A Validation of Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument for Biology Teachers

Abstract

The state of Texas assumes certification tests with low and high biology contents yield teachers with equal teaching efficacy if candidates did not obtain an undergraduate degree in a teaching subject. But, the sense of efficacy of the generalist-certified teachers who took the test with only 30 percent life science contents may be impacted. Studies have used personal efficacy and outcome expectancy subscales in Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI) to measure teacher effectiveness. Few scales exist specifically for subject teachers teaching science in high schools. Hence, STEBI was adapted. This study assessed the validity and reliability of modified STEBI using data from 562 in-service biology teachers in public high schools. Principal Component Analysis supported the validity of the instrument, Confirmatory Factor Analysis failed. The reliability was established with Cronbach's alpha. The subscales were reliable; alpha was .81 and .81. STEBI could be adapted to study teaching efficacy beliefs of biology teachers.

Following up on the impact of a distance learning teachers’ professional development program in science: Α longitudinal case study

“…Of note was that few studies report improvement and maintenance of self-efficacy beliefs in BTOE subscale either immediately after the completion of the program (Aji & Khan, 2019;Gosselin et al, 2010;Mentzer et al, 2014;Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 2014;Tzovla et al, 2021b) or in the long term (Crowther & Cannon, 2002;Malandrakis, 2018). Possibly, this is due to the wording of the subscale questions as it is referred to by many researchers who indicate the need to use multiple methods to investigate phenomena like those assessed by this subscale (Agu & Ramsey, 2018;Cetinkaya & Erbas, 2011;Deehan, 2016). In addition, the failure to maintain improved outcome expectancy beliefs in the long term may be linked to difficulties faced by teachers in the educational process such as the increase in the number of students per class, time pressure, representation of the teaching work, underfunding of schools, heterogeneity of the classes, and increased bureaucratic demands.…”