Early childhood student teachers engaging in a scenario-based professional program: The case of early mathematics

Abstract

This study explored how a scenario-based (SB), one-semester professional development program influenced the instructional practices of preservice early childhood mathematics teachers. The participants completed a 15-week program in which they engaged with modeled in-class teaching experience and subsequently answered a number of questions that prompted them to consider possible ways of reacting in similar, everyday interactions with children. The findings indicate that the SB activities enhanced the teachers’ perceived instructional practices and their motivation to use student-centered instruction when teaching early mathematical concepts to children. By contrast, results indicate that the preservice teachers developed lower scores on the teacher-centered practices construct after their engagement in the SB professional program. This research inspired the recommendation that early childhood teachers should find balance in focusing on direct math content with supporting children’s self-efficacy and emotional development through child-centered instruction.

Keywords:

• pre-service teachers
• early childhood
• scenario-based
• practical emplacement

1.

Early childhood education has become a top priority for governments and educational societies. From 2018 through 2022, the G20 member countries acknowledged the importance of increasing the accessibility of high-quality early education around the world, but inadequate access to early childhood education remains a challenge in many countries globally, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, when 147 million children around the world missed over half their face-to-face schooling in 2020–2021 (UNICEF, 2022).

At the same time, educational trends and recent world events, such as the pandemic, challenge early childhood educators to maintain learning while they face closing schools, falling teacher wages, remote learning, the demand to engage children in non—face-to-face instruction (Al Lily et al., 2021; Crawford et al., 2021). Internationally, training programs for in-service and preservice teachers do not equip educators with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required to successfully offer online education to children (Atiles et al., 2021).

In mathematics education, it is crucial to give children opportunities at the early and elementary level to engage in deep mathematics content that better prepares them for future citizenship and allows them to interact with world-challenging topics related to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, such as economic concerns, climate change, biodiversity, and shortages of water and food resources (UNESCO, 2022). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) advocates for elementary mathematics education programs that prepare teachers who specialize in mathematics, who are well equipped with mathematics content that allows children to experience the joy and beauty of mathematics, and who possess strong pedagogical skills with a focus on understanding children’s needs and learning development (NCTM, 2022). Moreover, the NCTM and National Association of Educators of Young Children (NAEYC) have issued position statements urging high-quality teaching and learning of mathematics for young children. Teaching mathematics at the early childhood stage requires creating effective early childhood teaching programs that focus on enhancing children’s natural curiosity and engaging them in play to explore mathematical ideas with keen interest (National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2010).

Research indicates that a key design principle in an effective early educator program is intensively and sustainably coaching the students to interpret theory and research and use them in practice (Lawrence et al., 2021). Research also confirms that the kindergarten teacher’s role is not limited to merely disseminating knowledge and skills but also involves addressing all aspects of education and the development of the learner’s personality (Lawrence et al., 2021). Therefore, teachers require continual training and better qualification through clinical programs and ongoing coaching; their role demands that early educators be equipped with all that is innovative in their field of specialization to empower them professionally, academically, and culturally.

Recent international educational trends appear to be especially relevant for supporting lifelong learning through education for sustainable development. Researchers have investigated the impact of open learning environments in supporting sustainability competencies among educators in teacher education programs. In such environments, teacher education programs should be developed through communities of practice; should be provided with meaningful, authentic contexts linked to real-world problems; and should support teachers’ development of competencies through a range of experiences and authentic situations (Bürgener & Barth, 2018).

Consequently, a key design element in effective early educator programs is an apprenticeship model that include opportunities for intensive, sustainable coaching and supervision that allow students to put theory and research into practice, develop their teaching style, and experience professional growth (Lawrence et al., 2021). The situated learning model, including scenario-based (SB) learning in college-level teacher education programs, is one existing professional platform that strengthens the meaningful development of teacher knowledge and practices in an authentic situations that mirror real-life contexts (Hursen & Fasli, 2017; Yetik et al., 2012). SB activities have been employed in various college programs other than teaching programs, such as health-related courses, to enhance competencies and improve future practitioners’ skills (Ahmed, 2019; Battista, 2017). As indicated earlier, it is important in early childhood programs to support teachers to improve their skills through clinical courses and continued coaching, which can be represented through SB activities. This study sought to identify the influence of an SB intervention program designed to support preservice teachers’ preparation to promote the development of mathematics concepts among children. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to explore the application of an SB intervention among preservice early childhood teachers concentrating on young children’s mathematical development. By addressing the following research questions, the research model examined the influence of an SB intervention program designed to improve preservice teachers’ instructional practices in the teaching of mathematics:

1. At the .05 level of significance, are there any differences in instructional practices between the experimental group and the control group prior to the implementation of an SB training program?

