Influence of an Intensive, Field-Based Life Science Course on Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy for Environmental Science Teaching

Abstract

Personal and professional experiences influence teachers' perceptions of their ability to implement environmental science curricula and to positively impact students' learning. The purpose of this study was twofold: to determine what influence, if any, an intensive field-based life science course and service learning had on preservice teachers' self-efficacy for teaching about the environment and to determine which aspects of the combined field-based course/service learning preservice teachers perceived as effective for enhancing their self-efficacy. Data were collected from class documents and written teaching reflections of 38 middle-level preservice teachers. Some participants (n = 18) also completed the Environmental Education Efficacy Belief Instrument at the beginning and end of the semester. Both qualitative and quantitative data analyses indicated a significant increase in PSTs' personal efficacies for environmental teaching, t(17) = 4.50, p = .000, d = 1.30, 95 % CI (.33, .90), but not outcome expectancy, t(17) = 1.15, p = .268, d = .220, 95 % CI (-.06, .20). Preservice teachers reported three aspects of the course as important for enhancing their self-efficacies: learning about ecological concepts through place-based issues, service learning with K-5 students and EE curriculum development. Data from this study extend prior work by indicating that practical experiences with students were not the sole factor in shaping PSTs' self-efficacy; learning ecological concepts and theories in field-based activities grounded in the local landscape also influenced PSTs' self-efficacy.

Trends in Higher Education Service-Learning Courses for Pre-Service Teachers: A Systematic Review

“…The selected research predominantly utilized S-L programs designed as components of various core curricula university courses, such as inclusive education and diversity courses (Conner, 2010;Carringtonm & Selva, 2010), introductory or capstone pedagogical courses (Chang, Anagnostopoulos & Omae, 2011;Coffey, 2010;Trauth-Nare, 2015;Sletto, 2010;Power, 2013), methods of teaching courses (Cone, 2012;Iverson & James, 2010;Kim, 2012), pedagogical research courses (Wallace, 2013), art education courses (Whiteland, 2013), thus corroborating the flexibility of S-L as a powerful curricular tool. Out of the total 15 approaches, 2 scholars designed the S-L experience as a summer program: a summer arts-based S-L with Australian Aboriginal people as beneficiaries (Power & Bennet, 2015) and a summer enrichment mentoring S-L program for developing pedagogical skills (Green, 2011).…”

“…The hosting environments varied from common schools (Coffey, 2010;Green, 2011;Trauth-Nare, 2015 Sletto, 2010) to schools placed in distressed neighbourhoods (Conner, 2010), community organizations that serve youth from marginalized groups (Chang, Anagnostopoulos & Omae, 2011),…”

Development of the Environmental Education Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument

“…Teacher efficacy has also been shown to relate to student motivation and achievement (Ashton & Webb, ; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, ; Moore & Esselman, ) as well as to student self‐efficacy and attitude (Cheung & Cheng, ). Teacher efficacy is also linked to teachers’ goals and aspirations (Muijs & Reynolds, ), attitudes toward innovation and change (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, ), tendency to refer difficult students to special education (Soodak & Podell, ), use of teaching strategies (Allinder, ; Wagler & Moseley, ), attrition (Burley, Hall, Villeme, & Brockmeier, ), cultural efficacy (Moseley, Bilica, Wanless, & Gdovin, ), inquiry‐instruction in science (Angle & Moseley, ; Avery & Meyer, ), practicum experiences (McDonnough & Matkins, ), prior experiences in science courses (Tosun, ) and the outdoors (Trauth‐Nare, ), and teacher burnout (Chwalisz, Altmaier, & Russell, ).…”

“…Many teachers believe environmental education (EE) should be integrated into preK–12 formal curricula; however, few teachers feel adequately prepared to teach EE (Powers, ). Effective EE instruction requires teachers to have the pedagogical content knowledge to effectively support their students’ learning of ecological concepts and the use of the outdoors for instructional purposes (Trauth‐Nare, ). However, despite research showing that environmental education can provide positive student outcomes in academic achievement, critical thinking, motivation, and engagement (Culen & Volk, ; Drake & Burns, ; Lieberman & Hoody, ; Orr, ; Palmer, ; Powers, ; Volk & Cheak, ), preservice teachers are rarely exposed to EE as part of their teacher education programs (Heimlich, Braus, Olivolo, McKeown‐Ice, & Barringer‐Smith, ; McKeown‐Ice, ).…”

The Effects of Argumentation Implementation on Environmental Education Self Efficacy Beliefs and Perspectives According to Environmental Problems

“…Therefore, students can develop decision-making skills on a socio-scientific subject by learning how to analyze information with an argument-based learning model (Hogan, 2002). In order for this process to be meaningful, Toulmin (1958) described as a model describing the main points of the scientific debate and showing the relationships between them. This model is given in Figure 1: Claim; it is the opinion put forward about a subject.…”