Lindsay K. Lightner and Judith A. Morrison Washington State University What Are the Science Teaching Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Paraprofessionals Enrolled In an Alternate Route Teacher Certification Program? Lindsay K. Lightner and Judith A. Morrison Washington State University

The Problem Current teacher shortages in Washington and elsewhere make alternate routes to teaching an attractive source of teacher candidates. Washington’s Route 1 program assumes that paraprofessionals can become excellent teachers quickly and will be more likely to be retained as teachers because of their prior work-based experiences. However, there is little relevant research on this particular population to support this assumption.

The Problem Paraprofessionals were recruited for Washington’s Route 1 because of their prior experiences in and desire to teach special education, English language learners and bilingual education—not science or mathematics education. Elementary level teachers often have lower levels of self-efficacy about teaching math and science than other subjects and experience more anxiety around teaching them (e.g., Bleicher, 2004; Hechter, 2011). Research question: Do paraprofessionals’ prior work experiences, academic experiences, or overall teaching self-efficacy predict their science teaching self-efficacy?

Study Participants 28 paraprofessionals in 5 SE WA districts; 20 in study Category Participants Gender   Language Female 17 Monolingual English 14 Male 3 Bilingual English/Spanish 6 Ethnicity Years Worked in Classroom Caucasian 10 1-2 Hispanic 7 3-4 5 Multiethnic 5-6 1 Educational Background 7-9 No bachelor’s degree 10 or more Bachelor’s or higher Endorsement Sought (in addition to elementary education) First Generation College Student ELL 4 Yes Bilingual and ELL No or no data available Special Education 11

Study Design Explanatory sequential mixed methods design: Pretests of science teaching self-efficacy (STEBI-B; Enochs & Riggs, 1990; modified by Bleicher, 2004) and general teaching self-efficacy (TSES short form; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) STEBI-B uses two subscales: Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE) and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE) TSES has subscales, but general scale was used for this study Subsequent interviews regarding teaching beliefs and relationship of prior experiences to self-efficacy Posttests of STEBI-B and TSES at end of education program Subsequent interviews regarding teaching beliefs and changes over the course of the program

Methods Surveys were administered at start of teacher education program and start of science methods course. Mean PSTE and STOE pretest scores align with post-treatment posttest scores of PSTs in two recent studies. What factors might predict such an outcome for this particular population of PSTs? STEBI-B Subscale Pre-test Mean (SD) (Bautista, 2011) Post-test (Bergman & Morphew, 2015) PSTE 52.26 (6.22) 43.00 (4.91) 52.52 (5.48) 48.70 (5.51) 52.40 (6.86) STOE 36.85 (4.17) 34.45 (3.59) 37.82 (4.33) 35.29 (4.14) 37.47 (4.71)

Methods Multiple linear regression analyses DV1: Personal science teaching self-efficacy (PSTE) DV2: Science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE) IVs: years of classroom experience; prior academic experiences (college GPA and number of science courses); general teaching self-efficacy IVs followed hierarchical regression, based on situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991): Block 1: years of classroom experience Block 2: academic experiences (college GPA and number of science courses passed) Block 3: general teaching self-efficacy

Results Assumptions required for a regression (independence, linearity, homogeneity of variance, normality, and noncollinearity) were met. One outlier data point was excluded due to high leverage; final n = 19 A significant proportion of the total variation in PSTE was predicted by general teaching self-efficacy, F(2, 15) = 7.276, p = .017. Multiple R2 indicates that approximately 56% of the variation in PSTE is predicted by the model. Interpreted according to Cohen (1988), this suggests a large effect. Variations in STOE were not predicted by any independent variable to a statistically significant extent.

Results: Correlations Correlations between prior experiences and teaching self-efficacies

Results: Multiple Regression Model Hierarchical Regression Model Results with Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE) as the Outcome For every one-point increase in TSES scores, PSTE scores will increase by approximately 3.6 points when controlling for academic and work experience variables. There were no statistically significant results from the model using STOE as the outcome.

Implications for Teacher Education Increasing general teaching self-efficacy may increase subject-specific teaching self-efficacy. Years of experience in the classroom alone do not predict these paraprofessionals’ science teaching self-efficacy. However, further research could focus on the types and qualities of experiences preservice teachers have had, and whether these might predict self-efficacy. Particular focus on mastery experiences versus vicarious teaching experiences as a paraprofessional (Bandura, 1977)

Next Steps Consider the relationship between general teaching self-efficacy and years of classroom experience (p = .084) While this relationship was not statistically significant for this study, it may bear further investigation with a larger sample size or through other research methods. Consider controlling for response-shift bias (Hechter, 2011) Conduct interviews with a range sample of participants: Types and qualities of classroom experiences (vicarious vs. mastery experiences) Funds of knowledge about teaching and science Positive and negative effects of prior work-based learning

Questions? Lindsay Lightner llightner@wsu.edu ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lindsay_Lightner