IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Pre-Service Elementary Teachers’ Scientific Literacy and Self-Efficacy in Teaching
Science
Adam Al Sultan
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Saudi Arabia
Harvey Henson, Jr.
Southern Illinois University, U.S.A
Peter J. Fadde
Southern Illinois University, U.S.A

25

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Abstract
Many educators and educational institutions worldwide have agreed that the main goal ofscience education is to produce a scientifically literate community. Science teachers are key
to the achievement of scientific literacy at all levels of education because of the essential role
they play in preparing scientifically literate individuals. Studies show that pre-service
elementary teachers need to build more confidence in teaching science and scientific literacy
during their teacher education programs in order for them to successfully teach scienceknowledge to their students. Therefore, the purpose of this study is threefold. First, preservice elementary teachers’ scientific literacy levels were examined. Second, pre-service
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs were measured by distinguishing between their personal andsubject-specific self-efficacy beliefs. Third, the extent to which pre-service elementaryteachers’ scientific literacy levels and self-efficacy levels are related was investigated.
Participants were 49 pre-service elementary teachers registered in two science methods
courses (introductory and advanced) at a mid-sized university in the United States.
Quantitative data were collected using the Test of Basic Scientific Literacy, the Science
Teaching Efﬁcacy Belief Instrument-Preservice, and Beliefs about Teaching. Results showedthat participants had a satisfactory level of scientific literacy. However, pre-service teachers
had borderline scores on the Nature of Science scale. Regarding self-efficacy, findings
showed that both groups had the highest self-efficacy in teaching biology and the lowest inteaching physics. Participants in the advanced science methods course exhibited a moderate
preexisting positive relationship between scientific literacy and subject-specific self-efficacy
in teaching science.
Keywords: elementary education, pre-service teachers, scientific literacy, self-efficacy

26

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Introduction
Having an enriched, scientifically literate society is important because understanding andresolving many public issues require some scientific background. Since people encounterscience and its laws from the moment they wake up till the moment they go to sleep, allcitizens should have some level of scientific literacy (Hazen & Trefil, 1991). In the context ofthe public, scientific literacy refers to the understanding of science that allows an individual
to participate in socio-scientific topics and to make informed decisions on these issues, aswell as the appreciation of processes, values, and ethics related to science (Dawson &Venville, 2009).
Furthermore, science teachers are key to the achievement of scientific literacy at all levels of
education because of the essential role that science teachers play in preparing scientificallyliterate individuals (Chin, 2005). To achieve this goal of having a scientifically literatesociety, one must ask how to effectively prepare pre-service teachers for science teaching.
Despite the number of science methods courses and science courses taken, pre-service
teachers continue to enter their student teaching semesters and professional careers with low
science teaching efficacy beliefs (Harlen, 1997; Murphy, Neil, & Beggs, 2007; Tosun, 2000).
These studies attributed the cause of low self-efficacy among pre-service teachers to the lackof understanding of scientific ideas, challenges in applying certain required teaching skills, alack of science content, and misconceptions about science.
This study provides additional insight for educators in teacher-preparation programs seeking
to identify pre-service teachers who are experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, a
psychological concept described by Kruger and Dunning (2009). Pavel, Robertson, andHarrison (2012) offered a useful explanation about this effect:
Kruger and Dunning identified a tendency for people with relatively lower skill
levels and knowledge to overestimate their ability to accomplish a task, whereas
people with relatively higher skill levels and knowledge would tend tounderestimate their ability to complete a task. (p. 126)
On the basis of this concept, educators in teacher-preparation programs should identify preservice teachers with high levels of self-efficacy in teaching science and those with lowlevels of scientific literacy. In other words, these pre-service teachers will have a false senseof confidence about teaching science. These groups of pre-service teachers are at high risk ofmaking errors and reaching mistaken conclusions when they teach science due to their low
scientific literacy levels. What makes the matter more concerning is that they will not realize
their mistakes due to overestimated levels of self-efficacy in teaching science (Kruger &Dunning, 2009). As such, educators in teacher-preparation programs should take into accountthe relationship between scientific literacy and self-efficacy beliefs toward teaching science
when evaluating their pre-service teachers. Therefore, the purpose of this study is threefold.
First, pre-service elementary teachers’ scientific literacy levels were examined. Second,
accurately measuring pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs by distinguishing between
their personal and subject-specific self-efficacy beliefs. Third, the extent to which pre-service
elementary teachers’ scientific literacy levels and self-efficacy levels are related wasinvestigated.