2. At the .05 level of significance, are there any significant differences in instructional practices between the experimental and control groups after applying an SB program?

3. At the .05 level of significance, are there any significant differences in instructional practices in the experimental group before and after the application of an SB training program?

4. To what extent do the preservice teachers in the experimental group demonstrate instructional practices of teaching mathematics due to participation in a professional development SB program?

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Effective early mathematics teaching practice

Research shows the importance of early mathematics in predicting children’s later success in numeracy, literacy, and reading skills as well as their socioeconomic status as adults (Clements & Sarama, 2021). Mathematics is important in children’s early development, but mathematics teaching for children is still at risk in many countries around the globe. Teachers’ everyday instructional challenges often cause them to experience difficulty in linking theory to instructional practice, which may lead to a discontinuity between what they believe and what they practice in the classroom. Early childhood teachers are required to understand and implement effective classroom practices for teaching early mathematics, and research on effective mathematics instructional practice in early childhood has drawn increasing attention (Charalambos & Hill, 2012; Jacobi-Vessels et al., 2016; Seidel & Shavelson, 2007). Jacobi-Vessels et al. (2016) describe two elements of instructional quality: process and structural elements. Structural elements include the physical environment and materials, whereas process elements include the manner of implementing mathematics activities, the nature of the interaction between teachers and children in the classroom, and the availability of certain mathematics activities.

In line with the investigation of process elements in early mathematics instruction, Moss et al. (2016) describe four aspects of effective early mathematics instruction: (1) it is built on children’s previous knowledge; (2) mathematical ideas are introduced and extended in planned ways (i.e., guided play as well as free play is important); (3) it is based on child developmental theory; and (4) responsive adult direction is needed. The discourse on best instructional practices in early childhood education often includes discussions of misconceptions regarding how children learn mathematics. Clements and Sarama (2018) have identified some myths of early mathematics teaching and learning. Their findings indicate that children can learn mathematics through real-world interactive experiences, such as counting objects around them and figuring out which child is taller; that spending time on math can contribute to literacy, language, and social development; that all children can succeed in math, not merely “talented ones”; and that teachers should provide formal and informal high-quality learning opportunities. Clements, Baroody, and Sarama (2013) published background research for the National Governors Association Center Project on Early Mathematics that summarizes the best practices in early mathematics instruction. Teaching mathematics should focus on the meaningful learning of both skills and concepts to foster the process of mathematical inquiry, including problem-solving, reasoning and proof, and communication and connection. It should involve a combination of informal student-centered and formal teacher-centered instruction and should support children in progressing from hands-on to abstract learning.

2.2. The dilemma of student-centered versus teacher-centered early childhood instruction

The pedagogical strategies of early mathematics do not comprise a special set of steps that must be followed; rather, teachers should use the best strategies, ranging from free play to direct teacher-centered instruction. Furthermore, teachers should possess a deep understanding of internal factors, such as the nature of children’s early mathematical thinking and development (Clements, Baroody, and Sarama, 2013). With regard to the positive correlation between teacher-guided instruction and student cognitive involvement, it must first be stated that it is misleading to label learning in an adult-centered format as passive and inactive. The choice between student-centered and teacher-centered instruction remains a challenging dilemma in the mathematics education field due to the nature of the content that must be transmitted to students while fostering their thinking and engaging them in productive struggle (Ellis et al., 2019). Research on early childhood mathematics education advocates for instruction that supports emotional and social self-regulation skills, which can be cultivated through child-centered activities with an explicit focus on mathematics content through direct instruction (Salomonsen, 2020, Clements, Baroody, & Sarama, 2013; Fuson et al., 2015).

