CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Teacher Education and Leadership StudiesScience Education and PedagogyInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Investigating the Effects of Cognitive Apprenticeship-Based Instructional Coaching on Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs

Open access
Cooper, Teo O.H.·2017
DOI 10.25148/etd.fi15032165
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The overall purpose of this collected papers dissertation was to examine the utility of a cognitive apprenticeship-based instructional coaching (CAIC) model for improving the science teaching efficacy beliefs (STEB) of preservice and inservice elementary teachers. Many of these teachers perceive science as a difficult subject and feel inadequately prepared to teach it. However, teacher efficacy beliefs have been noted as the strongest indicator of teacher quality, the variable most highly correlated with student achievement outcomes. The literature is scarce on strong, evidence-based theoretical models for improving STEB. This dissertation is comprised of two studies. STUDY #1 was a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study investigating the impact of a reformed CAIC elementary science methods course on the STEB of 26 preservice teachers. Data were collected using the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI-B) and from six post-course interviews. A statistically significant increase in STEB was observed in the quantitative strand. The qualitative data suggested that the preservice teachers perceived all of the CAIC methods as influential, but the significance of each method depended on their unique needs and abilities. STUDY #2 was a participatory action research case study exploring the utility of a CAIC professional development program for improving the STEB of five Bahamian inservice teachers and their competency in implementing an inquiry-based curriculum. Data were collected from pre- and post-interviews and two focus group interviews. Overall, the inservice teachers perceived the intervention as highly effective. The scaffolding and coaching were the CAIC methods portrayed as most influential in developing their STEB, highlighting the importance of interpersonal relationship aspects in successful instructional coaching programs. The teachers also described the CAIC approach as integral in supporting their learning to implement the new inquiry-based curriculum. The overall findings hold important implications for science education reform, including its potential to influence how preservice teacher training and inservice teacher professional development in science are perceived and implemented. Additionally, given the noteworthy results obtained over the relatively short durations, CAIC interventions may also provide an effective means of achieving improvements in preservice and inservice teachers’ STEB more expeditiously than traditional approaches.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25148/etd.fi15032165