27

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Literature Review
Pre-Service Teachers’ Scientific Literacy
Many educators and science education organizations have attempted to define the termscientific literacy. Some researchers view scientific literacy as a person’s ability to thinkcritically and rationally about science in relation to potential personal, social, political, andeconomic challenges and problems encountered in everyday life (Bacanak & Gokdere, 2009;
Karamustafaoğlu, Cakir & Kaya, 2013). Other researchers argue that a scientifically literate
person should understand clearly both the impact of science and technology on society andthe nature of the science itself (Altun-Yalcin, Acisli & Turgut, 2011; Chin, 2005; Cavas, P.,
Ozdem, Cavas, B., Cakiroglu & Ertepinar., 2013; Ozdemir, 2010). Despite somedisagreement over the precise definition of scientific literacy, there is a consensus that an aimof science education is to ensure that learners are scientifically literate. In this study,scientific literacy will be defined in line with that of the National Research Council [NRC](1996), which stated that scientific literacy is an individual’s ability to identify scientificmatters underlying national and local decisions, to express positions that are scientifically andtechnologically informed, and to assess the quality of scientific information on the basis of its
sources and the methods used to generate such information. The NRC’s (1996) definition ofscientific literacy, unlike other definitions, includes the ability to discuss and assess scientificand technological material.
Several studies have examined the levels of scientific literacy of pre-service elementaryteachers in teacher preparation programs. The results, which compared the scientific literacy
levels of pre-service teachers in the first and fourth years of the teacher preparation programs(e.g., Cavas et al., 2013; Karamustafaoğlu et al., 2013), demonstrated that pre-service
teachers in both grade levels have borderline to low scientific literacy levels (e.g., 68 out of
110 items and 48.35 out of 100 items, respectively) and require improvement. Other studies
examining pre-service teachers throughout their four-year teacher preparation program (e.g.,
Altun-Yalcin et al., 2011; Ozdemir, 2010) demonstrated that pre-service teachers in their
final year have the highest scientific literacy levels.
The majority of research (Altun-Yalcin et al., 2011; Bacanak & Gokdere, 2009; Cavas et al.,2013; Chin, 2005; Karamustafaoğlu et al., 2013; Ozdemir, 2010) about pre-service
elementary teachers applies quantitative research approaches to examine scientific literacy
levels. For example, Karamustafaoğlu et al. (2013) sought to determine the level of scientific
literacy and information technology literacy among pre-service science teachers.
Additionally, the researchers intended to find out if there was a relationship between
scientific literacy and information technology literacy among the science teacher candidates.
Furthermore, the researchers collected data from the participants by administrating two
instruments: the Scientific Literacy Test (SLT) and the Information Technology Literacy
Scale (ITLS). The SLT consists of 100 items that focus on the participant’s knowledge inscientific literacy, which is closely related to this study. However, the ITLS aims to measure
the participant’s literacy in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), such asproblem-solving capabilities in ICT and technical skills in ICT. The researchers found thatthe participants had low scientific literacy levels (48.35 out of 100) and had satisfactory
information technology literacy levels. Finally, Karamustafaoğlu et al. (2013) encouraged
decision makers to enrich the teacher preparation program with additional topics that addressscientific literacy. Based on the reviewed literature, researchers seem to have reached aconsensus that pre-service teachers with low scientific literacy levels cannot be expected to
grow scientifically literate individuals or to apply the science curriculum effectively.

