Options
Unpacking relationships between analysis of teaching task and teacher efficacy beliefs when science teachers adopt learner-centred pedagogy
Loading...
Type
Thesis
Author
Lee, Wei Ching
Supervisor
Chen, Der-Thanq
Wang, Li-Yi
Abstract
It has been argued that the global trend of schools moving from teacher-centred to learner-centred pedagogy practices may affect teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Theoretically, teacher efficacy beliefs are influenced by contingency aspects related to the teaching task and its context. However, there is limited empirical research on how the analysis of teaching task and its context (ATTC) shapes teacher efficacy beliefs. By unpacking the relationships between ATTC and teacher efficacy beliefs, we will be able to provide more supports to teachers and help them develop and sustain positive efficacy beliefs when they adopt challenging learner-centred pedagogy. Therefore, this study aims to explore the variation of teachers’ ways in experiencing ATTC and unpack the relationships between teachers’ ATTC and their teacher efficacy beliefs.
Ten science teachers in Singapore who had the experience of teaching with learner-centred pedagogy were involved in this study. Qualitative inquiry was adopted and semi-structured interviews were carried out with these teachers. Specifically, phenomenography was adopted to investigate teachers’ ways of experiencing ATTC. Findings show that there are five qualitative ways of experiencing ATTC. They are presented in nested categories where the first three categories focus on the task goals and students within the classroom setting. They are: (a) covering the curriculum contents; (b) preparing students for assessment; and (c) accommodating students’ characteristics. The remaining two categories cover not only task goals and students, but also (d) designing appropriate learner-centred pedagogy and (e) enhancing students’ autonomy and social interaction. These two categories showed teachers’ considerations extending from classroom to school and beyond school settings. As to the relationships between ATTC and teacher efficacy beliefs, pragmatic qualitative approach was adopted to unpack the relationships and the interview data was analysed using thematic analysis. Six themes were identified, providing evidence showing that the teachers’ efficacy beliefs were intimately shaped by their ATCC. These six themes are: (a) familiarity with the tasks, (b) improvability of the tasks, (c) complexity of the task and context, (d) compatibility of the task with student, (e) collegiality and (f) structural delimitations.
Findings of this study have significant implications to theory building, teacher learning and school practice. In terms of theory building, this study provides strong empirical evidence that teacher efficacy beliefs are fluid in nature and are shaped by the contingent aspects in ATTC. In terms of teacher learning, the identified critical aspects of ATTC can be introduced in teacher learning programmes to build teachers’ repertoire in ATTC. In terms of school practices, school leaders could consider leveraging teacher’s orientation in reasoning, such as pragmatic reasoning, in their ATTC by providing incentives for implementing learner-centred pedagogy. To protrude our understanding of teacher efficacy beliefs, I further propose a reconceptualised model that emphasises teacher’s reasoning of efficacy beliefs which is mediated by their knowing, reflecting, doing and feeling. More examinations on the model and investigation on efficacy beliefs from social constructivist’s perspective are suggested for future research.
Ten science teachers in Singapore who had the experience of teaching with learner-centred pedagogy were involved in this study. Qualitative inquiry was adopted and semi-structured interviews were carried out with these teachers. Specifically, phenomenography was adopted to investigate teachers’ ways of experiencing ATTC. Findings show that there are five qualitative ways of experiencing ATTC. They are presented in nested categories where the first three categories focus on the task goals and students within the classroom setting. They are: (a) covering the curriculum contents; (b) preparing students for assessment; and (c) accommodating students’ characteristics. The remaining two categories cover not only task goals and students, but also (d) designing appropriate learner-centred pedagogy and (e) enhancing students’ autonomy and social interaction. These two categories showed teachers’ considerations extending from classroom to school and beyond school settings. As to the relationships between ATTC and teacher efficacy beliefs, pragmatic qualitative approach was adopted to unpack the relationships and the interview data was analysed using thematic analysis. Six themes were identified, providing evidence showing that the teachers’ efficacy beliefs were intimately shaped by their ATCC. These six themes are: (a) familiarity with the tasks, (b) improvability of the tasks, (c) complexity of the task and context, (d) compatibility of the task with student, (e) collegiality and (f) structural delimitations.
Findings of this study have significant implications to theory building, teacher learning and school practice. In terms of theory building, this study provides strong empirical evidence that teacher efficacy beliefs are fluid in nature and are shaped by the contingent aspects in ATTC. In terms of teacher learning, the identified critical aspects of ATTC can be introduced in teacher learning programmes to build teachers’ repertoire in ATTC. In terms of school practices, school leaders could consider leveraging teacher’s orientation in reasoning, such as pragmatic reasoning, in their ATTC by providing incentives for implementing learner-centred pedagogy. To protrude our understanding of teacher efficacy beliefs, I further propose a reconceptualised model that emphasises teacher’s reasoning of efficacy beliefs which is mediated by their knowing, reflecting, doing and feeling. More examinations on the model and investigation on efficacy beliefs from social constructivist’s perspective are suggested for future research.
Date Issued
2017
Call Number
Q183.4.S55 Lee
Date Submitted
2017