The discussion of teacher-centered versus student-centered instruction draws attention to free and guided play in mathematics early education. Free, child-directed play is an act of learning that is totally controlled by children as they interact freely with the environment around them and that usually happens in sociometric or pretend play (Wallerstedt & Pramling, 2012; Wickstrom et al., 2019). Guided play is a teacher-controlled pedagogy that commonly has predetermined learning outcomes (Wickstrom et al., 2019). Strong evidence indicates that guided play leads to better learning outcomes, social interaction skills, self-regulation, and creative thinking (Weisberg et al., 2015). Thus, children cannot learn advanced topics in preschool by staying on the playground the whole day, even if it is full of interesting learning resources. In addition, many studies have investigated the differences between free play and guided play in supporting children’s mathematical thinking. Nakken et al. (2016) explored free-play mathematical learning in a young children’s playroom in contrast to guided learning. They found that guided and structural play produce deeper mathematics thinking and learning than free play. In their experimental study, Fisher et al. (2013) obtained similar results in exploring the impact of guided play pedagogy on children’s acquisition of geometric concepts. Their findings show that the guided play pedagogy better improved the shape knowledge of children in the guided play group than in groups that were taught using free-play and direct instruction pedagogies. Salomonsen (2020) reviewed the findings of more recent research on how children best learn mathematics and concludes that integrated approaches that combine teacher-initiated play with child-initiated or free play approaches are the most efficient. The above findings do not precisely specify any negative effects of employing a specific method with children; rather, they indicate the importance of balancing instructional approaches that focus on informal and formal instruction.

2.3. SB learning activities

Maintaining self-efficacy and confidence in early childhood mathematics education is an importance concern, as preservice teachers of mathematics tend to express negative and unconfident feelings when teaching mathematics to children (Hollingsworth & Knight McKenna, 2018). Increasing their readiness through real-life teaching placement is a high stakes, costly endeavor, especially when preservice teachers are not well prepared or when children are not emotionally and cognitively adjusted to their new style of teaching (Klassen et al., 2021). One way to provide real-life situations to preservice teachers is through engagement with modeled in-class teaching experience, such as SB activities. SB learning consists of complex, authentic, real-life experience followed by a series of questions that prompt student teachers to consider possible ways of reacting in similar everyday teaching situations (Bardach et al., 2021). Such activities prepare student teachers for real-life experience and improve their self-efficacy and readiness for classroom teaching. Theories that support SB learning, such as situated learning and situated cognition, suggest that preservice teachers best develop their pedagogical knowledge when they engage in authentic situations and social interactions that mirror real-life contexts (Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). In addition, many studies have recognized the importance of linking theory and practice in teacher education programs to support early childhood preservice teachers in transforming their pedagogical knowledge and to meet the demands of the workplace (Matengu et al., 2021).

In recent years, similar aspects have been investigated through the emergence of the situational judgment test as a form of SB activity. This measure serves to link theory and practice and evaluates preservice teachers’ performance in practical situations that are similar to real classroom experiences (Durksen & Klassen, 2018). The test has drawn growing research interest in relation to the job application process, selection, and job training because of its emphasis on representing workplace complications (Cox et al., 2017; Lievens & Sackett, 2006; Rynes & Connerley, 1993).

With regard to professional development, SB learning is widely employed in teacher education programs to improve preservice teachers’ achievement, attitudes, and practices. Hursen and Fasli (2017) indicate that the SB learning approach is more efficient than other learning approaches in improving achievement levels in professional programs because it facilitates learning concepts of teaching pedagogy, and it allows the teacher knowledge to be more transformative. Other research indicates that SB activities are a powerful instructional tool in preservice programs that can improve teachers’ attitudes toward teaching (Uçak, 2018). Sorin (2013) implemented authentic-situation teaching with preservice teachers and found that it can change teaching and improve practice. Errington (2005) describes four types of scenario that can be implemented in teacher education programs: skills-based scenarios that demonstrate skills and knowledge; problem-based scenarios that focus on recognizing and solving problems; issues-based scenarios that investigate relevant trending professional issues; and speculative scenarios that apply knowledge to potential professional situations.

3. Methodology

3.1. Context, participants, and experiment

The present study was implemented using a quasi-experimental research design to investigate the impact of SB learning programs on teachers’ practices of teaching early mathematics. The participants were recruited by purposive sampling from an early childhood program in an eastern city of Saudi Arabia. The preservice teachers were students aged 20–24 years who had finished all the specialized courses in the program and registered for a course to prepare them for lesson design in early mathematics education. The study’s population comprised 103 female kindergarten student teachers in the early childhood program and was divided into two groups: the control group (n = 52), which did not take the training program, and the experimental group (n = 51), which took the training program.

