Changes in Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy: From Science Methods to Student Teaching

The purpose of this research was to assess preservice teachers self-efficacy at different stages of their educational career in an attempt to determine the extent to which self-efficacy beliefs may change over time. In addition, the critical incidents, which may contribute to changes in self-efficacy, were also investigated. The instrument used in the study was the Teaching Science as Inquiry (TSI) Instrument. The TSI Instrument was administered to 38 preservice elementary teachers to measure the self-efficacy beliefs of the teacher participants in regard to the teaching of science as inquiry. Based on the results and the associated data analysis, mean and median values demonstrate positive change for self-efficacy and outcome expectancy throughout the data collection period.

The Investigation of the Ways in Which Gender Stereotypes are Perpetuated through Questioning and Assessment Strategies in Inquiry-Based Science Classroom

The purpose of this study was to investigate the questioning strategies of preservice teachers whenteaching science as inquiry. The guiding questions for this research were: In what ways do the questioning strategies of preservice teachers differ for male and female elementary students when teaching science as inquiry and how is Bloom’s Taxonomy evident within the questioning strategies of preservice teachers? Examination of the data indicated that participants asked a total of 4,158 questions to their elementary aged students. Of these questions, 974 (23%) were asked to boys, and 991 (24%) were asked to girls. The remaining questions (53%) were asked to the class as a whole, therefore no gender could be assigned to these questions. In relation to Bloom’s Taxonomy, 74% of the questions were basic knowledge, 15% were secondary comprehension, 2% were application, 4% were analysis, 1% were synthesis, and 3% were evaluation.

The Repairing of Misconceptions through the Use of Inquiry-Based Activities

Misconceptions exist in all fields of learning and develop through a person’s preconception of how the world works. Students with misconceptions in chemical engineering are not capable of correctly transferring knowledge to a new situation and will likely arrive at an incorrect solution. The purpose of this thesis was to repair misconceptions in thermodynamics by using inquiry-based activities. Inquiry-based learning is a method of teaching that involves hands-on learning and self-discovery. Previous work has shown inquiry-based methods result in better conceptual understanding by students relative to traditional lectures. The thermodynamics activities were designed to guide students towards the correct conceptual understanding through observing a preconception fail to hold up through an experiment or simulation. The developed activities focus on the following topics in thermodynamics: “internal energy versus enthalpy”, “equilibrium versus steady state”, and “entropy”. For each topic, two activities were designed to clarify the concept and assure it was properly grasped. Each activity was coupled with an instructions packet containing experimental procedure as well as pre- and post-analysis questions, which were used to analyze the effect of the activities on the students’ responses. Concept inventories were used to monitor students’ conceptual understanding at the beginning and end of the semester. The results did not show a statistically significant increase in the overall concept inventory scores for students who performed the activities compared to traditional learning. There was a statistically significant increase in concept area scores for “internal energy versus enthalpy” and “equilibrium versus steady state”. Although there was not a significant increase in concept inventory scores for “entropy”, written analyses showed most students’ misconceptions were repaired. Students transferred knowledge effectively and retained most of the information in the concept areas of “internal energy versus enthalpy” and “equilibrium versus steady state”.