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 96

  1. Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 28-32.
  2. Avant, R. C. (2012). Instructional coaching and emotional intelligence (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1019055530)
  3. Baker, G. W. (2010). Instructional coaching in U.S. urban school districts: The principal perspective on how coaches are supervised (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 857923369)
  4. Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
  5. Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999), Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 521-539.
  6. Coble C. R, & Azordegan J. M. (2004). The challenges and opportunities of the No Child Left behind Act: Seven strategies for teacher educators. Action in Teacher Education, 26(2), 2-14.
  7. Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47-60). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2008). Research on Coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.) Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  9. Denton, C. A., & Hasbrouck, J. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19(2), 150-175.
  10. Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified researchers can close the gap. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 1-14.
  11. Hearn, R. M. (2010). An evaluation of instructional coaching at selected high schools in north Louisiana and its effect on student achievement, organizational climate, and teacher efficacy (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 518761207).
  12. Horne, J. B. (2012). Instructional coaching: Teachers' perceptions of practice and effectiveness (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1070964026).
  13. Joyce B. & Showers B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37(5), 379-385.
  14. Knight, J. (2009). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  15. Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A. and Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 534-551. doi: 10.1002/tea.20404. · DOI
  16. National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for Staff Development (Revised). Oxford, OH: NSDC.
  17. Pea, R. D. & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Y. Kali, M. Linn, & E. Roseman (Eds.) Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 3-12). New York: Teachers College Press.
  18. Reed, L. A. (2006). Case study of the implementation of cognitive coaching by an instructional coach in a title I elementary school (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 304932087)
  19. Scharmann, L. C., & Hampton, C. M. (1995). Cooperative learning and preservice elementary teacher science self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(3), 125-133.
  20. Scurry, S. N. (2010). Perceptions of instructional coaches in the elementary school setting and their impact on teacher self-efficacy (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 829500183)
  21. Simons, M. H. (2006). The influence of instructional coaches on improving teaching and student performance (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 305311885)
  22. Sumner, K. Y. (2011). An explanatory mixed-methods study of instructional coaching practices and their relationship to student achievement (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 863207532)
  23. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  24. Trombly, C. E. (2012). Comfort with complexity: An examination of instructional coaching in three suburban school districts in massachusetts (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1038140070)
  25. Warren, J. M. (2008). When implementing policy gets messy: An analysis of a district- wide coaching initiative (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 304492404)
  26. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
  27. Wicker, R. K. (2006). Do science coaches promote inquiry-based instruction in the elementary science classroom? (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 305358649)
  28. Yilmaz, H., & Huyuguzel Cavas, P. (2008). The effects of the teaching practice on pre- service elementary teachers' science teaching efficacy and classroom management beliefs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 45-54.
  29. Averch, H. A., Rand Corporation., & United States. (1972). How effective is schooling? A critical review and synthesis of research findings. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.
  30. Aydin, S. & Boz, Y. (2010). Pre-Service elementary science teachers' science teaching efficacy beliefs and their sources. Elementary Education Online, 9(2), 694-704.
  31. Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
  32. Bleicher, R. E., & Lindgren, J. (2005). Success in science learning and preservice science teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 205-225.
  33. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171-246). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
  34. Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(3), 177-192.
  35. Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 47-60).Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494).
  37. Currie, J., & Duncan T. (1995). "Does Head Start Make A Difference?" The American Economic Review. 85(3): 341-64.
  38. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 50.
  39. Denton, C. A., & Hasbrouck, J. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19(2), 150-175.
  40. Enoch, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 694-706.
  41. Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified researchers can close the gap. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 1-14.
  42. Holzberger, D., Phillip, A., & Hunter, M. (2013). How teachers' self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774-786.
  43. Knight, J.(2009). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  44. Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A. and Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 534-551.
  45. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  46. Scharmann, L. C., & Hampton, C. M. (1995). Cooperative learning and preservice elementary teacher science self efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(3), 125-133.
  47. Settlage, J., & Southerland, S. A. (2012). Teaching science to every child: Using culture as a starting point, 2 nd edition. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor, & Francis Group.
  48. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  49. Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(3), 57-67.
  50. Yilmaz, H., & Huyuguzel Cavas, P. (2008). The effects of the teaching practice on pre- service elementary teachers' science teaching efficacy and classroom management beliefs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4 (1), 45-54. References
  51. Avant, R. C. (2012). Instructional coaching and emotional intelligence (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3509025)
  52. Baker, G. W. (2010). Instructional coaching in U.S. urban school districts: The principal perspective on how coaches are supervised (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 857923369)
  53. Ballone, L.M., & Czerniak, C.M. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about accommodating students' learning styles in science classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 4-29.
  54. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  55. Bencze, L. & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 521-539.
  56. Colbert, J., Brown, R.S., Choi, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). An investigation of the impacts of teacher-driven professional development on pedagogy and student learning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 135-154.
  57. Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47-60).Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
  58. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494).
  59. Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2008). Research on coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.) Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  60. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 50.
  61. Denton, C. A., & Hasbrouck, J. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19(2), 150-175.
  62. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers' mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 820-839.
  63. Fraenkel, R. J. & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in education (7 th ed.). New York, NY: Mc-Graw-Hill.
  64. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
  65. Guskey, T. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies. 4(1), 63-69.
  66. Joyce, B., & Showers B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37(5), 379-385.
  67. Knight, J. (2009). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  68. Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A., & Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 534- 551.
  69. National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for staff development (Revised). Oxford, OH: NSDC.
  70. Parke, H. M. and Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 773-789.
  71. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2 nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  72. Pea, R. D. & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Y. Kali, M. Linn, & E. Roseman (Eds.). Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 3-12). New York: Teachers College Press.
  73. Posnanski, T. J. (2002). Professional development programs for elementary science teachers: An analysis of teacher self-efficacy beliefs and a professional development model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 189-220.
  74. Reed, L. A. (2006). Case study of the implementation of cognitive coaching by an instructional coach in a title I elementary school (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 304932087)
  75. Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A. and Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 883-907.
  76. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51-65.
  77. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  78. Scurry, S. N. (2010). Perceptions of instructional coaches in the elementary school setting and their impact on teacher self efficacy (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 829500183)
  79. Settlage, J., & Southerland, S. A. (2012). Teaching science to every child: Using culture as a starting point, 2 nd edition. New York: Routledge, Taylor, & Francis Group.
  80. Shidler, L. (2008). The impact of time spent coaching for teacher efficacy on student achievement. Early Childhood Educational Journal, 36(5), 453-460.
  81. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
  82. Wicker, R. K. (2006). Do science coaches promote inquiry-based instruction in the elementary science classroom? (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 305358649)
  83. Yilmaz, H., & Huyuguzel Cavas, P. (2008). The effects of the teaching practice on pre- service elementary teachers' science teaching efficacy and classroom management beliefs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 45-54. References
  84. Aydin, S. & Boz, Y. (2010). Pre-Service elementary science teachers' science teaching efficacy beliefs and their sources. Elementary Education Online, 9(2), 694-704.
  85. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  86. Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(3), 177-192
  87. Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 47-60). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
  88. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494).
  89. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 50.
  90. Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living: How to get better performance and results from knowledge workers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  91. Denton, C. A., & Hasbrouck, J. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19(2), 150-175.
  92. Enoch, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 694-706.
  93. Knight, J. (2009). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  94. Pea, R. D. & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Y. Kali, M. Linn, & E. Roseman (Eds.) Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 3-12). New York: Teachers College Press.
  95. Piaget, J., & Cook, M. T. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: I nternational Universities Press.
  96. Yilmaz, H., & Huyuguzel Cavas, P. (2008). The effects of the teaching practice on pre- service elementary teachers' science teaching efficacy and classroom management beliefs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 45-54.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cooper, T. O. H.
Affiliations
Florida International University (US)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Teo O.H.
Publisher
Florida International University
Published
2015-03-18
DOI
10.25148/etd.fi15032165
OpenAlex
W323364953
Cited by
5
References
4
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
Type
dissertation
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Florida International University Digital Commons (Florida International University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
cognitive apprenticeship, instructional coaching, pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, elementary science methods course, teacher professional development, inquiry-based curriculum, scaffolding, teacher self-efficacy, science education reform

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review