semester of their third year, still positively influenced seven of the participants at the October 2014 interviews, 11 months after the completion of the unit. These findings are in accord with Palmer’s (2006a) recommendation that a science unit should be scheduled towards the end of a teaching degree, in order for positive gains in science teaching efficacy to flow into the preservice teacher’s early career.

As part of their degrees, preservice teachers could also choose science electives offered through a different school within the university to increase their knowledge of science content. Previous studies have found that only a minority of primary preservice teachers complete any other science units at tertiary level (Hechter, 2011). As outlined in the demographic information in Chapter 3, only a small percentage of the wider preservice teacher cohort and the in-depth participants had actually completed any other science units at university. This may be explained by preservice teachers having lower levels of self-efficacy in relation to teaching and learning science, caused by their perceptions of previous science experiences, which leads them to choose what they perceive to be easier subjects (Hechter, 2011). At the current university, other science units are offered through a different school and are general in design, in that they cater for students from various degrees. One way that this might be rectified is through the provision of science content courses that are tailored specifically to early childhood and primary preservice teachers. The work of Palmer et al. (2015) have shown that there were positive gains in science teaching efficacy, which were sustained for over 10 months that used this approach to support preservice teachers with the development of their science content knowledge.

Also of importance in this current research is that the university had no specific requirements to teach science during any practical experiences and did not have any formalised approach to science mentoring, which had varying impacts on the in-depth interview participants’ perceptions of teaching and learning science. Formal collaborative partnerships between universities and schools that focus on changing attitudes towards science for both preservice and inservice teachers, has been found to improve science teaching efficacy beliefs (Hudson & McRobbie, 2003; Jones, 2010). Poulou (2007) and Hubbard and Abell (2005) raise the importance of collaboration

between science teacher educators and mentor teachers in order to optimise science teaching and learning experiences for preservice teachers. In order for this to occur most effectively, it is vital that mentor teachers are selected that are considered exemplars of science teaching (Petersen & Treagust, 2014). These questions will be explored further in the Recommendations in Chapter Seven.

The experiences of the participants involved in an early childhood degree are worth exploring further. For these participants, two aspects were significant to their perceptions of teaching and learning science. Firstly, the university was transitioning to a degree called Early Childhood and Care 0-8 years, which would include a specifically designed early childhood in science methods unit, replacing the unit Environmental Science and Technology. For Kerrie, enrolled in this new degree, she did not complete the Environmental Science and Technology unit, but was also not able to complete the dedicated early childhood science unit as it was not ready and did not appear on the schedule of units. Like many other students in this predicament, and reflective of many others expressing low self-efficacy for teaching and learning science, this caused heightened levels of concern as she entered the Primary Science unit, as it was the only science unit she would complete in her degree. Kerrie’s PSTE and STOE scores were significantly below the mean at the start of the unit. However, there was a dramatic improvement by the end of the unit, where her PSTE score was 50 and her STOE score was 37, which was supported by the qualitative data presented in her interviews. This supports Bautista’s (2011) argument that a well-designed science methods unit can have a positive impact on outcome expectancy and science teaching self-efficacy, despite other obstacles occurring.

As part of this new degree, one requirement was for preservice teachers to complete a 10-week practical experience in a childcare centre, meeting requirements for ACECQA approval (2013), which involves preservice teachers working with children from the ages of birth to age five. This is a requirement that cannot be fulfilled in traditional primary schools and therefore the university sought out partnerships with childcare centres. The degree was being established at the time of the current study and the university, similar to other tertiary providers, was beginning to provide such practical experiences (Garvis et al., 2013). Jamie’s cohort was the first group to complete a practical experience in a childcare centre. In her interview at the beginning

of the Primary Science unit, Jamie expressed several disappointments with this practical experience, including organisation, lack of support and lack of guidance. Jamie’s perceptions support previous research by Rouse et al. (2012), who identified high levels of dissatisfaction with practical experiences provided in childcare centres. The influences of science teacher preparation can be further analysed to identify sources of efficacy information. The researcher used the expanded model of Palmer (2006b) for this analysis, as it specifically related to the development of science teaching efficacy beliefs. Although this model related specifically to sources of efficacy beliefs developed in science coursework, the application to practical experiences was also useful. Based on the information shared with the researcher by the in-depth interview participants, evidence of all sources of information were referred to through either science units or practical experiences, which supports previous research by Palmer (2011). It is important to state that these sources of information can be either positive or negative, and individuals cognitively process these sources of information in varied ways due to past experiences or by considering other factors such as effort, task difficulty and assistance (Phan, 2012b).

