Recursos humanos

There is a substantial body of research exploring the science teaching efficacy beliefs of inservice teachers. Research in this area emerged significantly since the 1990’s. Enoch and Riggs (1990) developed an instrument to quantitatively measure efficacy when teaching science called the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI). In this initial research, the authors identified that teachers with low level of science teaching efficacy taught the subject less than those teachers with higher levels of self-efficacy. Since this time, this instrument has also been further developed into a specific instrument aimed at determining the science-teaching efficacy of preservice teachers (STEBI-B). Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) identified that teachers of science with low science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE) scores were less effective in teaching science and used more teacher directed styles.

High levels of science teaching efficacy beliefs have been associated with improved student achievement (Lumpe, Czerniak, Haney & Beltyukova, 2012). Science teaching efficacy beliefs are also predictive of a teacher’s intention to teach science in their own classrooms (Van Aalderen-Smeets & Walma van der Molen, 2013). However, Lardy (2011) argued that the science teaching efficacy beliefs of inservice teachers do not always correlate with actual science teaching practices, signalling a complex and dynamic range of factors that might influence this. This position is supported by other research suggesting that while science teaching efficacy beliefs are important, other factors such as resources, support and time are also critical to the effective teaching of science (Milner et al., 2012).

The sources of information that impact science efficacy beliefs are also important to be considered. Mansfield and Woods-McConney (2012) adapted the model created by Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) after researching the efficacy sources of teachers teaching science in primary Western Australian schools. Their data supported the

importance of mastery experience, vicarious experience and physiological and affective states as sources of personal science teaching efficacy. However, they found no data to support the distinct role of verbal persuasion but claimed that it may have occurred implicitly through vicarious and mastery experiences (Mansfield & Woods- McConney, 2012). Palmer (2011) also examined the sources of efficacy information to impact on developing science teaching efficacy beliefs. In this study, although all sources of efficacy information were considered to be significant, cognitive mastery, that is, the “perceived success in understanding a pedagogical concept” (Palmer, 2011, p. 593) and verbal persuasion were found to be the most significant in contributing to the development of stronger efficacy beliefs.

The context in which teachers operate has been identified as a significant influence on science teaching efficacy beliefs (Rudman & Webb, 2009). In developing their model of science teaching efficacy beliefs, Mansfield and Woods-McConney (2012) recognised the science specific nature of the teaching context, including influential factors such as time, resources, student learning needs, science content knowledge, knowledge about how to teach science and general teaching skills. The modified model also acknowledged the importance of collaboration and participation in whole school science events, as well as professional development in contributing to personal science teaching efficacy, which was supported by their research findings (Mansfield & Woods-McConney, 2012). These aspects are supported by research by Skamp (2012), who outlined that teachers show more confidence in teaching science when they believe they have a strong curriculum resource to support them. He argued that access to these curriculum resources supported teachers with their content knowledge and contributed to them enjoying teaching science. Conversely, research has also identified that school environments that have poor resources and facilities and high levels of disadvantage negatively influence science teaching efficacy beliefs (Rudman & Webb, 2009).

Professional development is one key way that science teaching efficacy beliefs of inservice teachers are facilitated. Teachers feel that they need ongoing professional development in order to improve their teaching performance in science (Keys, 2005). One study that explored the impact of a professional learning program on implementing inquiry models in science found that both participants’ personal science

teaching efficacy and outcome expectancy increased (Eschach, 2003). An Australian study noted that teachers’ confidence when teaching science improved significantly after their involvement in the Primary Connections professional development program (Hackling, 2006). These teachers also reported that after a term of implementation of the approach, their performance in relation to science teaching had improved, because they were using a more hands-on approach, had a better sense of structure when teaching science and were actually teaching science significantly more often than they had in the past (Hackling, 2006).

In a study conducted by Morgan (2012), teachers of middle to upper primary involved in a professional learning community focusing on collaborative learning and reflective practice, increased their satisfaction when teaching science. Participants in this study identified that they could see the potential for improving student learning using the skills they had gained (Morgan, 2012). Similarly, research by Palmer (2011) identified that a science teaching intervention focusing on workshops, observation opportunities and actual teaching aimed at inservice teachers increased their overall personal science teaching efficacy, even though the intervention was designed to target only one specialised sub skill. A study exploring the impact of elementary teachers who participated in long–term science professional development program, identified that the teachers experienced significant gains in their science teaching self-efficacy (Lumpe, Czerniak, Haney & Beltyukova, 2012).

The way in which professional development in science is offered to inservice teachers is also important to contemplate. Prinsley and Johnston (2015) argued that universities should coordinate and facilitate evidence-based professional development in order to more effectively support teachers in schools. One study examined the role of universities in providing science and mathematics content knowledge courses to inservice teachers in an attempt to upgrade their skills as required for promotion (Swackhamer, Koellner, Basile & Kimbrough, 2009). These teachers increased their perceptions about the abilities to improve student learning outcomes in science and mathematics (Swackhamer et al., 2009). Professional development offered through science centres has also contributed to improvements in science teaching efficacy beliefs of inservice teachers (McKinnon & Lamberts, 2013).