3.2. The treatment program

The participants in this study registered for a 15-week, three-hour educational course that taught topics related to designing lessons in early mathematics, including children’s development, mathematics teaching in early education, mathematics concepts acquisition, learning strategies appropriate for teaching early mathematics, and lesson planning. More specifically, the preservice teachers in the experimental group engaged in weekly one-hour lecture training that was followed by the weekly class. During the meeting, the experimental group discussed instructional scenarios, real incidents, and classroom problems in teaching early mathematics. Each week, the experimental group examined one scenario or vignette similar to ones found in actual workplaces. The subsequent steps are outlined below:

• The participants carefully read the instructional scenario.

• They discussed the scenario in pairs or small groups.

• They individually wrote open-ended responses about how they could teach children in such a scenario.

• Afterward, one member of each small group implemented the lesson in front of the course trainers and other preservice teachers.

• At the end of the session, each preservice teacher wrote a reflection on the process and how she would teach the lesson to real children; their responses and reflections were read by experts who provided feedback for the following week.

• At the next meeting, the experts and participants held an open discussion focused on understanding the preservice teachers’ pedagogical choice, the obstacles and concerns they might encounter in a similar situation, and the best practices in teaching specific math concepts.

3.3. Development of the instructional scenarios

In this study, we implemented SB learning to improve the teaching of mathematics to young children. The scenarios were exercises or real-life instructional situations that were similar to what the student teachers would encounter in real situations. The scenarios were developed through seven stages adapted from Klassen et al. (2021) and provided incidents to prepare teachers on how to act on similar situations. An expert panel of four experienced educators was consulted during the development, implementation, and scoring stages of the teaching scenarios. The expert panel consists of one educator specializing in early childhood education, one educator specializing in mathematics education, one educator from the curriculum and instruction department, and one experienced early childhood teacher. The experts collaborate collectively to support the implementation of the study. The seven stages are described below.

3.3.1. Identifying the target elements and attributes of the proposed scenario

For the purpose of this study, the attributes of the scenarios revolved around effective strategies for teaching early mathematics, teacher-centered versus student-centered approaches in early education, and the preparation of the digital and physical environment to improve the teaching of mathematics in early childhood.

3.3.2. Specifying scenario content

The content of the teaching incidents comprised typical knowledge and skills in teaching early math: numbers and operations, geometry and spatial sense, measurement, patterns, algebraic thinking, and displaying and analyzing data. Each instructional event required the student teachers to use their pedagogical and content knowledge to show how they would teach mathematics in a similar situation (see NAEYC & NCTM, 2010; Van de Walle et al., 2018).

3.3.3. Determining item type and response format

Each scenario included mathematics incidents and tasks that required the participants to write a response on how to deal with such an event to improve their students’ learning. Since the scenarios were mainly used for training the trainees were asked to provide open-ended responses on how to teach mathematics in the situation. Their responses incorporated the kinds of strategy they would use; how to adapt the learning environment and incorporate math manipulatives; which questions they would ask the children; how to plan learning activities; and how they could assess students’ learning; finally, a reflection on their experience when they demonstrate the scenario in front of other participants. The student teachers also had opportunities to get feedback from the expert panel regarding their instructional planning (see Bardach et al., 2021).

3.3.4. Designing scenario content with a panel of experts

Based on the early childhood curriculum issued by the Saudi Ministry of Education, the panel of four experts chose from the curriculum instructional scenarios that challenged the student teachers when working with children.

3.3.5. Determining scoring technique with the expert panel

Because the scenarios were open ended and were used mainly as an intervention stage, the panel of experts drew upon their experience to assess the student teachers’ responses and to provide informative feedback to help them improve their pedagogical knowledge and teaching practices.

3.3.6. Piloting the sampled scenarios

After the teaching situations were finalized, the scenarios were piloted with some preservice teachers to ensure that the situations were clear and could be implemented with the participants.

3.3.7. Revision of the teaching scenarios

Based on feedback and discussion with educators, the final set of scenarios consisted of 15 instructional real-life situations focused on teaching mathematics content to children. Figure 1 provides an example of an SB activity that was implemented in the experimental group.

Figure 1. Example of a learning activity scenario for the experimental group.

3.4. Teacher mathematics practice instrument

This study administrated an instrument that examined the experimental and control group teachers’ instructional practices related to teaching mathematics. The self-reported Teacher Mathematics Practice (TMP) instrument was adapted from Swan (2006). The questionnaire asks teachers to rate their behavior of 25 classroom practices on a 5-point Likert scale. Fourteen of the items were categorized as teacher-centered and the rest as student-centered. The instrument was administered twice: before the start of the study and at the end.