Mastery experiences have been described by Bandura (1997, 1994) as the most powerful source of personal efficacy beliefs. In the current study, enactive mastery, described by Palmer (2006b) as the successful experience of teaching science to a child, was only present through practical experiences. The in-depth interview participants for who this source of information positively influenced their efficacy beliefs were Mark, John, Lucy and Kate. For Toni, Sarah and Alan, opportunities to teach science during practical experience was associated more with a negative view of their abilities, while several of the in-depth participants reported limited or no chance to teach science in their practical experiences. Considering the item analysis of the November 2013 STEBI-B shown in Tables 5.5 and 5.6, which highlighted the wider preservice teacher cohort experiencing some uncertainty of a teacher’s ability to influence the science performance of students, it could be hypothesised that many of the preservice teachers had limited enactive mastery experiences through practical experiences.

Evidence of cognitive content mastery, which is defined as having a successful science learning experience in relation to understanding science concepts (Palmer, 2006b), was present solely through science coursework for some of the in-depth participants. This was evidenced also through the item analysis of the STEBI-B, which indicated an improvement in science content knowledge. For some of the in-depth participants, cognitive content mastery was developed through their additional science study at tertiary level.

Cognitive pedagogical mastery, described by Palmer (2006b) as the successful learning involving the understanding of science teaching techniques, was referenced in both coursework and practical experiences. Examples of this included the completion of the peer presentation and forward planning document assessment in the Primary Science unit, as well through the development of teaching and learning programs in practical experiences. The item analysis of the November 2013 STEBI- B shown in Tables 5.5 and 5.6 indicated improved pedagogical knowledge for the wider preservice cohort, also supports this source of efficacy information. Palmer (2006b) also expanded the mastery experiences to include a category he called unspecified cognitive mastery, to describe successful experiences that participants could not attribute specifically to content or pedagogy. The positive reflections of the in-depth participants in relation to the structure and nature of the science content, as well as improved understanding of science resources were categorised by the researcher as unspecified cognitive mastery. Also evidence of this source of information were experiences shared by in-depth interview participants when they were able to successfully team-teach science with their cooperating teacher on their practicums.

Bandura’s (1997, 1994) second main source of efficacy information was vicarious experiences, referring to observing the modelling of a task from other individuals. This was evidenced in the current study in both coursework and practical experiences through modelling by the science teacher educator, cooperating teachers and science specialist teachers. The demonstration of science teaching by the science teacher educator was widely viewed in a positive light by the in-depth interview participants, but for Sarah, this led to self-doubt as she perceived she would not be able to teach to this standard. Vicarious experiences during practicums were more varied in terms of

quality, but several participants shared examples of carefully observing their cooperating teacher, which assisted them in implementing their own successful science teaching programs. Palmer’s (2006b) expanded aspects of vicarious experiences, namely cognitive self-modelling and simulated modelling, were also present in the current study. Cognitive self-modelling, defined as preservice teachers imagining themselves teaching (Palmer, 2006b), was referenced by a few participants sharing the benefits of the lesson presentation during the Primary Science unit. Simulated modelling, or role-playing a primary class (Palmer, 2006b) was also discussed by several of the in-depth participants. The experience of this was again discussed in relation to the peer presentations, but also in the experience of completing hands-on tasks connected to the content. While perceptions of the hands-on tasks developed by the science teacher educator were perceived positively, Alan and Sarah shared contrasting views of the benefits of this during peer presentations.

Verbal persuasion, or the reception of feedback (Bandura, 1997; Palmer, 2006b), was only briefly referred to throughout the practical experiences. Only a few of the in- depth interview participants mentioned the role of verbal persuasion from the cooperating teacher as being significant to their practical experience and no participant specifically mentioned the role of feedback in relation to the science teacher educator. This finding may be explained by the retrospective interview design of the study. There was some evidence of the fourth source of efficacy information also in practical experiences, known as physiological states, relating to aspects such as individuals coping with stress, fear or anxiety (Palmer, 2006b). These same emotions can contribute to the cognitive processing of the sources of efficacy information (Phan & Nyu, 2012).

However, as described by Mansfield and Woods-McConney (2012), other factors influence science teaching efficacy beliefs for practising teachers. Most of the in- depth interview participants identified resources as the factor that they believed would most influence the quality of their science teaching as they began their careers. Access to quality teaching resources such as Primary Connections have been identified as positively impacting on the science teaching efficacy of practising teachers (Skamp, 2012). Availability of resources is also one of the factors previously identified by Mansfield and Woods-McConney (2012). However, the varying science resourcing

that was recalled by participants as they reflected on their practical experiences indicates that high availability of science resources would not be guaranteed for all preservice teachers as they began their careers.

Sarah was the only participant who felt that the way the school prioritised science would most impact on the quality of her own science teaching as she began her career, again supporting the research of Mansfield and Woods-McConney (2012). Bandura (1994) refers to this as collective efficacy, and several studies have identified that collective efficacy can positively impact on teaching efficacy beliefs (Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Goddard et al., 2004; Klassen, 2010). This perception of Sarah may be due to the positive whole school culture that she experienced in her third-year practicum.

5.6 Summary: Preservice Teacher Preparation and the Influence on Science