28

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Self-Efficacy
Based on the reviewed literature, researchers who conducted studies related to self-efficacy(Avery & Meyer, 2012; Aydin & Boz, 2010; Bayraktar, 2011; Bleicher & Lindgren, 2005;
Bursal, 2008, 2012; Ebrahim, 2012; Kahraman, Yilmaz, Bayrak, & Gunes, 2014;
McDonnough & Matkins, 2010; Murphy, Neil & Beggs, 2007; Onen & Kaygisiz, 2013;
Tosun, 2000; Yılmaz & Cavas, 2008; Yilmaz-Tuzun, 2008) are in agreement with Bandura’s(1977) definition of perceived self-efficacy as the belief “in one’s capabilities to organize andexecute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 2). Bandura (1986)
differentiated between self-efﬁcacy and outcome expectations in that “individuals can believethat a particular course of action will produce certain outcomes, but they do not act on thatoutcome belief because they question whether they can actually execute the necessary
activities” (p. 392). For example, individuals are motivated to act if they believe the action
will have a positive result (outcome expectation) and if they can perform that action
successfully (self-efﬁcacy).
Personal self-efficacy. Based on Bandura’s (1977) theory, Ashton and Webb (1986)
identified two types of teaching efficacy: personal teaching efficacy and outcome teachingefficacy. In this study, personal self-efficacy will be defined in line with Ashton and Webb’s(1986) definition of personal teaching efficacy, in which personal self-efficacy refers toteachers’ confidence in their experiences to develop strategies for overcoming obstacles tostudent learning.
Enochs and Riggs (1990) developed a research instrument based on Bandura’s self-efficacy
theory that stressed the critical importance of early detection of pre-service science teacherswith low self-efficacy levels. Enochs and Riggs’ (1990) contribution is the development of avalid and reliable instrument – the Science Teaching Efﬁcacy Belief Instrument for preservice teachers (STEBI-B) – which can be administered to measure personal self-efficacy
levels of pre-service teachers. Many studies of personal self-efficacy (Aydin & Boz, 2010;
Bayraktar, 2011; Bleicher & Lindgren, 2005; Bursal, 2008, 2012; Ebrahim, 2012; Kahraman
et al., 2014; McDonnough & Matkins, 2010; Murphy et al., 2007; Onen & Kaygisiz, 2013;
Tosun, 2000; Yılmaz & Cavas, 2008) have used the STEBI-B to measure the impact ofcertain variables on pre-service teachers’ personal self-efficacy levels.
Several researchers have investigated the impact of science methods courses on pre-service
teachers’ personal self-efficacy levels (Avery & Meyer, 2012; Bayraktar, 2011; Bursal, 2008;
Ebrahim, 2012). Some have reported that science methods courses have a positive impact onparticipants’ personal self-efficacy beliefs, attributing their results to the pedagogical use of
inquiry-based learning and authentic science teaching methods (Avery & Meyer, 2012;
Ebrahim, 2012). However, others reported no effect on participants’ personal self-efficacy
beliefs, which, in regard to science, remain low (Bayraktar, 2011; Bursal, 2008). The
researchers agreed that the participants’ low self-efficacy toward teaching science resultsfrom their limited teaching experience, which should be incorporated into science methods
courses.
A number of authors (Bleicher & Lindgren, 2005; Murphy et al., 2007; Tosun, 2000)
investigated the relationship between science-related knowledge and pre-service teachers’
personal self-efficacy beliefs. Bleicher and Lindgren (2005) found a positive relationshipbetween participants’ conceptual understanding of science and their self-efficacy beliefs
about teaching and determined that more science courses were needed in teacher preparation
programs to help future teachers maintain high levels of confidence in teaching science.

29

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

However, Murphy et al. (2007) and Tosun (2000) concluded that, although study participants
had a good scientific background and high achievement levels in science, they still
demonstrated a negative attitude toward teaching science. The researchers attributed theirresults to insufficient professional development and previous personal failures during theteacher preparation program.
Subject-specific self-efficacy. Similarly derived from Bandura’s (1977) philosophy of selfefficacy, subject-specific self-efficacy refers to a teacher’s judgment of his or her capabilities
to effectively teach subject areas such as physics, chemistry, biology, and earth science(Yilmaz-Tuzun, 2008). Only Yilmaz-Tuzun (2008) addressed subject-specific self-efficacy
levels among pre-service teachers in a study devoted to developing an instrument to measurepre-service elementary teachers’ conﬁdence levels with assessment techniques, classroom
management, teaching methods, and Science Concept Knowledge (SCK). The SCK section isin line with this study’s definition of subject-specific self-efficacy with regard to teachingscience. Furthermore, Yilmaz-Tuzun (2008) concluded that pre-service elementary teachers“felt more conﬁdent teaching content in biology, earth science, or both than teaching content
in physics, chemistry, or both” (p. 197).
In summary, the researchers in this paper were unable to locate a study that investigated thedifference between pre-service elementary teachers’ personal and subject-specific selfefficacy beliefs. Studies that addressed self-efficacy focused primarily on the personal aspectof self-efficacy, which is pre-service teachers’ general self-efficacy towards teaching science.
As a result, pre-service teachers were usually labeled as having high, medium, or low levelsof self-efficacy towards teaching science without specifying (subject-specific self-efficacy)
the exact science subjects they lack confidence to teach, such as biology, chemistry, andphysics.
Methodology
ParticipantsParticipants in this study were undergraduates in an elementary teacher education program
known as the Teacher Education Program (TEP) at a mid-sized university in the Midwestern
United States. Two groups from the TEP participated in this study. The first group was preservice teachers enrolled in an introductory science methods course. These participants had
just started the TEP and had not yet experienced major education and teaching methods
courses. The second group was pre-service teachers enrolled in an advanced science methods
course. These participants, however, had experienced major education and teaching methods
courses.
Furthermore, the participants in this study responded to a demographic information survey,
which included three parameters as shown in Table 1. 49 pre-service elementary teachers
registered in two science methods courses participated in this study. This included 25
participants in the introductory science methods course (2 male and 23 female) and 24
participants in the advanced science methods course (2 male and 22 female). In addition,
53.1% of all participants reported having a good experience in science during high school.
Also, 51.3% of them reported having a good current experience with science during teacher
preparation at the university.

