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.

Keywords:

• Environmental education
• Preservice teachers
• Teacher education
• Service learning

Notes

1 All names of people and places are pseudonyms.

2 Only responses from PSTs who complete both pre- and post-administrations of the EEEBI were included in the data set (all Cohort 2).

3 When coding the data, it was not always clear whether a particular PST held positive or negative perceptions of self-efficacy. This could have been due to ambiguous statements made by a PST or a lack of response. When individual PSTs’ perceptions were unclear or missing from the data set, they excluded from that part of the analysis; thus, some findings did not include all 38 participants.

4 Bracketed information indicates the source of data. First set of letters indicates participants’ initials, second set indicates data source, and third set indicates cohort, specifically Cohort 1 (C1) or Cohort 2 (C2). Data sources include reading reflections (RR1, RR2, RR3, RR4); examinations (E1 and E2); field activities (FA1, FA2, FA3, FA4, FA5); service learning “teaching” reflections (TR1, TR2, TR3); and curriculum projects (PR1 and PR2).