IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Exploring the Relationship between Science Content Knowledge and Science Teaching
Self-Efficacy among Elementary Teachers
Amy Catalano
Hofstra University, USA
Lauren Asselta
Hofstra University, USA
Alana Durkin
Hofstra University, USA

57

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Abstract
Elementary school teachers are commonly known to have low self-efficacy in mathematics
and science. Previously conducted research on science teaching self-efficacy and content
knowledge has often focused on whether methods courses, professional development or otherinterventions improve both self-efficacy and content knowledge among elementary teachers.
This study investigated whether teachers’ knowledge of science content influenced theirlevels of self-efficacy, and compared teachers’ who were in a STEM education graduate
degree program to teachers and students in a regular elementary teaching program. The
participants of this study were 82 in-service and 27 pre-service elementary teachers inaffiliation with a large northeastern university. The participants completed a science selfefficacy survey (STEBI-B) and a science content knowledge survey called the Science
Beliefs Tests. The results of this study found that pre-service teachers had a higher selfefficacy score in comparison to in-service teachers. Most participants were able to answer alittle more than half of the Science Beliefs questions correctly. Additionally, there was anegative relationship between one’s belief that they could teach science effectively and their
Science Beliefs score, meaning that the more science self-efficacy they possessed, the lower
their science knowledge. It is important that teachers become aware of their lack of content
knowledge in order to remedy the insufficiency, and to avoid passing along misconceptions
to their students. If teachers believe that they have high self-efficacy, they may not be awarethat they must continually improve their science content knowledge. Accordingly, teachers
can benefit from continued education in topic areas where they scored the lowest.
Keywords: Elementary teachers, science teaching, self-efficacy,
misconceptions about science, pedagogical content knowledge

58

sciencebeliefs,

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Introduction
Self-efficacy is a person’s confidence in his or her ability to complete tasks to the highest
potential to attain certain goals (Bandura, 1997). In the field of education, educators havecertain beliefs about their abilities and skills as teachers, which can affect their successes inteaching. Many factors can influence a teacher’s self-efficacy such as training, preparation,and studying at a higher education level before they begin teaching in a classroom., However
knowledge of science among elementary schools is notoriously low and self-efficacy forteaching the subject may be low as well. This study sought to investigate the relationshipbetween science teaching self-efficacy (STSE) and science content knowledge among bothpre-service and in-service elementary school teachers. This study also examined whether agraduate program intended to train elementary teachers to be science specialists improved
science teaching self-efficacy and content knowledge.
If teachers are educated properly in science content and science teaching methods, they will
have high levels of scientific literacy and scientific knowledge which will allow for highlevels of self-efficacy (Al Sultan, Henson, & Fadde 2018). The research on the STSE ofelementary teachers is vast and wide. Some of research indicates that a teachers’ self-efficacy
is not related to their content knowledge, although it is an important factor in defining
expectations of their students. Teachers with high levels of self-efficacy tend to make use ofhighly effective teaching strategies, are usually more dedicated to the profession of teaching,
and are less likely to burn out (Woolfolk, Hoy & Davis, 2006; Zee & Kooman, 2016). In asynthesis of 40 years of self-efficacy research, Zee and Koomen (2016) reported that teacher
self-efficacy in general is positively related to student achievement, teacher well-being andclassroom quality (e.g., a supportive environment), among other variables. Many of thestudies reviewed below have shown that interventions to increase science knowledge andself-efficacy have been shown to be effective. Accordingly, this study sought to investigate
the relationship between science content knowledge and STSE among pre-service and inservice elementary teachers. The authors hypothesized that with more years of experience, inservice teachers would likely have more science content knowledge and higher STSE thanpre-service teachers. Lastly, we sought to determine whether students who graduated from amaster’s degree program specifically designed to train elementary teachers to be STEM
specialists, with an emphasis on engineering design, had higher STSE or science content
knowledge than teachers and students in a regular elementary education program. The
implications for this research can inform program development and professional development
for teachers.
Science Teaching Self-Efficacy of Pre-Service Teachers
Many studies have examined the impact of methods courses, professional development, extra
science courses, or other science learning experiences on STSE of pre-service teachers(Avery & Meyer, 2012; Bergman & Morphew, 2015; Lumpe, Czerniak, Haney, &Beltyukova, 2012). For example, Morrell and Carroll (2003) administered the STEBI-B (usedin most of the studies of STSE in this literature review) to students before they engaged in the
aforementioned interventions and after. No changes in their STSE during the science courses
or students’ teaching were found, however significant gains were demonstrated for students
in the science methods course likely due to the design of the course. Similarly, Settlage,
Southerland, Smith, and Ceglie (2009) also found high levels of STSE, but given thatstudents already possessed high confidence in their abilities, the authors found that students
did not modify their instructional practices over time. Menon and Sadler (2017) suggest thatstudents benefit the most by taking science courses with inquiry based teaching strategies,

