Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the Impact of TeachME™ Lab Virtual Classroom Teaching Simulation on Early Childhood Education Majors’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of a mixed-reality teaching environment, called TeachME™ Lab (TML), on early childhood education majors’ science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Sixty-two preservice early childhood teachers participated in the study. Analysis of the quantitative (STEBI-b) and qualitative (journal entries) data revealed that personal science teaching efficacy and science teaching outcome expectancy beliefs increased significantly after one semester of participation in TML. Three key factors impacted preservice teachers’ (PST) self-efficacy beliefs in the context of participation in TML: PSTs’ perceptions of their science content knowledge, their familiarity with TML technology and avatars, and being observed by peers. Cognitive pedagogical mastery (TML practices), effective/actual modeling, cognitive self-modeling, and emotional arousal were the primary sources that increased the PSTs’ perceived self-efficacy beliefs. Overall, the results of this study suggest that the TML is a worthwhile technology for learning to teach in teacher education. It provides a way for PSTs to have a highly personalized learning experience that enables them to improve their understanding and confidence related to teaching science, so that ideally someday they may translate such an experience into their classroom practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Unless it is specifically stated as personal efficacy or outcome expectancy, the term “self-efficacy” is used to refer to one’s both personal efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs together in this study.

  2. More information about the TeachME™ lab can be found at the University of Central Florida’s website: http://srealserver.eecs.ucf.edu/teachlive/.

  3. The duration of the TML sessions was determined based on participants’ daily schedules, the availability of the TML interactors, and the total number of participants. Since the PSTs were in cohorts and have schedules determined by the early childhood education program, the researchers easily identified the days in which the PSTs had the most available time. To eliminate the any possible interactor effect on the TML performances, we reserved the same interactor who was available for 7 h, including a 15-min lunch break. Finally, we calculated the average time per participant (5–7 min).

  4. The original STEBI-b consisted of a five-step Likert scale which included a middle category of “Undecided”. In the current study, we forced participants to express a definite opinion one way or another to better detect overall change, if any, in their self-efficacy beliefs over the semester. Detailed reliability information is provided in the “Data Analysis” section.

References

  • Alonzo, A. C. (2002). Evaluation of a model for supporting the development of elementary school teachers’ science content knowledge. In Proceedings of the annual international conference of the association for the education of teachers in science, Charlotte, NC.

  • American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2011). Normal adolescent development part I. Retrieved from http://www.aacap.org/App_Themes/AACAP/docs/facts_for_families/57_normal_adolescent_development.pdf

  • Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an understanding of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education (pp. 31–54). London, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bautista, N. U. (2011). Investigating the use of vicarious and mastery experiences in influencing early childhood education majors’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 333–349.

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1, 237–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1995). On rectifying conceptual ecumenism. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 347–375). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education and Behavior, 31, 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 521–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleicher, R. E., & Lindgren, J. (2005). Success in science learning and preservice science teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 205–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolshakova, V. L. J., Johnson, C. C., & Czerniak, C. M. (2011). “It depends on what science teacher you got”: Urban science self-efficacy from teacher and student voices. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 961–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone, W., Staver, J., & Yale, M. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

  • Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 485–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, K. J. (1991). Efficacy, “skills”, reinforcement, and choice behavior. American Psychologist, 46, 155–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, K. J. (1995). Understanding cognition, choice, and behavior. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26, 201–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K., & Jones, A. (2003). The development of the Chemistry Attitudes and Experiences Questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 649–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieker, L. A., Hynes, M., Hughes, C., & Smith, E. (2008). Implications of mixed reality and simulation technologies on special education and teacher preparation. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreikurs, R., & Cassel, P. (1972). Discipline without tears (2nd ed.). New York: Hawtorne Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastman, C., & Marzillier, J. S. (1984). Theoretical and methodological difficulties in Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 694–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Education, 79, 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27, 323–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBM Corp. (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

  • Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., & Mayrath, M. C. (2008). Understanding project-based learning in second life with the pedagogy, training, and assessment trio. Education Media International, 45, 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Mara, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahle, J. B., Anderson, A., & Damnjanovic, A. (1991). A comparison of elementary teacher attitudes and skills in teaching science in Australia and the United States. Research in Science Education, 21, 208–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khourey-Bowers, C., & Simonis, D. (2004). Longitudinal study of middle grades chemistry professional development: Enhancement of personal science teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, I. (1982). Efficacy expectations or response predictions: The meaning of efficacy ratings as a function of task characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 132–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, I. (1985). Self-efficacy and expectancy: Old wine with new labels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 824–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, I. (1986). Response expectancy and phobic anxiety: A reply to Wilkins and Bandura. American Psychologist, 41, 1391–1393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, I. (1995). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy: A concluding commentary. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 341–345). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linacre, J. M. (2014). Winsteps ® Rasch measurement computer program. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & Boone, W. J. (Eds.). (2006). Rasch Measurement in Science Education. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.

  • Long, W. A. (2011). Your predictable adolescent. Charleston, SC: BookSurge Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddux, J. E. (1999). Expectancies and the social-cognitive perspective: Basic principles, processes, and variables. In I. Kirsch (Ed.), How expectancies shape experience (pp. 17–39). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mahon, J., Bryant, B., Brown, B., & Kim, M. (2010). Using Second Life to enhance classroom management practice in teacher education. Educational Media International, 47, 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed-reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems, E77-D, 1321–1329.

  • Morrell, P. D., & Carroll, J. B. (2010). An extended examination of preservice elementary teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 103, 246–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425.

  • Palmer, D. H. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for primary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 36, 337–353.

  • Palmer, D. H. (2011). Sources of efficacy information in an inservice program for elementary teachers. Science Education, 95, 577–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

  • Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf

  • Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4–15.

  • Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. E., & Courneya, K. S. (2003). Self-efficacy, controllability and intention in the theory of planned behavior: Measurement redundancy or causal independence? Psychology and Health, 18, 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, L. R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J. D. (1993). Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 723–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharmann, L. C., & Orth Hampton, C. M. (1995). Cooperative learning and preservice elementary teacher science self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 84, 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, K., Correia, A. P., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2010). A faculty mentoring experience: Learning together in second life. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26, 149–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional commitment. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 303–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. M. (2010). Outcome expectancy and self-efficacy: Theoretical implications of an unresolved contradiction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 417–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wingfield, M. E., Freeman, L., & Ramsey, J. (2000). Science teaching self-efficacy of first year elementary teachers trained in a site based program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC reproduction document no. ED 439 956).

  • Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Davis, H. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the achievement of adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 117–138). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B., & Stone, M. (1979). Best test design. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S., Pedretti, E., Bencze, L., Hewitt, J., Perris, K., & Van Oostvee, R. (2006). Exploring the use of cases and case methods in influencing elementary preservice science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 15–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1036–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teacher Education, College of Education, Health and Society, Miami University, 401 McGuffey Hall, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    Nazan Uludag Bautista

  2. Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, Health and Society, Miami University, 155 McGuffey Hall, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    William J. Boone

Authors
  1. Nazan Uludag Bautista
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William J. Boone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nazan Uludag Bautista.

Appendix: Journal Entry Questions

Appendix: Journal Entry Questions

Journal Entry 1: Pre-semester

  1. 1.

    Please EXPLAIN how confident you feel about your ability to teach science in early grades.

  2. 2.

    Please EXPLAIN how confident you are about your science knowledge to be able to teach in early grades.

  3. 3.

    Please EXPLAIN how confident you are about your ability to manage a classroom while teaching (when you are the lead teacher).

Journal Entry 2: After the First Practice

  1. 1.

    How confident did you feel about your ability to teach science after the first TeachME™ Lab practice? Please provide a detailed and clear explanation.

  2. 2.

    How confident did you feel about your science content knowledge after the first TeachME™ Lab practice? Please provide a detailed and clear explanation.

  3. 3.

    How confident did you feel about your ability to manage a classroom after the first TeachME™ Lab practice? Please provide a detailed and clear explanation.

  4. 4.

    What did you learn from this experience overall? Explain.

  5. 5.

    How did the instructor’s modeling help you? Explain.

  6. 6.

    How did your peer’s modeling help you? Explain.

  7. 7.

    How do you plan to get ready for the next practice? Explain.

Journal Entry 3: After the Second Practice

  1. 1.

    Now that you have done TeachME™ Lab twice, explain what you took away from this experience regarding teaching of science. Make sure to reflect on your learning in the context of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge.

  2. 2.

    How was this experience different from or similar to the previous practice?

  3. 3.

    How well do you think you did during your practice? Please briefly explain your answer in terms of areas where you are strong and you need improvement.

  4. 4.

    How well do you think your peers in your session did? Explain overall strengths and areas where they need improvement.

  5. 5.

    How confident did you feel about your ability to teach science after the 2nd TeachME™ Lab practice? Please provide a detailed and clear explanation.

  6. 6.

    How confident did you feel about your science content knowledge after the 2nd TeachME™ Lab practice? Please provide a detailed and clear explanation.

  7. 7.

    How confident did you feel about your ability to manage a classroom after the 2nd TeachME™ Lab practice? Please provide a detailed and clear explanation.

Journal Entry 4: After the Third Practice

  1. 1.

    Explain what you took away from this experience regarding teaching of science. Make sure to reflect on your learning in the context of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge.

  2. 2.

    How was this experience different from or similar to the previous practices?

  3. 3.

    How well do you think you did during your practice? Please briefly explain your answer in terms of areas where you were strong and you need improvement.

  4. 4.

    How well do you think your peers in your session did? Explain overall strengths and areas where they need improvement.

  5. 5.

    How confident did you feel about your ability to teach science after the 3rd TeachME™ Lab practice? Please provide a detailed and clear explanation as to what made the difference, if any.

  6. 6.

    How confident did you feel about your science content knowledge after the 3rd TeachME™ Lab practice? Please provide a detailed and clear explanation as to what made the difference if any.

  7. 7.

    How confident did you feel about your ability to manage a classroom after the 3rd TeachME™ Lab practice? Please provide a detailed and clear explanation as to what made the difference, if any.

Journal Entry 5: Post-semester

  1. 1.

    Explain what you took away from the TeachME™ Lab experience overall regarding the teaching of science. Make sure to reflect on your learning in the context of content knowledge (science) and pedagogical knowledge.

  2. 2.

    How did practicing with TeachME™ Lab affect your confidence in teaching science during student teaching and in your future classrooms?

  3. 3.

    How did practicing with TeachME™ Lab affect your confidence in classroom management during your student teaching and in your future classrooms?

  4. 4.

    In what ways did TeachME™ Lab make you REFLECT on your ability to teach or function in a real classroom environment? In other words, what did you learn about yourself in the context of science teaching as a result of this experience (positive or negative)?

  5. 5.

    What parts of the TeachME™ Lab preparation and practice were helpful and what were the parts needed help (what to keep and what to modify)? How do you suggest I should modify the TeachME™ Lab practices and preparations for the next group?

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bautista, N.U., Boone, W.J. Exploring the Impact of TeachME™ Lab Virtual Classroom Teaching Simulation on Early Childhood Education Majors’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs. J Sci Teacher Educ 26, 237–262 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9418-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9418-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation