Relations between Australian primary teachers' approaches to student choice and their reported science teaching efficacy beliefs and teaching practices

被引:1
作者
Deehan, James [1 ,2 ]
MacDonald, Amy [1 ]
机构
[1] Charles Sturt Univ, Fac Arts & Educ, Sch Educ, Bathurst, Australia
[2] Charles Sturt Univ, Fac Arts & Educ, Sch Educ, Bathurst 2795, Australia
关键词
Science education; primary education; student choice; teacher efficacy; SELF-EFFICACY; PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT; PHYSICAL-EDUCATION; CONTENT KNOWLEDGE; CURRICULUM; IMPLEMENTATION; ENGAGEMENT; ATTITUDES; IMPACT; ONLINE;
D O I
10.1080/09500693.2023.2225714
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
As a myriad of student-centred practices in primary science education have been established as valuable, effective cornerstones of teachers' repertoires, there is now space to further consider student choice in science education. This paper seeks to examine the role of student choice in primary science education by exploring the relationship between primary teachers' attitudes towards student-choice (minimal, emergent, and planned) and their science teaching efficacy beliefs and reported science teaching practices. A sample of 206 Australian primary teachers responded to a digital quantitative survey comprised of items that included professional demographics, the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument A (STEBI-A), science teaching approaches, and student-choice in science teaching. Descriptive statistics, T-tests, ANOVAs and Chi Squares were used in data analysis. The results showed that teachers who reportedly embraced student-choice were more efficacious and reported more expansive arrays of science teaching approaches than those who purported to minimise choice. Although there is a need for follow-up proximal research to elucidate these findings, some speculative interpretations and recommendations are discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:181 / 203
页数:23
相关论文
共 125 条
  • [1] Akar H., 2018, EUROPEAN J ED RES, V7, P169, DOI 10.12973/eu-jer.7.2.169
  • [2] Akerson V L., 2023, Handbook of research on science education, V3, P528, DOI DOI 10.4324/9780367855758
  • [3] Albion P.R., 2013, International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, V8, P501, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10956-012-9404-X
  • [4] Conducting power analyses for ANOVA and ancova in between-subjects designs
    Algina, J
    Olejnik, S
    [J]. EVALUATION & THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 2003, 26 (03) : 288 - 314
  • [5] Science Teacher Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy as Predrctors of Students' End-of-Instruction (EOI) Biology I Test Scores
    Angle, Julie
    Moseley, Christine
    [J]. SCHOOL SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS, 2009, 109 (08) : 473 - 483
  • [6] Angus M., 2003, CHOOSING CHOICE, P112
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2017, Australian professional standards for teachers
  • [8] [Anonymous], 2008, CRASH COURSE SPSS WI
  • [9] Appeleton K., 2002, J SCI TEACH EDUC, V13, P43, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1015181809961
  • [10] APPLETON K, 1992, RES SCI ED, V22, P11, DOI 10.1007/BF02356874