59

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

although low STSE students benefit from proper pacing of the courses. Similarly, throughethnographic research, Jung and Tonso (2006) found that pre-service teachers responded
positively to non-threatening, hands-on experiences providing implications for course designfor the future. Knaggs and Sondergeld (2015) note that positive impacts from theseinterventions are likely due to modelling the instructor’s method of teaching.
In order to understand and resolve public issues, society needs to be scientifically literate.
This means that individuals need to be informed and develop a scientific background.
Science teachers play an essential role in educating society about how the world works. Al
Sultan et al (2018) argued that pre-service teachers enter the teaching field with low selfefficacy beliefs. In their study, 49 pre-service elementary teachers in an introductory or
advanced science methods course completed a survey assessing their scientific background.
They also completed the Test of Basic Scientific Literacy (TBSL), Science Teaching Efficacy
Belief Instrument (STEBI-B), and Beliefs about Teaching (BAT) as further assessment. Al
Sultan et al found that pre-service elementary teachers had satisfactory scientific literacy
levels and in both methods classes, the participants demonstrated higher self-efficacy inteaching biology and lower self-efficacy in teaching physics. The authors also found apositive relationship between scientific literacy and self-efficacy in advanced pre-service
elementary teachers because of the amount of exposure to scientific courses.
Science is often not a priority in elementary classroom instruction, although with the
adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in most of the United States,
increased focus on teaching science through inquiry will need to be integrated into thecurriculum. Accordingly, Grinell and Rabin (2017) developed a study with the goal tomotivate 59 pre-service elementary teachers in a science methods course to spend asignificant amount of time teaching science in their future classrooms, even if they havedemonstrated low STSE. The findings from their study indicated that helping pre-service
teachers find the connections between science knowledge and ethics helps shape their beliefs
in a way that can motivate them to improve their level of science knowledge. By improving
their knowledge of science, they can teach their students more often and more effectively. At
the end of the semester, almost every participant was better able to discuss the ethics andequity in the context of science teaching. As noted previously, many pre-service elementary
education teachers have low levels of proficiency and interest in science, which can lead to a
failure to make science a priority in the curriculum (Cervato & Kerton, 2017). Interventions
such as requiring extra science courses in the pre-service teacher curriculum, participating inauthentic science experiences using inquiry based activities (Avery & Meyer, 2012), andproviding supportive settings in which the pre-service teacher is provided consistent andconstructive feedback can improve self-efficacy and science knowledge (Knoblauch & Hoy,2008).
In-Service Teachers’ Science Self-Efficacy
In-service teachers have more work experience in the field, but that does not mean they are
comfortable when it comes to teaching science topics. Lumpe et al (2012) investigatedwhether there was an effect on elementary students who are educated by confident teachers
who believe in their own abilities. The researchers also investigated whether a summer
professional development program, focusing on science content knowledge, for 450
elementary science teachers would affect their beliefs about teaching. During the school year,
teachers were provided with support to help with professional development and science
content. Both teachers and principals received additional professional development. The
researchers measured the teachers’ knowledge of science concepts before and after the60