For the purpose of this study, the TMP was translated into Arabic by the researchers. In addition, to ensure the instrument’s validity, four experts verified the appropriateness of the items for application in the field of early mathematics education, and they clarified its language integrity and the correctness of the translation. Translating the TMP was not a challenge since the items are short and simple (Swan, 2006). The blowout of language-specialized apps and the huge amount of information on the internet, online information began to play a role in transferring knowledge and specialized scientific terminologies between languages. Many books used by students and teachers in Saudi Arabia are English-translated books, which means that students in colleges of education are accustomed to many western educational terms. Educational western terms such as problem solving, teamwork, student-centered, or teacher-centered are well known by participants and have equivalent synonyms in Arabic.

However, this does not mean that translating and adapting instruments from different contexts can be straightforward. Some instruments may have new terms that are not familiar to the Arabic speaker. Thus, researchers would take time to find the closest equivalent words in Arabic and would need to discuss with language specialists the best ways to translate these phrases.

For the TMP, the experts approved to the majority of the items and made some language improvements to ensure the validity and clarity of the scale for the Arabic audience. The final version comprised 25 items on a 5-point Likert scale (5 almost always, 4 most of the time, 3 half of the time, 2 occasionally, 1 almost never) that were distributed between two dimensions: teacher-centered practices (n = 14) and student-centered practices (n = 11). Examples of teacher-centered classroom practices that was included in the instrument: I try to cover everything in a topic, I avoid students making mistakes by explaining things carefully first, I teach each topic from the beginning, assuming they know nothing. Moreover, sample items of student-centered teaching practices: I encourage students to make and discuss mistakes, students learn through discussing their ideas, I teach each student differently according to individual needs (Swan, 2006)

To check the TMP internal consistency, the scale was piloted with an exploratory sample of 20 female students in the field of early childhood education from outside the study sample. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated between the items and the related dimensions and between the dimensions and the total score of the scale. The values of the items related to teacher-centered practices were reversed in order to calculate the Pearson correlation coefficients between the items and the scale total. Table 1 shows that all of the Pearson correlation coefficients were high and statistically significant (p < .01).

Table 1. Internal consistency as determined by the Pearson correlation coefficient (N = 20)

N	Dimension-item	Item- dimension correlation	Level of sig.	Item–total correlation	Level of sig.
	Teacher-centered teaching practices	1.00		.944**	.000
1	T1	.499*	.025	.587**	.006
2	T2	.685**	.001	.624**	.003
3	T3	.557*	.011	.636**	.003
4	T4	.564**	.010	.715**	.000
5	T5	.554*	.011	.551*	.012
6	T6	.573**	.008	.482*	.031
7	T7	.600**	.005	.449*	.047
8	T8	.557*	.011	.454*	.044
9	T9	.454*	.044	.464*	.039
10	T10	.583**	.007	.636**	.003
11	T11	.626**	.003	.469*	.037
12	T12	.451*	.046	.622**	.003
13	T13	.586**	.007	.572**	.008
14	T14	.878**	.000	.715**	.000
	Student-centered teaching practices	1.00		.890**	.000
15	S1	.656**	.002	.606**	.005
16	S2	.554*	.011	.708**	.000
17	S3	.699**	.001	.558*	.011
18	S4	.551*	.012	.679**	.001
19	S5	.543*	.013	.451*	.046
20	S6	.462*	.040	.524*	.018
21	S7	.615**	.004	.491*	.028
22	S8	.772**	.000	.627**	.003
23	S9	.745**	.000	.673**	.001
24	S10	.650**	.002	.532*	.016
25	S11	.615**	.004	.557*	.011

* correlation is significant at the .05 level; ** correlation is significant at the .01 level

The TMP has been shown to be a reliable measure with a tested Cronbach’s alpha of .85 (Swan, 2006). In the exploratory sample of 20 female students from outside the study sample, the reliability of the scale’s internal homogeneity was remeasured using Cronbach’s alpha. The analysis indicates that the reliability coefficients of the dimensions ranged between .83 for the student-centered dimension and .85 for the teacher- centered dimension. Overall, the scale scored .89, indicating that the study instrument was reliable.

3.5. Data analysis

This study investigated the influence of an SB program on preservice teachers’ level of instructional practice. We used SPSS version 25 to analyze the research data. To answer the research questions, a t-test was used to investigate the significance of the difference between the mean (M) scores of the control group and experimental group in the pre- and post-intervention application of the scale. The effect size was also computed using the eta-squared measure. The following grading was adopted using the range to determine the experimental group students’ extent of using student-centered and teacher-centered teaching practices: 1.00–1.80: very low; 1.81–2.60: low; 2.61–3.40: medium; 3.41–4.20: high; and 4.21–5.00: very high. Below, we describe the data analysis in relation to each research question.

Q1:

At the .05 level of significance, are there any differences in instructional practices between the experimental group and the control group prior to the implementation of an SB training program?

The means, standard deviations (SDs), and t-test were calculated to identify significant variations between the means of the experimental group’s and control group’s teaching practices in the pre-intervention application of the TMP scale as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and t-test of teaching practices prior to intervention

Dimension	Group	N	Mean	SD	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
Teacher-centered teaching practices	Control	52	3.53	.646	.675	101	.501
	Experimental	51	3.45	.423
Student-centered teaching practices	Control	52	3.07	.592	.527	101	.599
	Experimental	51	3.01	.540

The results in Table 2 show that there were no significant differences at the .05 significance level between the means of the teaching practices of the control and experimental groups prior to the implementation of the experiment, indicating that the two groups were equal before the training program. The teacher-centered teaching practices and student-centered teaching practices converged in the pre-intervention application of the scale. Notably, however, the student-centered teaching practices scored lower than the teacher-centered practices.

Q2:

At the .05 level of significance, are there any significant differences in instructional practices between the experimental and control groups after applying the SB program?

The means, standard deviations, and t-test were calculated to identify significant differences between the means of the teaching practices in the experimental and control groups in the post-intervention application of the TMP scale as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and t-test of teaching practices in the post-intervention application of the TMP

Dimension	Group	n	Mean	SD	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Eta^2	Level–effect size
Teacher-centered teaching practices	Control	52	3.67	.520	5.725	101	.000	.245	large
	Experimental	51	3.10	.482
Student-centered teaching practices	Control	52	2.90	.605	−9.513	101	.000	.473	large
	Experimental	51	3.85	.390

The results in Table 3 show that there were significant differences at the .05 significance level between the control group’s and experimental group’s means of student-centered teaching practices in favor of the experimental group (M = 3.85, SD = 0.390) in the post-intervention application of the scale. We also found significant differences at the .05 significance level between the control group’s and experimental group’s means of teacher-centered teaching practices in favor of the control group, indicating that the control group focused on teacher-centered teaching practices. By contrast, the experimental group focused on student-centered teaching practices, which is considered a positive outcome of the SB program. The mean of student-centered teaching practices in the control group scored at the medium level (M = 2.90, SD = 0.605). The experimental group’s mean of teacher-centered teaching practices was at a medium level (M = 3.10, SD = 0.482), whereas the control group had a high score (M = 3.67, SD = 0.520).

The results show that teacher-centered teaching practices were more prevalent in the control group, whereas student-centered teaching practices were more prevalent in the experimental group, indicating that the professional development program enhanced preservice teachers’ relevant student-instructional practices in teaching early mathematics.

Q3:

At the .05 level of significance, are there any significant differences in instructional practices in the experimental group before and after the application of an SB training program?

The means, standard deviations, and t-test were calculated to identify significant differences between the means of the experimental group’s teaching practices before and after the application of the SB training program as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and T-test of the experimental group’s teaching practices in prior and after the treatment program

Domain	Group	Mean	SD	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Eta Squared	Level – effect size
Teacher-centered teaching practices	Pre	3.45	.423	4.719	50	.000	0.67	large
	Post	3.10	.482
Student-centered teaching practices	Pre	3.01	.540	−8.228-	50	.000	1.16	large
	post	3.85	.390

Table 4 shows that there were differences at the .05 significance level between the pre- and post-application means of the experimental group on the scale for student-centered teaching practices in favor of the post-application condition. The student-centered teaching practices in the post-application condition yielded a high score (M = 3.85, SD = 0.390) compared to a medium score by the same group in pre-intervention student-centered teaching practices (M = 3.01, SD = 0.540). We also found differences at the .05 significance level between the experimental group’s teacher-centered teaching practices before and after the intervention, with the mean of teacher-centered teaching practices on the TMP prior to the intervention being high (M = 3.45) as compared to medium (M = 3.10) after the intervention. These results show the program’s effectiveness in cultivating the participants’ student-centered teaching practices and reducing teacher-dependent teaching practices as revealed by the high post-intervention score of the program’s effect size in student-centered teaching practices and the decrease in teacher-centered teaching practices after the implementation of the treatment program.

