1. The Effect of Student Teaching on Pre-service PE Teachers’ Efficacy Beliefs Zan Gao, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT Zan Gao, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT Ping Xiang, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Ping Xiang, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Wenhao Liu, Slippery Rock University, PA Wenhao Liu, Slippery Rock University, PA

2. Introduction Teachers’ efficacy beliefs, defined as teachers’ beliefs about their abilities to affect valued student outcomes, can influence teachers’ views of teaching and learning. Teachers’ efficacy beliefs, defined as teachers’ beliefs about their abilities to affect valued student outcomes, can influence teachers’ views of teaching and learning. Teachers’ efficacy beliefs may be cultivated during their early experiences as pre-service teachers, especially as student teachers (Bandura, 1997). Teachers’ efficacy beliefs may be cultivated during their early experiences as pre-service teachers, especially as student teachers (Bandura, 1997). Student teaching provides an opportunity for pre- service teachers to gather information regarding their personal abilities for teaching. However, the effects of student teaching on efficacy beliefs remain inconclusive. Student teaching provides an opportunity for pre- service teachers to gather information regarding their personal abilities for teaching. However, the effects of student teaching on efficacy beliefs remain inconclusive.

3. Introduction In the academic domains, some researchers insisted that student teachers’ efficacy beliefs would increase, whereas others argued that they may be somewhat damaged. In the academic domains, some researchers insisted that student teachers’ efficacy beliefs would increase, whereas others argued that they may be somewhat damaged. In PE, Martin and Kulinna (2003, 2004) have examined the changes of PE teachers’ efficacy beliefs as a result of professional development. In PE, Martin and Kulinna (2003, 2004) have examined the changes of PE teachers’ efficacy beliefs as a result of professional development. No studies are available on the development of PE student teacher’s efficacy beliefs in student teaching semester. No studies are available on the development of PE student teacher’s efficacy beliefs in student teaching semester.

4. Research Purpose and Question Purpose: To determine if student teachers’ efficacy beliefs would change statistically as a result of four-month student teaching. Purpose: To determine if student teachers’ efficacy beliefs would change statistically as a result of four-month student teaching. Question: What is the impact of the student teaching semester on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs in PE? Question: What is the impact of the student teaching semester on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs in PE?

5. Methods Methods A pretest-posttest design used to examine student teachers’ efficacy beliefs A pretest-posttest design used to examine student teachers’ efficacy beliefs Participants: 145 PE major students (58 males, 87 females; M age = 24.22, SD = 2.65) Participants: 145 PE major students (58 males, 87 females; M age = 24.22, SD = 2.65) Final sample: 121 participants (49 males; 72 females) Final sample: 121 participants (49 males; 72 females) From year 2006-2008 at four U.S. universities From year 2006-2008 at four U.S. universities

6. Instrumentation The modified Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) consists of The modified Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) consists of 1. Efficacy for student engagement (e.g., How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students? ) 1. Efficacy for student engagement (e.g., How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students? ) 2. Efficacy for instructional strategies (e.g., How well can you respond to difficult questions from your students? ) 3. Efficacy for class management (e.g., How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the class?) * All responses made on 9-point Likert scales

7. Data Analyses 1. Means and standard deviations for pre- test and post-test scores on the scale were computed. 1. Means and standard deviations for pre- test and post-test scores on the scale were computed. 2. An ANOVA with repeated measures was performed to examine changes in student teachers’ three efficacy beliefs between the pre-test and post-test data. 2. An ANOVA with repeated measures was performed to examine changes in student teachers’ three efficacy beliefs between the pre-test and post-test data.

8. Results The results revealed a significant change of student teachers’ efficacy beliefs over time, F (3, 118) = 22.35, p =.00, η 2 =.36. The results revealed a significant change of student teachers’ efficacy beliefs over time, F (3, 118) = 22.35, p =.00, η 2 =.36. Efficacy Beliefs Pre-testPost-test MSDM Student engagement 6.78 a 1.017.40 a.84 Instructional strategies 7.29 a.887.73 a.70 Class management 7.47 a.977.83 a.75 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (N =121) a: there is a significant difference between the tests, p <.05.

9. Discussion Increased efficacy beliefs reported by student teachers in this study indicate student teaching experiences can have a positive effect on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Increased efficacy beliefs reported by student teachers in this study indicate student teaching experiences can have a positive effect on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. This finding provides empirical support for the view that student teaching represents a crucial early stage of shaping student teachers’ beliefs in their prospective teaching careers. This finding provides empirical support for the view that student teaching represents a crucial early stage of shaping student teachers’ beliefs in their prospective teaching careers. Future studies might focus on the effective interventions that facilitate student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Future studies might focus on the effective interventions that facilitate student teachers’ efficacy beliefs.

10. Limitations Call for qualitative data (e.g., open end interview). Call for qualitative data (e.g., open end interview). Consider students’ background knowledge, personal experiences, etc. Consider students’ background knowledge, personal experiences, etc.