30

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Table 1: Demographic Information
Category
GenderMale
FemaleScience experience in high school
Very poor
Poor
Acceptable
Good
Very good
Current Science experience
Very poor
Poor
Acceptable
Good
Very good

N

%

4
45

8.2
91.8

0
4
14
26
5

0
8.2
28.6
53.1
10.1

1
2
15
26
5

2
4.1
30.6
53.1
10.2

Data Collection Instrument
This exploratory educational research study used a quantitative approach that employed
quantitative data collection, analysis, and procedures. Participants in this study completed
three instruments: Test of Basic Scientific Literacy (TBSL), Science Teaching Efﬁcacy
Belief Instrument (STEBI-B), and Beliefs About Teaching (BAT).
Created by Laugksch and Spargo (1996), the TBSL includes 110 items: the Nature of Science[NOS] (22 items), SCK (72 items), and the impact of science and technology on society[STS] (16 items). SCK covers four areas of test items: (a) earth science, (b) life science, (c)physical science, and (d) health science. The second instrument is the STEBI-B, developed
by Enochs and Riggs (1990) to determine the personal self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service
teachers toward teaching science. The STEBI-B includes two subscales, which are the
Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Belief (PSTE) and Science Teaching Outcome
Expectancy (STOE). Only the PSTE instrument was used because it is directly related to thestudy’s topic. The third instrument is the BAT, developed by Yilmaz-Tuzun (2008) todetermine the subject-specific self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers.
Research Questions
1. How did the participants in the introductory and advanced science methods course
perform on the TBSL?
1a. How did the participants in the introductory science methods course perform
on the six scales of TBSL?
1b: How did the participants in the advanced science methods course perform on
the six scales of TBSL?
2. What is the self-efficacy level among the four scales of the BAT in the introductory
and advanced science methods course?
3. What is the difference between the level of personal and subject-specific self-efficacy
among the pre-service elementary science teachers in both science methods courses?

31

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

4. What is the relationship between scientific literacy and subject-specific self-efficacy
among the pre-service elementary teachers in both the introductory and advanced
science methods course?
Results
Level of Scientific Literacy
Descriptive statistical analysis was used to determine the performance level of the pre-service
teachers in the introductory and advanced science methods course. According to Laugkschand Spargo (1996), the satisfactory level (i.e. cut-off point) of the TBSL is expected to be 68
out of 110 items. The pre-service elementary teachers in both groups had a satisfactory levelof scientific literacy. The pre-service teachers in the advanced course (M = 84.29, SD =10.719) on average had a higher scientific literacy level compared with those in the
introductory course (M = 76.24, SD = 13.772). It is important to note that six of theparticipants from the introductory and two from the advanced science methods courses did
not achieve the satisfactory level of 68.
Level of Scientific Literacy across the Six Scales of TBSL
According to Laugksch and Spargo (1996), pre-service teachers are expected to obtain atleast 13 out of 22 on the NOS subsection, 45 out of 72 on the SCK subsection, and 10 out of
16 on the STS subsection. The SCK includes earth, life, physical, and health sciences.
Participants in the introductory and advanced science methods group achieved the scientific
literacy expectation. The difference between the two groups’ achievement across the six
scales of TBSL are highlighted in Table 2.
Table 2: Levels of Scientific Literacy across the six Scales of TBSL

Scale
Earth
Life
Physical
HealthNOSSTSSCKScience Methods Courses
Introductory
Advanced(N= 25)(N=24)
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
9.80
1.803
10.92
1.932
16.84
3.579
18.25
3.542
9.48
2.417
10.71
2.312
15.24
3.632
16.96
1.574
14.56
2.740
14.88
2.833
10.32
2.954
12.58
2.283
51.36
9.385
56.83
7.179

It can be seen from the data in Table 2 that the participants in the introductory science
methods course achieved the scientific literacy expectation by scoring 14.56 out of 22 on the
NOS subsection, 51.36 out of 72 on the SCK subsection, and 10.32 out of 16 on the STS
subsection. The participants’ teachers in the advanced science methods course also fulfilled
the TBSL criteria, which is scoring 14.88 out of 22 on the NOS subsection, 56.83 out of 72
on the SCK subsection, and 12.58 out of 16 on the STS subsection.
Table 3 provides the percentage of correct answers for the two groups. What stands out in thetable is that the highest percentage score for the introductory and advanced science methods
course was on health science (80.21% and 89.26%, respectively). The lowest percentage

32

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

score for the introductory science methods course was on STS (64.5%) and NOS (67.63%)
for the advanced science methods course.
Table 3: Percentage of Correct Answers
Science Methods Courses
Scale

Introductory(N= 25)

Advanced(N= 24)Earth

65.33%

76.8%

Life

70.16%

76.04%

Physical

67.71%

76.5%

Health80.21%

89.26%

NOS

66.18%

67.63%

STS

64.5%

78.62%

Self-Efficacy Level among the Four Scales of the BATTable 4 shows the descriptive statistics of the participants’ responses in both science methods
courses. What is interesting about the data in this table is that the introductory and advanced
science methods course had the highest level of self-efficacy in biology (M= 4.1920, SD=.45270 and M= 4.35, SD= .624, respectively) and the lowest self-efficacy level in physics(M= 3.0914, SD= .71771 and M = 2.9464, SD =. 54409, respectively).
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of the Participants’ Responses on the BAT