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

program. They then compared the teachers’ knowledge to that of 580 fourth graders and1,369 sixth graders, using the Ohio state achievement test for science. The results showedthat the program increased the positive beliefs the science teachers had about their own
teaching. The researchers also found that teacher STSE and at the number of professional
development hours they attended contributed to student achievement.
Unsurprisingly, in-service teachers can also benefit positively from an increase in exposure tocontent-specific knowledge. Swackhamer, Koellner, Basile, and Kimbrough (2009)
researched the effects of content-specific courses in math and science over a five-year period
on 277 teachers’ self-efficacy. At the end of each course, the teachers were asked to complete
a self-efficacy survey (STEBI- B), although only 88 teachers completed the survey. The
results showed that the mean scores of teachers who took more than four of the courses had asignificantly higher Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE) and levels of efficacy
than the teachers who took fewer than four of the courses. STOE describes the general factorsthat teachers believe will impact student science ability. The teachers initially had low STSE
due to their perceived low level of content knowledge. While the literature on in-service andpre-service teacher science self-efficacy is large, few studies compare the STSE of in-service
to that of pre-service teachers, nor have any studies compared the relationship between STSE
and science content knowledge among these two groups.
Science Misconceptions and Content Knowledge Among Teachers
Research has suggested that students hold many misconceptions when it comes to science
concepts and content (e.g., Bar, Brosh, & Sneider, 2016; Tompo, Ahmad, & Muris al, 2016).
Educators, elementary teachers in particular, often focus on those misconceptions to guidetheir teachings. However, research suggests that educators also hold science misconceptions,and these misconceptions negatively impact their teaching. Several studies have shown thatteachers and students tend to hold the same misconceptions and that they are mostly in thephysical sciences (Burgoon, Heddle, & Duran, 2011; Bursal, 2012; Stein, Larabee & Barman,
2008).
Similar to the present study, Kirik (2013) examined the relationship between STSE,
participation in extracurricular activities, science content knowledge, number of science andmethods courses taken, as well as classroom management and efficacy beliefs. Seventy-one
secondary science education majors and 262 pre-service elementary teachers participated in
the study. The results indicated that there was a small significant relationship between
science knowledge and outcome expectancy. Both groups had positive STSE, althoughsecondary science majors had higher STSE than elementary majors.
Although studies have investigated the impact of different types of interventions on bothcontent knowledge and STSE, none have assessed both constructs among both pre-service
and inservice teachers. Many of the interventions were methods courses taken by all
elementary education teachers, or were one-time programs offered over a period of time. This
study extends the previously conducted research by examining a longer term intervention: agraduate degree intended to train elementary teachers to be STEM specialists. The authors
hypothesize that teachers in (or have graduated from) the STEM graduate program possess
greater STSE and content knowledge over other in-service teachers.

61

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Methods
This study sought to answer the following research questions:• To what extent is there a relationship between STSE and science content knowledge?
• Is there a difference in both constructs among pre-service and in-service teachers?
• Is there a difference in both constructs among teachers training to be science/STEM
specialists and those who are non-specialists?
Participants
After receiving Institutional Review Board approval to conduct this study, in-service and preservice elementary teachers were emailed an invitation to participate in the study which
included a link to a science self-efficacy survey and science content knowledge survey.
Participants included undergraduate pre-service teachers enrolled in a teacher education
program at a large private university on Long Island, NY, and in-service teachers enrolled in
graduate programs in the same university. Some participants had recently graduated from thegraduate program, which is a master’s degree in elementary STEM education in which
students are trained to be STEM specialists. Additionally, elementary teachers in partner
districts with the university were invited to participate in the study.
Measures
In order to measure STSE, the STEBI-B was administered. The STEBI-B is one the mostfrequently used measures of STSE. It is relatively brief and has demonstrated reliability andconstruct validity consistently. The STEBI-B was developed by Riggs and Enochs (1990) to
assess the science teaching self-efficacy of pre-service teachers. Because we administered thesurvey to both pre-service and in-service teachers, we chose the STEBI-B as opposed to the
STEBI-A which was intended for in-service teachers only. The STEBI-B includes 23 itemson two subscales: Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Belief (PSTE) and Science Teaching
Outcome Expectancy (STOE). The PSTE primarily assesses the degree to which participants
believe that they, as educators, can impact student achievement in science, whereas the STOE
demonstrates participants’ beliefs about the general factors that might impact a student’s
science achievement. Items were answered using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly agree tostrongly disagree. Two items in particular tend to cross-load onto both factors and to exhibit
low loadings. Bleicher (2004) revised the wording of the scale, although as reported below
those two items still proved problematic in this study as well. Those two items are “The low
science achievement of some students cannot generally be blamed on their teachers” and“Increased effort in science teaching produces little change in some students’ scienceachievement” (Bleicher, 2004, p. 391). Riggs and Enoch (1990) reported an internalconsistency reliability, using Cronbach’s alpha (CA), with a score of .76, while Bleicher(2004) found a CA of .72.
The Science Beliefs Test was administered to assess the science content knowledge ofteachers. The Science Beliefs Test was developed by Larrabee, Stein, and Barman (2006).
The test was intended to be administered via computer and includes a 44 item true/false test
that was constructed based on common misconceptions that teachers, and people in general,
have about life science, earth science and physical science concepts. The items on the test
reflect knowledge that the average adult should possess about science concepts. The original
version of the test asks participants to explain their answers so that the researchers could
determine whether participants actually understood the concept being tested. For this study,
we only asked participants to mark whether they believed a statement to be true or false.

