Dr. S. Michael Putman
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Michael.Putman@uncc.edu




Teacher Preparation
•
• Theory-Practice Disconnect
 Ball, Sleep, Boerst, & Bass, 2009; Grossman & McDonald,
2008
Field Experiences
 Zeichner, 2010
 Capraro, Capraro, & Helfeldt, 2010
Teaching Efficacy
• Bandura, 1997
Posnanski, 2007; Clift & Brady, 2005 •
Teaching Efficacy and Field Experiences
•
• Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005; Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008
Oh, et al., 2005; Zeichner & Conklin, 2005








Elementary education majors admitted to the teaching curriculum
Combination of convenience and purposive sampling techniques (Teddlie & Tashakkori,
2009).
Two courses: foundations and practicum
Independent variable - specific delivery format
• looping (n = 25; 7 self-removed)
•
• blocked (n = 16) traditional (n = 25)



The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001)
•
•
•
• Two versions of the TSES – long form (24 items) and short form
(12 items)
TSES score - sum of most positive responses on items written along a 9-point continuum from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal)
 Example: How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?
Includes domain-specific subscales to measure efficacy in student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management
High overall reliability for scale ( α = .90) and sub-scales:
 student engagement ( α = .86)
 instructional strategies ( α = .81)
 Management ( α = .86)
Measurement at beginning of foundations and end of practicum for three delivery formats

1 st admin (n = 16)
TSES M
Total Score 67.06
SE 25.56
IS
CM
17.50
24.00
SD
8.32
4.08
2.73
3.83
2 nd admin (n = 16)
M
83.63
29.81
23.25
30.56
SD
8.83
3.76
2.35
3.75
Mean Score
Differences
16.57
4.25
5.75
6.56
t-test
(df=30)
5.46**
3.06**
6.38**
4.89**
Note .
SE = Student Engagement; IS =
Instructional Strategies; CM = Classroom
Management
* p < .05, ** p < .01


ANOVA #1 to investigate differences on scores at first administration
• Independent variable: context (looping, blocked, traditional)
•
• Statistically significant differences based on group membership at p < .01
 Total score (F = 23.65)
 Classroom management (F = 14.97)
 Instructional strategies (F = 19.12)
 Student engagement (F = 18.07)
Post hoc analysis - Tukey’s HSD
 Candidates enrolled in looping section signficantly higher in overall efficacy and for each domain-specific subscale


ANOVA #2 to investigate differences on final administration
•
• Independent variable: context (looping, blocked, traditional)
Statistically significant differences based on group membership at p < .01
•
 Total score (F = 16.89)
 Classroom management (F = 9.14)
 Instructional strategies (F = 23.97)
 Student engagement (F = 10.75)
Post hoc analysis - Tukey’s HSD
 Traditional program was significantly lower than looping and blocked groups


Blocked Section benefited from:
•
•
•
Multiple opportunities to implement instructional and management strategies described in coursework immediately in context
 Mastery and vicarious experiences
 Theory to practice connection
Continuity and coherence between program purposes and field experiences (see Hammerness et al., 2005)
 Vicarious experiences
 Reinforces selecting competent, skilled teachers for practicum
Direct access to a university supervisor, cooperating teacher, and peers at several points during the day
 Social Persuasion
 Access






Ball, D., Sleep, L., Boerst, T., & Bass, H. ( 2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 458-474.
Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.),
Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on
research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching,
Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289.
Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American
Educational Research Journal, 45, 184-205.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford
(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 358-389). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.








Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, A. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids.” The influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 166-179.
Oh, D. M., Ankers, A. M., Llamas, J. M., & Tomjoy, C. (2005). Impact of preservice student teaching experience on urban school teachers. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 82-98.
Posnanski, T. J. (2007). A redesigned Geoscience content course’s impact on science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Geoscience Education,
55(2), 152-157.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy:
Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-
805.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21, 343-356.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 89-99.
Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M.
Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education (pp. 645-
735). New York: Routledge.