Scale
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Earth

Science Methods Courses
Introductory
Advanced(N= 25)(N=24)
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
3.0914.717712.9464.544093.7867.534723.5000.461044.1920.452704.3500.624853.7360.713493.7667.62878A one-way ANOVA was conducted to investigate the self-efficacy level of the participants inthe four scales of the BAT. Table 5 indicates a statistically significant difference among thefour scales of the BAT, F (15.531, 36.361) = 13.668, p =.000 for the introductory science
methods courses. In addition, a statistically significant difference among the four scales forthe advanced science methods course was present, F (24.499, 29.771) = 25.236, p = .000.

33

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Table 5: One-way ANOVA test
Science Methods
Courses
Introductory
Advanced

Score
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

Sum ofSquares
15.53136.36151.89124.49929.77154.270

df
3
96
99
3
92
95

Mean
Square
5.177
.379
8.166
.324

F

p-value

13.668.000

25.236.000*Significant at p < .05

In order to determine exactly where the differences were, the study included a Tukey post
hoc test (Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, & Barrett, 2007). For the introductory science methods
course, the differences were significant between physics and chemistry, between physics andbiology, and between physics and earth science. The differences were significant between
physics and biology, between physics and earth science, and between chemistry and biology.
Comparing Personal and Subject-Specific Self-Efficacy
The researchers calculated an independent sample t-Test for the participants in the
introductory and advanced science methods course to determine if there was a statisticaldifference between the participants’ personal self-efficacy and subject-specific self-efficacy.
It can be seen in Table 6 that there is no significant difference in the score for personal selfefficacy and subject-specific self-efficacy in the introductory science methods course. The
participants had the same self-efficacy levels in both measurements of self-efficacy: STEBIB (to measure personal self-efficacy) and BAT (to measure subject-specific self-efficacy).
Regarding the participants in the advanced methods course, there was a significant differencein the score for personal self-efficacy and subject-specific self-efficacy t (-3.817) = 46, p =.000, d = -1.108. This indicates that the participants had different self-efficacy levels in bothmeasurements of self-efficacy. Specifically, the participants held a high belief that they could
teach science when they responded to the STEBI-B. However, the participants reported alower level of belief that they could teach science when they responded to the BAT.
Table 6: Comparison of Personal and Subject-Specific Self-Efficacy
Science
Self-efficacy
Methods Course Instrument
Introductory
STEBI-B(N=25)
BAT
Advanced
STEBI-B(N=24)
BAT

Mean (SD)tdfp-value

3.63 (.492)
3.69 (.460)
4.11 (.507)
3.58 (.447)

-.447

48

.657

-3.81746.000*Significant at p < .05

Relationship between Scientific Literacy and Subject-Specific Self-Efficacy
The study computed correlation coefficients between the participants’ scientific literacy
levels and subject-specific self-efficacy levels. A Pearson product-moment correlation was
calculated to investigate the strength of the relationship between the variables. Table 7 showsthat only the advanced science methods course had an existing relationship between the twovariables, r = .472, n = 24, p = .020.

34

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Table 7: Pearson Correlation for Scientific Literacy and Subject-Specific Self-Efficacy
Pearson Correlation (r value)
Science Methods Course
Introductory (Scientific Literacy)
Advanced (Scientific Literacy)

Scientific Literacy Subject-specific Self-efficacy
1
1

.225
.472

pvalue.279.020**Significant at p < .05 (2-tailed)
Discussion
The results of this study show that the pre-service elementary teachers had satisfactory
scientific literacy levels, which is calculated as 68 out of 110. Judging from the correct
response rate of the mean score for the introductory and advanced science methods courses(M = 76.24, M = 84.291, respectively), the basic scientific literacy of pre-service elementaryteachers is at a satisfactory level. This indicates that the TEP had a significant impact on the
pre-service elementary teachers’ knowledge in scientific literacy.
Comparing these results with results from other studies, the scientific literacy level of theparticipants in this study was higher than results from Cavas, P., Ozdem, Cavas, B.,
Cakiroglu and Ertepinar (2013) where the mean score for the pre-service teachers in theirfirst year was 68.47 and in their fourth year 73.79. However, the results were slightly lower
than Chin’s (2005) findings when scientific literacy was investigated among scienceeducation majors and elementary education majors with a mean score of M = 107.47 and M =99.11, respectively.
A possible explanation for these different results may be related to pre-service teachers’
achievement level in science in high school, which can be drawn from the participants’
response to the demographic question, “How would you describe your prior science
experiences in high school?” Approximately 63.3% of the pre-service elementary teachers
had a positive experience with science subjects. Chin (2005) stressed that “previous sciencerelated experiences in school will have an influence on their scientific literacy” (p. 1568).
Furthermore, the researchers found interesting results regarding the achievement level of the
pre-service elementary teachers on the six scales of scientific literacy. One of the unexpected
findings is that health science had the highest correct response rate in both the introductory
and advanced science methods courses (80.21% and 89.26%, respectively). A possible
explanation for the participants’ knowledge in “health” is due to their everyday life
experience with health-related issues such as hand washing, tooth brushing, bathing, anddealing with a fever (Lee et al., 2008). In fact, Sonu and Amarjeet’s (2007) study of highschool students’ health awareness showed that the majority of the participants had adequate
knowledge about management of injuries, skin infections, and drowning. The study by Sobal,
Klein, Graham, and Black (1988) of 831 high school students’ health concerns offeredanother explanation for the participant’s high achievement in health science: 92% of thestudents often thought about their health.
Furthermore, participants in the introductory science methods course had borderline scores in
NOS, STS, and SCK (i.e. earth science, life science, physical science). These results are