62

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Larrabee et al determined the internal consistency reliability, using Kuder-Richardson, to be avalue of .77. They also determined test-retest reliability was .776. We report our own
reliability statistics for both measures below. The online version of the Science Beliefs Tests
may be found here https://www2.oakland.edu/secure/sbquiz/.
We also added additional questions about whether participants were pre-service, in-service,secondary or elementary level, in the STEM MA graduate program (the program at our
institution in which elementary teachers are trained to be science specialists) or whether they
were employed as science specialists. We also asked about the highest educational levelattained. After data were collected and coded, they were analyzed using SPSS v. 23.
Results
Participants
A total of 144 participants took the survey, although only 109 of those surveys werecompleted. The 35 participants who did not complete the surveys, did not complete the
Science Beliefs portion of the survey. Of the 109 participants, 82 were in-service teachers,
while 27 were pre-service. Of the 82 in-service teachers 28 had been trained as STEM
specialists. We did not ask participants about their gender or ethnicity. Because most of theparticipants were graduates of our institution’s program, we were aware that at least 90
percent of participants were white females. Eight participants were special educationteachers, and 13 were employed as elementary STEM specialists.
Reliability and Validity of the Measures
The full STEBI-B demonstrated a reliability of a CA of .856, while the subscale STOE had a
CA of .685, and the PSTE had a CA of .896. These values show that the scale demonstrated
good reliability. Principal components analysis using varimax rotation revealed six factors
demonstrating eigenvalues greater than 1, with the entire model explaining 64.5 percent of
the variance. When forcing the items into two factors (representing the two subscales), all of
the items, other than 10 and 13, loaded onto the two appropriate factors explaining 39.5
percent of the variance. However, items 10 and 13 loaded at .258, which is below the .5
cutoff. These two items had been noted as problematic previously by Riggs and Enochs(1990).
Science Teaching Self-Efficacy Scores
STSE total and subscale scores were computed for each group. Comparisons among groups
were also calculated. The mean STSE total score was 48.48 (standard deviation of 9.14). As
can be seen in Table 1, there were few differences among groups in STSE total scores
between STEM MA students and non-STEM MA students. Pre-service teachers (n = 27) did
demonstrate higher STSE scores than in-service teachers trending significant where p = .06, F= 3.459 (1, 282.7). In general, when considering the different range of scores for each
subscale, participants STOE (with a range of 0-65) scores were lower than their PSTE (arange of 0-50) scores. The average STOE score for all participants was 23.97; for the PSTE
the mean was 24.58.

63

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Table 1: Mean total and subscale scores on STSE and Science Beliefs for all groups.

STSE
mean
Total
Score
STOE
PSTE
Science
Beliefs
Total
Life
SciencePhysicalScienceEarth
ScienceRange
of scores
possible

Pre-service(n = 27)

In-service(n=82)STEM
MA(n= 81)
49.29

NonSTEM
MA (n=
28)
48.29

0-115

51.34

47.55

0-65
0-50
0-44

24.59
26.58
24.74

0-11

Total
(n =
109)
48.48

23.77
23.88
25.04

24.10
25.07
25.04

23.93
24.34
24.93

23.97
24.58
24.99

6.81

6.76

7.00

6.70

6.78

0-16

9.93

10.13

10.18

10.01

10.1

0-14

7.67

7.85

7.68

7.85

7.80

When looking at the differences between participants on their current teaching status: preservice teacher, in-service general elementary, and in-service STEM elementary teacher,those employed as STEM elementary teachers scored significantly lower than general
education teachers on the STEBI-B, at the p< .05 level. STEM elementary teachers had amean score of 41.23, while general education teachers had a mean score of 49.10. When
compared to pre-service teachers, STEM elementary teachers scored significantly lower at
the p < .001 level, where pre-service teachers had a mean score of 51.34.
Science Beliefs Test scores
The mean raw score on the Science Beliefs Test was 24.99 out of 44. When converted to apercentage, the mean total score was 56.73%. There were no significant differences between
pre-service and in-service teachers on the Science Beliefs test or any of its subscales. The
same is true for STEM MA students as compared to non-STEM MA students. There werealso no differences between STEM teachers, general education teachers on the Science
Beliefs Test. Students tended to get a little more than half of the questions correct on all of
the subscales.
Students tended answer life science questions correctly more often with a percentage of 62
correct. In the physical sciences, on average they scored 59 percent correct, although students
in the STEM MA program scored higher at 64 percent. Students scored the lowest on the
Earth science questions at an average of 49 percent correct for all participants. (See Table 2).

64

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Table 2: Scores on Science Beliefs converted to percentage correct for all groups.

Science
Beliefs
Total
Life
SciencePhysicalScienceEarth
ScienceRange
of scores
possible

Pre-service(n = 27)

In-service(n=82)STEM
MA(n= 81)

Total
(n =
109)

57%

NonSTEM
MA (n=
28)
57%

0-44

54%

57%

0-11

61%

61%

64%

61%

62%

0-17

58%

60%

64%

59%

59%

0-16

48%

49%

48%

49%

49%

57%

Analysis of responses to individual Science Beliefs Test items showed that on many items
half of the respondents answered the questions correctly. For example, question two states“Plants use oxygen.” Only 50 percent of participants indicated that this statement was true.
Another trend that we noted was that a large majority of the participants (75 percent) chosethe incorrect answer to the question 1 which stated that “The only essential constituents thatplants need in order to grow are: water, light and nutrients from the soil or medium in which
they exist.” The correct answer to this question is false, because plants also need air, as atleast half of the participants indicated in their answer to question 2. In another example,
question 13 states, “An astronaut is standing on the moon with a baseball in his/her hand.
When the baseball is released, it will fall to the moon’s surface.” Only 29.13 percent ofparticipants accurately responded that this statement was true.
We also sought to determine whether there was a relationship between science content
knowledge and STSE. A Pearson’s Product Moment correlation showed a negative,
moderate, significant relationship between STSE and total Science Beliefs score was r = .281 p<.01. Further analysis shows that the Science Beliefs scores was, negatively related to
the PSTE subscale r = -.297. Overall, these results suggest that the higher a participant’sscience teaching self-efficacy, the lower their content knowledge.
Discussion
This study sought to determine whether, and to what extent, there is a relationship between
science content knowledge (as measured by the Science Beliefs Test; Larrabee et al, 2006)
and science self-efficacy. We also sought to determine if there were differences on thesemeasures between in-service and pre-service teachers, as well as between graduate students(who are in-service teachers) training to be science specialists (in the STEM MA program)and those not in the STEM MA program. We found that there were differences between preservice and in-service teachers on the STSE scores. Results were not significant at the p < .05
level, but they were trending towards significance at p = .06. There was very little differenceon science content knowledge between any of the groups we studied. However, we did find asignificant negative relationship between STSE and science content knowledge, particularly
for one subscale of the STEBI-B. These results indicate that as Personal Science Teaching
Efficacy beliefs go up, science content knowledge goes down, meaning that teachers whobelieve they are able to teach science effectively tended to have lower science content

