Student attitudes toward science-technology-society resulting from visitation to a science-technology museum

Are student attitudes toward science-technology-society (TSS) affected by visitation to science-technology museums? The purpose of this study was to determine whether such visitations affected student STS attitudes, and in what ways particular factors of the visitation impacted these attitudes. Factors examined included prior classroom experience with STS, instructional methodology employed by teachers, grade level, socioeconomic status, school type (public or private), and gender. The subjects involved in the study were 194 Kansas students in grades 6-8, and their 13 classroom teachers. Data were collected via a pretest-posttest control group design by using study-specific questionnaires and the Moore-Sutman Scientific Attitudes Inventory. Results indicated that significant differences in attitudes were present between visiting and nonvisiting students and between grade levels. No significant differences were found between other factors. One possible conclusion is that sound pedagogy should be used prior to and during museum visitations as well as in the classroom.     

Problem-solving skills of high school chemistry students

What strategies do high school students use when solving chemistry problems? The purpose for conducting this study was to determine the general problem-solving skills that students use in solving problems involving moles, stoichiometry, the gas laws, and molarity. The strategies were examined for success in problem solving for 266 students of varying proportional reasoning ability, using interviews incorporating the think-aloud technique. Data were coded using a scheme based on Polya's heuristics. Results indicated that successful students and those with high proportional reasoning ability tended to use algorithmic reasoning strategies more frequently than nonsuccessful and low proportional reasoning students. However, the majority of all students solved the chemistry problems using only algorithmic methods, and did not understand the chemical concepts on which the problems were based.     

Letter from the Editors

Journal of Science Teacher Education -     

Relating Learning Style,Reading Vocabulary,Reading Comprehension,and Aptitude for Learning to Achievement in the Self-Paced and Computer-Assisted Instructional Modes

Achievement differences shown by teaching clerical skills through use of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and traditional self-paced instruction were investigated. Differentials in correlations of achievement with aptitude and learning style measures for students taught by the two methods were determined. A randomized pretest-posttest design with analysis of covariance was used to compare achievement differences. Group differences in relationships between learning-related variables and achievement were compared through Fisher r to z transformations. The CAI group achieved significantly higher than did the traditional group. Arithmetic aptitude and learning styles associated with sociability traits correlated higher with achievement in the CAI group than in the traditional group. Different aptitude-learning style patterns were associated with higher achievement in the two groups.     

Letter from the Editors

Journal of Science Teacher Education -     

Accounting for preservice teachers’ constructivist learning environment experiences

The article reports the findings of a study conducted to inform a teacher preparation program of the extent to which they were providing students with experiences consistent with the program goals. The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) was administered three times to participants in a 1-year program for graduate students seeking licensure in mathematics and science. These data were compared to program course syllabi and participant reflections to generate an account of institutional practice. From this account, observations about the program and a subsequent hypothetical learning trajectory were generated. It is recommended that the program find additional ways to explicitly integrate constructivist learning environment components into coursework and field experiences, specifically in the area of Critical Voice. Furthermore, the program should continue to structure programs components differently for mathematics and science and continue to offer a year-round field experience.     

Modeling Sources of Teaching Self-Efficacy for Science,Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics Graduate Teaching Assistants

Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have a large impact on undergraduate instruction but are often poorly prepared to teach. Teaching self-efficacy, an instructor’s belief in his or her ability to teach specific student populations a specific subject, is an important predictor of teaching skill and student achievement. A model of sources of teaching self-efficacy is developed from the GTA literature. This model indicates that teaching experience, departmental teaching climate (including peer and supervisor relationships), and GTA professional development (PD) can act as sources of teaching self-efficacy. The model is pilot tested with 128 GTAs from nine different STEM departments at a midsized research university. Structural equation modeling reveals that K–12 teaching experience, hours and perceived quality of GTA PD, and perception of the departmental facilitating environment are significant factors that explain 32% of the variance in the teaching self-efficacy of STEM GTAs. This model highlights the important contributions of the departmental environment and GTA PD in the development of teaching self-efficacy for STEM GTAs.Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) play a significant role in the learning environment of undergraduate students. They are heavily involved in the instruction of undergraduate students at master’s- and doctoral-granting universities (Nyquist et al., 1991 ; Johnson and McCarthy, 2000 ; Sundberg et al., 2005 ; Gardner and Jones, 2011 ). GTAs are commonly in charge of laboratory or recitation sections, in which they often have more contact and interaction with the students than the professor who is teaching the course (Abraham et al., 1997 ; Sundberg et al., 2005 ; Prieto and Scheel, 2008 ; Gardner and Jones, 2011 ).Despite the heavy reliance on GTAs for instruction and the large potential for them to influence student learning, there is evidence that many GTAs are completely unprepared or at best poorly prepared for their role as instructors (Abraham et al., 1997 ; Rushin et al., 1997 ; Shannon et al., 1998 ; Golde and Dore, 2001 ; Fagen and Wells, 2004 ; Luft et al., 2004 ; Sundberg et al., 2005 ; Prieto and Scheel, 2008 ). For example, in molecular biology, 71% of doctoral students are GTAs, but only 30% have had an opportunity to take a GTA professional development (PD) course that lasted at least one semester (Golde and Dore, 2001 ). GTAs often teach in a primarily directive manner and have intuitive notions about student learning, motivation, and abilities (Luft et al., 2004 ). For those who experience PD, university-wide PD is often too general (e.g., covering university policies and procedures, resources for students), and departmental PD does not address GTAs’ specific teaching needs; instead departmental PD repeats the university PD (Jones, 1993 ; Golde and Dore, 2001 ; Luft et al., 2004 ). Nor do graduate experiences prepare GTAs to become faculty and teach lecture courses (Golde and Dore, 2001 ).While there is ample evidence that many GTAs are poorly prepared, as well as studies of effective GTA PD programs (biology examples include Schussler et al., 2008 ; Miller et al., 2014 ; Wyse et al., 2014 ), the preparation of a graduate student as an instructor does not occur in a vacuum. GTAs are also integral members of their departments and are interacting with faculty and other GTAs in many different ways, including around teaching (Bomotti, 1994 ; Notarianni-Girard, 1999 ; Belnap, 2005 ; Calkins and Kelly, 2005 ). It is important to build good working relationships among the GTAs and between the GTAs and their supervisors (Gardner and Jones, 2011 ). However, there are few studies that examine the development of GTAs as integral members of their departments and determine how departmental teaching climate, GTA PD, and prior teaching experiences can impact GTAs.To guide our understanding of the development of GTAs as instructors, a theoretical framework is important. Social cognitive theory is a well-developed theoretical framework for describing behavior and can be applied specifically to teaching (Bandura, 1977 , 1986 , 1997 , 2001 ). A key concept in social cognitive theory is self-efficacy, which is a person’s belief in his or her ability to perform a specific task in a specific context (Bandura, 1997 ). High self-efficacy correlates with strong performance in a task such teaching (Bandura, 1997 ; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2007 ). Teaching self-efficacy focuses on teachers’ perceptions of their ability to “organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998 , p. 233). High teaching self-efficacy has been shown to predict a variety of types of student achievement among K–12 teachers (Ashton and Webb, 1986 ; Anderson et al., 1988 ; Ross, 1992 ; Dellinger et al., 2008 ; Klassen et al., 2011 ). In GTAs, teaching self-efficacy has been shown to be related to persistence in academia (Elkins, 2005 ) and student achievement in mathematics (Johnson, 1998 ). High teaching self-efficacy is evidenced by classroom behaviors such as efficient classroom management, organization and planning, and enthusiasm (Guskey, 1984 ; Allinder, 1994 ; Dellinger et al., 2008 ). Instructors with high teaching self-efficacy work continually with students to help them in learning the material (Gibson and Dembo, 1984 ). These instructors are also willing to try a variety of teaching methods to improve their teaching (Stein and Wang, 1988 ; Allinder, 1994 ). Instructors with high teaching self-efficacy perform better as teachers, are persistent in difficult teaching tasks, and can positively affect their student’s achievement.These behaviors of successful instructors, which can contribute to student success, are important to foster in STEM GTAs. Understanding of what influences the development of teaching self-efficacy in STEM GTAs can be used to improve their teaching self-efficacy and ultimately their teaching. Therefore, it is important to understand what impacts teaching self-efficacy in STEM GTAs. Current research into factors that influence GTA teaching self-efficacy are generally limited to one or two factors in a study (Heppner, 1994 ; Prieto and Altmaier, 1994 ; Prieto and Meyers, 1999 ; Prieto et al., 2007 ; Liaw, 2004 ; Meyers et al., 2007 ). Studying these factors in isolation does not allow us to understand how they work together to influence GTA teaching self-efficacy. Additionally, most studies of GTA teaching self-efficacy are not conducted with STEM GTAs. STEM instructors teach in a different environment and with different responsibilities than instructors in the social sciences and liberal arts (Lindbloom-Ylanne et al., 2006 ). These differences could impact the development of teaching self-efficacy of STEM GTAs compared with social science and liberal arts GTAs. To further our understanding of the development of STEM GTA teaching self-efficacy, this paper aims to 1) describe a model of factors that could influence GTA teaching self-efficacy, and 2) pilot test the model using structural equation modeling (SEM) on data gathered from STEM GTAs. The model is developed from social cognitive theory and GTA teaching literature, with support from the K–12 teaching self-efficacy literature. This study is an essential first step in improving our understanding of the important factors impacting STEM GTA teaching self-efficacy, which can then be used to inform and support the preparation of effective STEM GTAs.