35

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

likely to be related to the participants’ experience in the TEP. They have not yet experienced
major science and science education courses that will allow them to perform more positively
on the TBSL.
The pre-service elementary teachers in the advanced methods course, however, are expected
to have adequate correct response rates because they are a semester away from beginningtheir professional career as elementary teachers. They had sufficient knowledge in all of thescales except for the NOS subscale with a 67.63% correct response rate. Interestingly,
researchers in previous studies reported that pre-service teachers did not acquire adequate
conceptions of the NOS (Cavas et al., 2013; Chin, 2005). Lederman (1992) summarized thereasons for the low understanding of the NOS:(a) science teachers do not possess adequate conceptions of the NOS,
irrespective of instrument used to assess understanding; (b) techniques toimprove teachers’ conceptions have met with some success when they haveincluded either historical aspects of scientific knowledge or direct attention to
the NOS; (c) academic background variables are not significantly related toteachers’ conception of the NOS. (p. 345)
Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that the domains of the NOS require particular emphasis
in pre-service teacher education programs.
With respect to the level of subject-specific self-efficacy among pre-service teachers, very
little in the literature was found regarding this topic. However, one interesting finding is thatin both science methods courses the participants had the highest self-efficacy in teachingbiology and the lowest self-efficacy in teaching physics. These results are in agreement with
Yilmaz-Tuzun’s (2008) findings that pre-service elementary teachers had a higher selfefficacy level in teaching biology and earth science concepts than physics and chemistryconcepts.
A possible explanation for the low self-efficacy in teaching physics and the high self-efficacy
in teaching biology is the nature of this subject. Unlike biology, the main challenge ofteaching physics concepts at the elementary level is the abstract nature of this knowledge.
Elementary students are required to develop mental images of a complex subject that they
have never observed first hand. This raises a challenge for teachers to find out how to present
and explain such fundamental and abstract concepts such as circuits, conductors, insulators,
series circuits, among others, which are essential to a basic understanding of physics concepts
at the elementary level (Azaiza, Bar, & Galili, 2006). This explanation is in agreement withdata obtained from the BAT, specifically the participants’ response to the following question:“I believe that I am able to teach thoroughly the following concept: electrical energy.” Only
20.8% of the pre-service elementary teachers “agreed” with this statement, and none of them
picked the “strongly agree” response. This means that the TEP needs to empower pre-service
elementary teachers with teaching strategies and methods that can help them overcome their
low confidence level in teaching physics topics.
With respect to self-efficacy, many studies focused on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy inteaching science have applied the STEBI-B as a main indicator of pre-service teachers’ selfefficacy levels. Researchers made major decisions and conclusions based on its results. One
question that needs to be asked, however, is whether using the STEBI-B as a primary36