65

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019knowledge. These results indicate that elementary school teachers and those training to beteachers have low content knowledge. They carry the same misconceptions as that of thegeneral public. Further, it is problematic when teachers believe they are effective scienceteachers but have low content knowledge. Although research notes that teacher self-efficacy
is positively related to student achievement (Zee & Koomen, 2016), other researchers notedthat teachers with high self-efficacy may be resistant to changing instructional practices
because they already have confidence in their pedagogical efficacy (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy,
& Hoy, 1998). Most relevant to this study, research conducted by Settlage et al, (2009) of
pre-service teachers found that the participants already had high self-efficacy at the pre-test.
Since they lacked uncertainty in their teaching abilities they were not open to expanding theirknowledge to improve their pedagogical practices. It is important to note that Riggs andEnoch (1990) did not indicate a cut-off score by which to determine whether a participant hadhigh or low STSE. Given that the maximum score one can attain is 115 and that the meanscore was 48, we can surmise that the respondents in this study had average STSE.
One positive explanation for the high STSE scores of the pre-service teachers, is that preservice teachers have been found to become more interested in science through methods
courses, which increases confidence in students’ ability to teach science topics (Grinell &Rabin, 2017; Menon & Sadler, 2017). By adding additional science courses to pre-service
teachers’ education programs, pre-service teachers have been found to increase theirscientific knowledge and STSE (Avery & Meyer, 2012).
In-service teachers can also benefit from continued teacher training (Lumpe et al, 2012;
Swackhamer et al, 2009). One explanation for why in-service teachers had lower STSE isthat in-service teachers may be more aware of the subjects they are not the strongest inteaching because of their years of experience. In-service teachers can increase their STSE byparticipating in more continued teacher training that will provide them with more hours of
exposure to the scientific content knowledge that they may not know as well as othersubjects.
As reported in the literature, it is not uncommon for in-service elementary school teachers tohave low content knowledge is science. Interestingly, our results showed that elementary
STEM teachers (that is elementary teachers who only teach science) had significantly lower
STSE even though their science content knowledge was on par with the other groups. Theirlow STSE may be due to the fact that they are “in the trenches” teaching science every day
and are aware of their lack of content knowledge, thus propagating low STSE.
Additionally, although we found few difference in respondents’ knowledge about life
science, Earth science and physical science, other researchers found that most teachers had
the highest self-efficacy in teaching biology and the lowest self-efficacy in teaching physics(Al Sultan et al, 2018). Similarly, Burgoon et al (2011) found that students and teachers havethe most misconceptions in the physical sciences. In this study, however, participants scoredlowest in Earth science concepts.
At the institution in which this study took place, elementary school teachers (both pre-service
and in-service) may participate in a program where they train to be science specialists in the
STEM MA program. They take additional science and math methods courses, engineering
design courses, and often science content courses. Surprisingly, there were no differences
between those who were in this program and those who were not studying to be science66

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

specialists. One explanation for these results are the uneven group sizes. There were only 28
students in the STEM program.
Limitations
The most significant limitation to this study was the sample size. A sample of 109
participants does not make this research generalizable to other groups of elementary teachers.
This limitation is a common issue among studies of STSE and science content knowledge.
Our sample strategies had mixed results, while all participants who were invited to take thesurvey who were students at the institution (all pre-service teachers and all in-service STEM
MA students) participated, there was a low return rate for the in-service teachers invited who
were not at the institution. Many participants chose not to complete the surveys likely
because they were very long. Future research should employ a random sampling strategy andincentive programs to encourage participation.
There are also ethical issues to consider in the development of this research that are related to
the limitations. Because elementary school teachers are known to have low self-efficacy inscience and mathematics, it may have been uncomfortable to take a 44 question test on thesubject and not receive the correct answers once the survey was completed and submitted.
Additionally, it would be helpful for teachers to be aware of the topics in which they could
improve knowledge. Given that there is a negative relationship between knowledge ofscience and confidence, it would be beneficial to both the teacher-participants and theircurrent and future students if teachers are provided with the results of the research. Theseissues can be remedied by offering professional development to teachers who participated in
the study.
Implications and Recommendations
Self-efficacy levels of teachers can affect their ability to be effective in the classroom.
Teachers can work towards improving their levels of self-efficacy by allowing themselves tocontinue to learn through content-specific and inquiry-based courses. Although in-service
teachers have more years of teaching than pre-service teachers, in-service teachers need justas much continued education in order to be more successful in the classroom. Universities do,and should continue to develop programs for pre-service teachers that will provide them withmore learning experiences in science-based courses so that future teachers can increase theirlevels of self-efficacy which will lead to their future students to also be more successful inthe learning process. Further, relationships between universities and schools can facilitate theimprovement of teachers’ self-efficacy (Petersen & Treagust, 2014). Future research should
expand efforts to collect larger samples of elementary teachers and to connect teacher
knowledge to student knowledge. Further, research investigating interventions for improving
elementary science content knowledge are needed.
Conclusion
It is important for pre-service teachers to be motivated to take on the responsibility ofproviding their students with quality science instruction. When teachers do not have highself-efficacy about their ability to teach science, they are less likely to want to dedicate
instructional time to science. Teachers can be motivated to have higher self-efficacy inscience if they are able to understand ethical issues that probe their interest and create adesire to share the knowledge and importance to their students.