Q4:

To what extent do the preservice teachers in the experimental group demonstrate the instructional practices of teaching mathematics due to participation in a professional development SB program?

The means and standard deviations of the experimental group’s instructional practices were calculated as depicted in Table 5.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the experimental group’s instructional practices in teaching mathematics

N	Dimension-item	Mean	SD	Level
	Teacher-centered teaching practices	3.10	.482	Medium
1	T1	3.4	.700	Medium
2	T2	3.37	.747	Medium
3	T3	2.82	1.108	Medium
4	T4	3.37	.825	Medium
5	T5	3.39	.820	Medium
6	T6	3.11	.913	Medium
7	T7	3.29	.855	Medium
8	T8	2.96	.824	Medium
9	T9	3.37	1.199	Medium
10	T10	2.84	.903	Medium
11	T11	2.59	1.134	Medium
12	T12	3.09	.923	Medium
13	T13	3.38	.987	Medium
14	T14	2.61	1.041	Medium
	Student-centered teaching practices	3.85	.390	High
15	S1	3.41	.947	High
16	S2	3.97	.755	High
17	S3	4.0	.825	High
18	S4	3.85	.868	High
19	S5	3.61	1.078	High
20	S6	3.83	.849	High
21	S7	3.8	.825	High
22	S8	4.1	.781	High
23	S9	4.04	.631	High
24	S10	3.92	.791	High
25	S11	3.84	.880	High

Table 5 shows that the experimental group demonstrated a medium level of teacher-centered practices, with the mean ranging from 2.5 to 3.4. Items such as “I go through only one method of teaching” (T14, score 2.61), “The students use only the method I teach” (T11, score 2.59), and “I try to cover everything in the topic” (T6, score 3.11) demonstrate low self-reported teacher-centered instructional practice. By contrast, items such as “Students learn through discussing their ideas” (S3, score 4.0), “Students invent their own methods” (S11, score 3.84), and “I am surprised by the ideas that come up in a lesson” (S8, score 4.1) indicate a high level of student-centered instructional practice.

4. Discussion

This research examined the influence of an SB intervention program designed to improve preservice teachers’ instructional practices in teaching early mathematics. The SB training program in this study used real-life teaching situations to cultivate problem-solving skills and decision-making instructional abilities among mathematics teachers. The activities involved presenting preservice teachers with situations they might encounter in the real world and then guiding them through the process of understanding, analyzing, and approaching the educational situation while interacting with a panel of professionals in the field of mathematics education. The participating preservice teachers responded to a self-reported survey that encourages them to think about their teacher-centered versus student-centered practices in the early childhood mathematics education classroom.

An important finding of this research concerns the difference between the experimental and control groups in their perceived instructional practice after the implementation of the professional development program. The findings illustrate that the SB program supported preservice teachers in improving their student-centered instructional practice. These results confirm the value of situated learning activities transmitted through SB professional programs in developing teachers’ pedagogical knowledge by engaging them in authentic situations and social interactions that mirror real-life contexts (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Brown et al., 1989). By contrast, when asked about teacher-centered instructional practice, the preservice teachers produced low scores on that construct. Although the previously discussed research indicates that mathematics instruction in early education should embrace both child- and teacher-centered instructional activities, and that mathematics instruction should provide children with emotional and self-regulation skills through free play with a strong focus on mathematical content in the mathematics classroom. The results suggest that preservice teachers need to balance instructional practices in mathematics classroom and understand that play/student-based approaches in early mathematics require substantial training and may not be beneficial to children all the time (Youmans et al., 2018).

This study also emphasizes the importance of an SB professional development program on the overall improvement of self-reported instructional practices. It is important to help preservice teachers transform their self-reported practice through engagement in professional development programs that focus on best practices for early mathematics. The findings show that the teachers were aware of some important student-centered practices as reflected in items such as “I encourage students to make and discuss mistakes,” “Students invent their own methods,” and “Students work collaboratively in pairs or small groups.” The findings are consistent with best practices in early mathematics instruction that focus on cooperative learning, communication, and children inventing their own solutions to mathematical tasks (Clements, Baroody, and Sarama, 2013).