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018measurement is enough to adequately measure pre-service elementary teachers’ self-efficacy
levels?
In the current study, the results of the introductory science methods course indicated nosignificant difference between the participant’s personal and subject-specific self-efficacy.
This means that on both instruments that measured self-efficacy – STEBI-B for personal selfefficacy and BAT for subject-specific self-efficacy – the participants had the same moderatelevel of self-efficacy in teaching science. This implies that both instruments were able tomeasure the overall self-efficacy levels of the participants. A possible explanation for thismight be that pre-service elementary teachers who have just begun the TEP have not had theopportunity to develop self-efficacy beliefs in teaching science.
What is surprising, however, were the results of the participants in the advanced science
methods course. The results showed a significant difference between the participants’personal and subject-specific self-efficacy. A note of caution is due here when explaining theresults, since the current study relied on quantitative data. However, a possible explanation isthat the participants in the advanced course had experienced a significant number of science
methods courses, science content courses, school observations, and field trips that allowed
them to re-evaluate their confidence in teaching specific science concepts (i.e. physics,
chemistry, biology, and earth science). By examining the BAT instrument, it can be seen thatthe instrument allows pre-service elementary teachers to document their challenges towards
teaching specific science topics. Regarding the high self-efficacy levels reported by theparticipants in the STEBI-B, this may be due to the participants responding to the questions
with a positive self-efficacy level in a certain science subject. For example, a participant may
have a high self-efficacy level in teaching biology and earth science concepts and a low selfefficacy level in teaching physics and chemistry. Therefore, this participant may respond to
the STEBI-B in either a positive or a negative way. These findings may help future
researchers find new ways to address the level of self-efficacy among pre-service teachersthat do not depend on one instrument to draw conclusions about self-efficacy.
Furthermore, the results of the Pearson product–moment correlation revealed a moderately
positive relationship between scientific literacy and subject-specific self-efficacy among theparticipants in the advanced science methods course. The score on the Pearson product–
moment correlation indicated that the pre-service elementary teachers with higher levels ofscientific literacy had high subject-specific self-efficacy levels in teaching science, and thepre-service elementary teachers with low levels of scientific literacy had low levels of
subject-specific self-efficacy.
To date, no study has been found that studied the relationship between scientific literacy andself-efficacy among pre-service teachers. However, if self-efficacy is considered a dimensionof attitude, then these current results agree with the findings of other prior studies ofscientific literacy and attitudes toward science. Cavas, P., Ozdem, Cavas, B., Cakiroglu andErtepinar (2013) and Chin (2005) came to similar results when they examined therelationship between scientific literacy and attitudes toward science. They found that the preservice teachers had a positive correlation among the participants in their study.
In future research, a mixed methods design is an appropriate approach. This approach will
provide qualitative interpretations, such as providing reasons why participants exhibit certain
scientific literacy and self-efficacy levels (e.g. high levels, low levels, or satisfactory levels).

37

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

In addition, this study could be expanded to other teacher preparation programs that prepare
students to teach at the secondary level.
Conclusion
Pre-service teachers’ scientific levels and self-efficacy in teaching science could have aneffect on how pre-service teachers teach science. The teacher remains the most importantelement in providing high-quality and effective science education to the average student(Shamos, 1995). It is critical for pre-service elementary teachers to have high levels ofscientific literacy and confidence in teaching science; therefore, universities are encouraged
to help their students gain abilities and knowledge that will help them achieve this goal
(Avery & Meyer, 2012; Bacanak & Gokdere, 2009).
The findings of this study have implications for teacher preparation programs. Specifically,
pre-service elementary teachers at the end of the program (i.e. advanced pre-service teachers)
should make sure that they are adequately prepared for the teaching profession. The findingsof this study indicate that advanced pre-service elementary teachers have satisfactory
scientific literacy levels. However, the evidence from this study suggests that an emphasis on
the NOS domain is required in pre-service teaching education programs. In addition, thefindings of this study indicate that advanced pre-service elementary teachers have low selfefficacy levels in teaching physics. Therefore, decision makers in TEP are encouraged toprovide pre-service teachers with knowledge and skills on how to teach students the abstract
concepts in physics. The finding also revealed a positive relationship between scientific
literacy and self-efficacy among advanced pre-service elementary teachers. Therefore,
curriculum designers in the TEP are encouraged to stress the dimension of scientific literacy
in the curriculum, which may have a positive result on the pre-service teachers’ confidence
levels.
The findings of this study have implications for science education research. The current data
highlight the importance of distinguishing between personal and subject-specific self-efficacy
towards teaching science. The results of this study showed that there is a statisticallysignificant difference between subject-specific self-efficacy (measured by the BAT) andpersonal self-efficacy (STEBI-B) among this sample of advanced pre-service teachers.
Therefore, future research in self-efficacy is encouraged to consider the type of instrumentused to measure pre-service teacher self-efficacy levels.

