 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 13, Issue 2, Article 14 (Dec., 2012) |
The completed questionnaire was analyzed using SPSS (version 15). Descriptive statistics of each construct such as mean scores (M), standard deviations (SD), percentages of preservice elementary teachers who either ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’, p values (2-tailed) of paired samples t-test were computed.
Surprisingly, most of the preservice elementary teachers did not have much confidence in their science knowledge as 21 (81%) of them either disagreed with or were uncertain about their own strength in science. On analysis of their training in science, 20 (77 %) of them had taken three or more science courses in high schools and 24 (92%) of them had taken three or more science courses in colleges. Over 96% of the preservice elementary teachers had taken biology in high schools; and over 92% of them had taken either biology or geology in college. This showed that biology was a popular subject among preservice elementary teachers.
Learning and understanding the theory for developing a science curriculum (Construct: Theory)
Looking at the measures of preservice elementary teachers’ perceptions on ‘Theory,’ results showed a significant change from a low percentage of ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ ranging from 8-31% (below 50%) at the beginning of the semester to 65-92% (above 50%) at the end of the semester (Table 3). The three indicators ‘syllabus’, ‘constructivist’ and ‘viewpoints’ were well understood by the preservice elementary teachers as data showed a high percentage of 92% at the end of the semester. However, the result for “theory” was not high when compared with other items in this construct, with only 65% of preservice elementary teachers indicating that they either ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree.’ This might be because the preservice elementary teachers did not fully realize what theories of science were, or the concepts of science theories may not have been exemplified clearly to the preservice elementary teachers in the science methods class. Even though the nature of science as illustrated by Alshamrani (2008) and McComas (2004) was introduced in the science methods course, preservice elementary teachers might not have enough science knowledge background to appreciate and comprehend the concepts of the nature of science. On the other hand, the author was pleased that the preservice elementary teachers almost fully (92%) understood the ‘syllabus’ as this was extremely important in their classroom teaching. In the course, two official documents related to the concept ‘syllabus’ were reviewed - the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and the state curriculum framework.Table 3. Descriptive statistics of preservice elementary teachers' responses for the construct ‘Theory’
Question item
Indicator
Pretest (N = 26)
Posttest
(N = 26)Paired samples t-test
p-value# (two-tailed)M
SD
%*
M
SD
%*
1
syllabus
2.69
0.93
19
4.23
0.59
92
<.001
6
theory
2.35
0.80
8
3.73
0.60
65
<.001
10
constructivist
3.12
1.03
31
4.15
0.54
92
<.001
17
viewpoints
2.88
0.77
23
4.08
0.48
92
<.001
*percentage of preservice elementary teachers who ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that they believed they understand the theory for developing a science curriculum
# p-value < 0.05 means significantUnderstanding effective planning for science teaching and learning (Construct: Planning)
The percentage score of item 12 - independent/collaborative and item 20 - inclusivity were both 100% at the end of the semester, which meant that all preservice elementary teachers fully understood these two areas (Table 4). However, item 4 - scope and sequence was not high when compared with other items in the construct, with only 77% of preservice elementary teachers choosing ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. When looking at question 4 (Given my current knowledge of elementary science, I believe I am able to develop a scope and sequence for teaching elementary science), the question may not be explicitly clear. Preservice elementary teachers might not contextually understand what ‘scope’ or ‘sequence’ means. If the questionnaire is to be used again for future research, the author will modify that question so there are not two different indicators occurring together in one question, and the words ‘scope’ and ‘sequence’ are explained.Table 4. Descriptive statistics of preservice elementary teachers' responses for the construct ‘Planning’
Question item
Indicator
Pretest
(N = 26)Posttest
(N = 26)Paired samples t-test p-value# (two-tailed)
M
SD
%*
M
SD
%*
3
lesson plans
2.88
0.95
31
4.20
0.96
81
<.001
4
scope & sequence
2.65
0.94
19
3.85
0.68
77
<.001
5
program
2.73
0.78
15
4.00
0.85
92
<.001
9
integrate
3.81
0.75
69
4.23
0.51
96
.019
12
independent/ collaborative
3.88
0.71
77
4.38
0.50
100
.004
13
appropriate activities
3.58
0.70
62
4.31
0.62
92
<.001
20
inclusivity
3.00
1.02
38
4.31
0.47
100
<.001
24
concept map
3.27
0.92
54
4.15
0.68
92
.001
*percentage of preservice elementary teachers who ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that they believed they understood effective planning for science teaching and learning
# p-value < 0.05 means significantImplementing effective science teaching practices (Construct: Implementation)
It is interesting to note that ‘positive attitudes’ (item 25) has a high mean score (96%) in both the pre- and posttest (Table 5). Though preservice elementary teachers did not have confidence with respect to their science knowledge, they had positive attitudes toward the teaching of science. They also understood fully that science was about ‘hands-on’ activities (item 21). The percentage of preservice elementary teachers who indicated ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ was high (88%) at the beginning and became higher (100%) at the end of the semester.At the beginning of the semester, the preservice elementary teachers knew little (19%) about the unit of work (item 15), but as the lessons progressed, their knowledge grew so that on the posttest, the score was 85%. Item 15 (unit of work) in Table 4 was closely related with item 3 (lesson plans) in Table 3 and the final percentage for both items were above 80%. However, the author was not totally satisfied with the submitted unit work assignment, i.e., the four-lesson unit plan. The author felt that many preservice elementary teachers held the misconception that by doing hands-on activities, the science concepts would be illustrated. The preservice teachers rarely queried the science content knowledge behind the activities and how the activities could be conducted or modified appropriately to suit the abilities of students. They focused more on the ‘fun’ part of the activities than on the science concepts that the elementary students need to know.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics of preservice elementary teachers' responses for the construct ‘Implementation’
Question item
Indicator
Pretest
(N = 26)
Posttest
(N = 26)
Paired samples t-test
p-value# (two-tailed)M
SD
%*
M
SD
%*
2
problem-based learning
3.15
1.01
50
4.04
0.79
88
.005
7
strategies
2.92
0.94
35
4.19
0.69
92
<.001
8
classroom management
3.92
0.80
73
4.19
0.75
81
.148
11
learning environment
3.73
0.83
65
4.12
0.65
85
.057
14
ethical issues
3.54
0.86
54
4.15
0.73
81
.007
15
unit of work
2.81
0.80
19
4.27
0.72
85
<.001
16
assessments
3.19
0.63
31
4.31
0.62
92
<.001
18
critical reflection
3.54
0.91
50
4.23
0.71
85
.005
19
questioning skills
3.31
0.88
42
4.23
0.65
88
<.001
21
hands-on lessons
4.12
0.71
88
4.69
0.47
100
.001
22
content knowledge
3.15
0.78
38
4.27
0.67
88
<.001
23
teaching confidently
2.96
0.87
31
3.96
0.53
85
<.001
25
positive attitudes
4.42
0.58
96
4.35
0.69
96
.664
*percentage of preservice elementary teachers who ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that they believed they understood the implementation of effective science teaching practices, including successful management of the learning environment
# p-value < 0.05 means significant
