22
Examining the Impact of Context on Preservice Teachers’ Sense of Teaching Efficacy Dr. S. Michael Putman University of North Carolina at Charlotte [email protected]

Dr. S. Michael Putman University of North Carolina at Charlotte [email protected]

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • Slide 1

Dr. S. Michael Putman University of North Carolina at Charlotte [email protected] Slide 2 Teacher Preparation Theory-Practice Disconnect Ball, Sleep, Boerst, & Bass, 2009; Grossman & McDonald, 2008 Field Experiences Zeichner, 2010 Capraro, Capraro, & Helfeldt, 2010 Teaching Efficacy Bandura, 1997 Posnanski, 2007; Clift & Brady, 2005 Teaching Efficacy and Field Experiences Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005; Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008 Oh, et al., 2005; Zeichner & Conklin, 2005 Slide 3 What is the impact of variations in programmatic delivery on the teaching efficacy of teaching candidates? How do programmatic variations impact teaching candidates efficacy for classroom management, instructional strategies, and student engagement? Slide 4 Elementary education majors admitted to the teaching curriculum Combination of convenience and purposive sampling techniques (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Two courses: foundations and practicum Independent variable - specific delivery format looping (n = 25; 7 self-removed) blocked (n = 16) traditional (n = 25) Slide 5 The Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen- Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) Two versions of the TSES long form (24 items) and short form (12 items) TSES score - sum of most positive responses on items written along a 9-point continuum from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal) Example: How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? Includes domain-specific subscales to measure efficacy in student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management High overall reliability for scale ( =.90) and sub-scales: student engagement ( =.86) instructional strategies ( =.81) Management ( =.86) Measurement at beginning of foundations and end of practicum for three delivery formats Slide 6 Slide 7 1 st admin (n = 16)2 nd admin (n = 16) TSESMSDM Mean Score Differences t-test (df=30) Total Score67.068.3283.638.8316.575.46** SE25.564.0829.813.764.253.06** IS17.502.7323.252.355.756.38** CM24.003.8330.563.756.564.89** Note.SE = Student Engagement; IS = Instructional Strategies; CM = Classroom Management *p