4.1. Limitations, future research, and practical implications

This research represents one of the first attempts to include SB activities in training preservice early childhood teachers to teach mathematical concepts. While the findings are promising, the study has some limitations. First, our participants were fairly homogeneous, attending the same university and living in the same city. Thus, the research was not able to differentiate the impact of the training program in groups from different backgrounds, so future studies may be needed with different cultures and backgrounds. Second, the study’s sample was relatively small and included only female preservice early childhood teachers registered for a course preparing them only for teaching mathematics, which limits the generalizability of the results. Thus, a similar study in different disciplines with different genders and more participants might produce different results. In addition, the study was conducted over 15 weeks of one semester. Further exploration with a longitudinal design is needed to understand the long-term impact of the intervention on self-reported and observational instructional practice. Further, the study investigated only self-reported instructional practice. We do not know whether the teachers’ perceptions translate into changes in behavior and improved consequences for students’ learning. Further work is needed to investigate in depth the elements of teachers’ development, such as their reflections and feedback about the treatment, the obstacles they encounter during the implementation of the SB training program, and how they make use of the information they learn with children in real classrooms.

This study yields several practical and pedagogical implications. First, the study indicates that scenario-based learning provides real-world applications for the learners by presenting them with realistic experience which allows practitioners to apply their pedagogical knowledge and teaching skills in a risk-free environment. In addition, the research demonstrates how scenarios can facilitate the development of various teaching skills such as planning, problem-solving, communication, and decision-making skills. Thus, aiding educational programs with scenario-based activities supports the improvement of professional skills that are crucial to educational settings. Another pedagogical implication is that scenario-based activities can be used and tailored to a particular learning objective. For the presented study, situated activities were used to promote the teaching of early mathematics through child- and teacher-centered models. Previously discussed studies indicated that health-related courses advocate for the use of scenario activities in promoting practitioners’ skills (Ahmed, 2019; Battista, 2017). Thus, scenario-based learning can be implemented across topics and professional settings, making learning contents more relatable and applicable to enhance competencies and improve future practitioners’ skills.

5. Conclusion

Early childhood practitioners are constantly facing many sources of pressures such as: naturally delighted and curious children, parents’ high expectations, and requirements of school supervisors and leaders. Additionally, child-care workforce in many educational systems around the globe are mainly advocating for child-centered models focusing on promoting overall math, social, emotional, brain development while interacting in classrooms full of stimuli resources (Clements & Sarama, 2021). On the other hand, unexperienced teachers may face difficulties in supporting children to comprehend basic mathematics concepts and knowledge especially while they are distracted with the rich environment around them. Thus, the current study advocates for the importance of supporting teacher/child- centered practices to achieve mathematical learning outcomes and to meet the need of children’s’ curiosity and interest to learn mathematics.

In addition, children are naturally interested in learning to classify, order, count, and use numbers by playing with objects around them (Clements & Sarama, 2021; Wolfgang et al., 2001). For early childhood preservice teachers, having early real interaction with children and directing their learning brings many difficulties and anxieties, especially in teaching mathematics concepts. The SB learning approach has the potential to introduce early preservice mathematics teachers to the workplace, help them develop their teaching identity, and equip them to reflect on the difficulties they may encounter in the workplace. With some limitations in mind, this study suggests the value of SB activities in teacher education programs.

Informed consent statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects involved in the study.

Correction

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2281747

Additional information

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Faisal University in Saudi Arabia (GRANT4,686). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of King Faisal University (protocol code KFU-REC-2023-FEB-ETHICS598-15/2/2023)

Notes on contributors

Maha Saad Alsaeed

Maha saad Alsaeed, PhD (Ohio University), is a Saudi Arabian Associate Professor of mathematical education. She has 16 years of academic experience. She has published internationally through well-known publishers, such as Taylor & Francis. She has attended various academic events in Saudi Arabia and the USA. Her research interests include mathematics, education, technology and professional development. Her recent administration activity involved the advancement of pre-service teaching practices. Currently, she is engaging in various research projects that are exploring the advancement of teaching mathematics through science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. In addition, she has worked as an academic department head.

Aida Deeb Abdallah Mohammad

Aida Deeb Abdallah Mohammad, PhD, is a Jordanian Associate Professor of Kindergarten Department. She has 18 years of academic experience. She has published internationally through well-known publishers and has attended various academic events in Saudi Arabia and Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Her research interests include early childhood education, professional development, and child care quality improvement.