38

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

References
Altun-Yalcin, S., Acisli, S., & Turgut, U. (2011). Determining the levels of pre-service
science teachers’ scientific literacy and investigating effectuality of the education
faculties about developing scientific literacy. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 15, 783–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.185
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy andstudent achievement. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Avery, L. M., & Meyer, D. Z. (2012). Teaching science as science is practiced: Opportunities
and limits for enhancing pre-service elementary teachers’ self-efficacy for science andscience teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 112(7), 395–409.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00159.x
Aydin, S., & Boz, Y. (2010). Pre-service elementary science teachers’ science teachingefficacy beliefs and their sources. Elementary Education Online, 9(2), 694–704.
Azaiza, I., Bar, V., &Galili, I. (2006). Learning electricity in elementary school. International
Journal of Science and Mathematical Education, 4(1), 45–71.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-6826-9
Bacanak, A., & Gokdere, M. (2009). Investigating level of the scientific literacy of primaryschool teacher candidates. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching,10(1), 1–10.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bayraktar, S. (2011). Turkish pre-service primary school teachers’ science teaching efficacy
beliefs and attitudes toward science: The effect of a primary teacher education
program. School Science and Mathematics, 111(3), 83–92.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2010.00065.x
Bleicher, R., & Lindgren, J. (2005). Success in science learning and pre-service scienceteaching self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(3), 205–225.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-005-4861-1
Bursal, M. (2008). Changes in Turkish pre-service elementary teachers’ personal scienceteaching efficacy beliefs and science anxieties during a science method course.
Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(1), 99–112.
Bursal, M. (2012). Changes in American pre-service elementary teachers’ efficacy beliefs
and anxieties during a science methods course. Science Education International,
23(1), 40–55.
Cavas, P., Ozdem, Y., Cavas, B., Cakiroglu, J., & Ertepinar, H. (2013). Turkish pre-service
elementary science teachers’ scientific literacy level and attitudes towardscience. Science Education International, 24(4), 383–401.
Chin, C. (2005). First-year pre-service teachers in Taiwan: Do they enter the teacher programwith satisfactory scientific literacy and attitudes toward science? International
Journalof
Science
Education,
27(13),
1549–1570.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500186401

39

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school Students’ Informal Reasoning andArgumentation about Biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International
Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801992870
Ebrahim, A. (2012). The self-efficacy of pre-service elementary teachers in Kuwaiti science
programs. Education, 133(1), 67–76.
Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teachingefficacy belief instrument: A pre-service elementary scale. School Science andMathematics, 90(8), 694–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb12048.x
Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in theclassroom.
ResearchinScience
Education,
27,
323
–
337.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461757
Hazen, R., & Trefil, J. (1991) Science matters: Achieving scientific literacy. New York, NY:
Doubleday.
Kahraman, S., Yilmaz, Z., Bayrak, R., & Gunes, K. (2014). Investigation of pre-service
science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs of science teaching. Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 136, 501–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.364
Karamustafaoğlu, K., Çakır, R., & Kaya, M. (2013). Relationship between teacher
candidates’ literacy of science and information technology. Mevlana International
Journal of Education, 3(2), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.13054/mije.13.52.3
Kruger, J., & Dunning D. (2009). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties inrecognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.77.6.1121
Laugksch, R. C., & Spargo, P. (1996). Construction of a paper-and-pencil test of basic
scientific literacy based on selected literacy goals recommended by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 5,
331–359. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/5/4/003
Lederman, N. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the NOS: A review of theresearch. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
Lee, A., Wong, M., Keung W., Yuen, K., Cheng, F., & Mok, J. (2008). Can the concept ofhealth promoting schools help to improve students’ health knowledge and practices tocombat the challenge of communicable diseases: Case study in Hong Kong? BMC
Public Health, 8(42), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-42
McDonnough, J. T., & Matkins, J. J. (2010). The role of field experience in elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and ability to connect research to practice. School
Science and Mathematics, 110(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.19498594.2009.00003.x
Morgan , G., Leech, N., Gloeckner, G., & Barrett, K (2007). IBM SPSS for Introductory
Statistics: Use and Interpretation (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Murphy, C., Neil, P., & Beggs, J. (2007). Primary science teacher confidence revisited: Ten
years on. Educational Research, 49(4), 415–430.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880701717289

40

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Alexandria, VA:
National Academic Press.
Onen, F., & Kaygisiz, G. (2013). Prospective science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs aboutteaching science between 6–8 terms and the opinions on these beliefs. Educational
Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(4), 2449–2453.
https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.4.1853
Ozdemir, O. (2010). Situation of the pre-service science and technology teachers’ scientific
literacy. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(3), 57–59.
Pavel, S., Robertson, M., & Harrison, B. (2012). The Dunning-Kruger effect and SIUC
University’s aviation students. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering 2(1),125-129. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314864
Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Sobal, J., Klein, H., Graham, D., & Black, J. (1988). Health concerns of high school students
and teachers’ beliefs about student health concerns. Pediatrics, 81(2), 192–194.
Sonu, G., & Amarjeet, S. (2007). Health awareness of high school students. Indian Journal ofCommunity Medicine, 32(3), 192–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356525
Tosun, T. (2000). The beliefs of pre-service elementary teachers toward science and scienceteaching. School
ScienceandMathematics, 100(7),374–379.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb18179.x
Yılmaz, H., & Çavaş, P. (2008). The effect of the teaching practice on pre-service elementaryteachers’ science teaching efficacy and classroom management beliefs. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 45–54.
https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75305
Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2008). Pre-service elementary teachers’ beliefs about science teaching.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(2), 183–204.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9084-1
Corresponding author: Adam Al Sultan
Contact email: adam.uod@gmail.com

41

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 201842