Developing Preservice Mathematics Teachers' Self-Efficacy Through Peer Tutoring

Abstract

In this single case study, we explore how four preservice math teachers developed their self-efficacy through a peer tutoring experience in a college math lab. Using pre- post self-efficacy assessments, faculty observations, researcher observations, faculty interviews, and interviews with the preservice teachers themselves, our analysis describes how reflection alongside vicarious experience, mastery experience, social persuasion, and psychological arousal supported self-efficacy development in the preservice teachers. We find that within the self-efficacy framework, social persuasion and psychological arousal were embedded in direct experience, and that different types of experiences spurred the preservice teachers to reflect on different aspects of their role. Our study suggests opportunities to cultivate teacher self-efficacy, self-awareness, and reflection through early field experiences.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Paul Burger, Elizabeth Dutro, Zeynep Kılıç, and Rebeca Maseda for their support and feedback in developing this manuscript. We also thank and the three faculty research participants and the preservice teachers who served as tutors in the lab, whose work and dedication impresses us every day.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

Notes

1 For reader ease in interpreting the manuscript, all PST pseudonyms start with the letter “T” and all faculty participant pseudonyms start with the letter “F”.

2 This dosage is slightly higher than what has been applied in previous research of tutoring experiences with PSTs. See Haverback and Parault (2011), whose PST participants tutored for 30 minutes/week for 10 weeks; Lastrapes and Negishi (2012), whose PST participants tutored for 18 hours in total; Nierstheimer et al. (2000) whose PST participants tutored for 75 minutes/week over 12 weeks, and Ragonis and Hazzan (2009), whose PSTs tutored for 10 hours/semester.

3 Social persuasion is often termed “verbal persuasion,” implying that feedback is oral, in the form of direct praise or a “pep talk” (Gresham, 2009), however other empirical studies seem to approach “verbal persuasion” quite differently and flexibly, noting that feedback can take many forms (see Mulholland & Wallace, 2001; Newton et al., 2012). In our analysis, we coded social persuasion as feedback received from others, which could be verbal, written, or body language.

4 We acknowledge that the data collection processes themselves – self-assessments and interviews – also spurred reflection.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported, in part, by a Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program grant from the National Science Foundation (DUE-1557388). The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the position, policy, or endorsement of the supporting agency.