67

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

References
Al Sultan, A., Henson, H. J., & Fadde, P. J. (2018). Pre-Service elementary teachers’scientific literacy and self-efficacy in teaching science. IAFOR Journal of Education,
6(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.6.1.02
Avery, L. M., & Meyer, D. Z. (2012). Teaching science as science is practiced: Opportunities
and limits for enhancing preservice 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
Ball, D. L, Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics:
The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 433–456). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bar, V., Brosh, Y., & Sneider, C. C. (2016). Weight, mass, and gravity: Threshold concepts
in learning science. Science Educator, 25(1), 22–34.
Bergman, D. J., & Morphew, J. (2015). Effects of a science content course on elementary
preservice teachers’ self-efficacy of teaching science. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 44(3), 73–81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43631942.
Bleicher, R. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in preservice
elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104(8), 383–391.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb18004.x
Burgoon, J. N., Heddle, M. L., & Duran, E. (2011). Re-examining the similarities between
teacher and student conceptions about physical science. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 22(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9196-x
Bursal, M. (2012). Changes in American preservice elementary teachers’ efficacy beliefs andanxieties during a science methods course. Science Education International, 23(1),40–55.
Cervato, C., & Kerton, C. (2017). Improving the science teaching self-efficacy of preservice
elementary teachers: A multiyear study of a hybrid geoscience course. Journal ofCollege Science Teaching, 47(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst17_047_02_83
Flores, I. M. (2012). Science exploratoriums: Connecting pre-service teachers, practicing
teachers, students, and university science educators. Research in Higher Education
Journal, 18.
Grinell, S., & Rabin, C. (2017). Caring enough to teach science: Helping pre-service teachers
view science instruction as an ethical responsibility. Science & Education, 26(7),813–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9940-0
Jung, M. L., & Tonso, K. L. (2006). Elementary preservice teachers learning to teach sciencein science museums and nature centers: A novel program’s impact on scienceknowledge, science pedagogy, and confidence teaching. Journal of Elementary
Science Education, 18(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03170651
Kirik O.T. (2013). Science teaching efficacy of preservice elementary teachers: Examinationof the multiple factors reported as influential. Research in Science Education, 43(6),2497–2515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9357-y

68

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Knaggs, C. M., & Sondergeld, T. A. (2015). Science as a learner and as a teacher: measuring
science self-efficacy of elementary preservice teachers. School Science andMathematics, 115(3), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.1211
Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, A. W. (2008). “Maybe I Can Teach ‘Those’ Kids.” The influence ofcontextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(1), 166–179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.05.005
Larrabee, T.G., Stein, M., & Barman, C. (2006). A computer-based instrument that identifies
common science misconceptions. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 6(3). Retrieved from https://www.citejournal.org/volume-6/issue-306/science/a-computer-based-instrument-that-identifies-common-sciencemisconceptions
Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., Haney, J., & Beltyukova, S. (2012). Beliefs about teaching science:
The relationship between elementary teachers’ participation in professional
development and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education,34(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.551222
Menon, D. D, & Sadler, T. D. (2018). Sources of science teaching self-efficacy forelementary teachers in science content courses. International Journal Science &Mathematics Education, 16(5), 835–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9813-7
Morrell, P. D., & Carroll, J. B. (2003). An extended examination of preservice elementaryteachers’ science teaching self-efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 103(5),246–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18205.x
Petersen, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2014). School and university partnerships: The role ofteacher education institutions and primary schools in the development of preservice
teachers’ science teaching efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(9),153–167. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n9.2
Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’sscience teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740605
Settlage, J., Southerland, S. A., Smith, L. K., & Ceglie, R. (2009). Constructing a doubt-freeteaching self: Self-efficacy, teacher identity, and science instruction within diverse
settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 102–125.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20268
Stein, M., Larrabee, T., & Barman, C. (2008). A study of common beliefs andmisconceptions in physical science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20 (2),
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173666
Swackhamer, L. E., Koellner, K., Basile, C., & Kimbrough, D. (2009). Increasing the selfefficacy of inservice teachers through content knowledge. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 36(2), 63–78. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23479252
Tompo, B., Ahmad, A., & Muris, M. (2016). The development of discovery-inquiry learningmodel to reduce the science misconceptions of junior high school students.
International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(12).
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning andmeasure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1170754

69

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom
processes, studentacademic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40
years of research. Review of Educational research, 86(4), 981–1015.
Corresponding author: Amy Catalano
Contact email: Amy.Catalano@Hofstra.edu

70