Next Article in Journal
A Systematic Scoping Review on Research Focusing on Professionals’ Attitudes toward School Attendance Problems
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of Learning Analytics Guidance on Student Self-Regulated Learning Skills, Performance, and Satisfaction: A Mixed Methods Study
Previous Article in Journal
Priorities for Pan-American Geography Education: Needs and Trends
Previous Article in Special Issue
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Attitudes towards the Use of Information Technology in Classrooms
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/educsci14010065
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Improving Elementary Pre-Service Teachers’ Science Teaching Self-Efficacy through Garden-Based Technology Integration

by
Erin Ingram
1,
Trish Wonch Hill
2,
Dena Harshbarger
3 and
Jenny Keshwani
1,*
1
Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA
2
Center for Science, Mathematics & Computer Education, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA
3
Department of Teacher Education, University of Nebraska–Kearney, Kearney, NE 68849, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(1), 65; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010065
Submission received: 27 November 2023 / Revised: 2 January 2024 / Accepted: 5 January 2024 / Published: 6 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Technology-Enhanced Teaching and Learning)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
School gardens and outdoor learning spaces are increasingly available to support authentic, student-centered exploration in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Integrating technology tools into school garden spaces in alignment with modern agricultural practices can support inquiry-based learning in which students engage in science practices such as collecting and analyzing data. However, educators currently lack the necessary knowledge, skills, and instructional support to enact technology-rich, garden-based STEM learning experiences. The Garden TOOLS program was designed to support teachers in leveraging technology to support inquiry-based teaching (IBT) in outdoor learning spaces. In this paper, we examine the impact of combining Garden TOOLS professional development workshops with lesson plan implementation in a practicum setting on elementary pre-service teachers’ (PSTs) science teaching self-efficacy. We administered the STEBI-B pre- and post-intervention and assessed change in the STEBI-B subscales, personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE), and science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE). Participants included thirty-nine elementary PSTs enrolled in a 300-level science methods course in the rural Midwest. Garden TOOLS professional development workshop participants saw a statistically significant increase from pre- to post-workshop in their PSTE. Participants who also implemented the Garden TOOLS lesson showed both an increase in PSTE and STOE.

1. Introduction

School gardens and other outdoor learning spaces are becoming more prevalent and are being more commonly used to support student learning [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Explicitly connecting modern agricultural practices to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education makes school gardens an intuitive and accessible space to integrate technology to support STEM learning while promoting awareness of agricultural career pathways [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Despite increasing access and potential usefulness of outdoor learning spaces, widespread technology integration in outdoor learning spaces to support STEM education is not apparent [1] and in cases where technology is utilized, it tends to focus on garden or landscape management (e.g., automated irrigation) rather than to enhance student learning outcomes [1]. The unrealized promise of integrating technologies into elementary school garden instruction to support student-centered STEM learning is rooted in a variety of challenges and barriers including elementary teachers’ lack of confidence in teaching science [13,14], lack of familiarity with inquiry-based teaching (IBT) practices [15] and a lack of professional development and instructional resources to facilitate effective garden-based learning experiences [1,5,6,16].
Whether garden-based or not, high-quality science instruction calls for teachers to enact student-centered approaches, such as IBT, in which teachers act as facilitators to engage students in science and engineering practices [17,18,19]. However, in-service teachers struggle with defining and enacting IBT in their classrooms [15]. Therefore, it is not surprising that elementary pre-service teachers (PSTs) also report low confidence in their ability to enact IBT in the K-5 classroom [20]. Technology tools can be leveraged to support IBT approaches if such tools are used to engage students in science and engineering practices such as collecting or analyzing data or designing technology-enhanced solutions [21]. For example, mobile devices have been shown to support students’ real-world exploration of outdoor learning spaces [22]. IBT combined with technology tools can support computational thinking skill development which includes the five cognitive processes of problem-solving, including reframing problems, modeling systems, and testing of solutions [23]. The computational thinking Use-Modify-Create learning progression [24] combined with the use of technology tools aligns with garden-based education while empowering youth to move from technology users to modifiers and creators. While many garden-based and outdoor learning resources are available, these resources often emphasize plant science or environmental education and do not guide how to integrate technology or engineering into school gardens for the benefit of IBT. In addition, while curricular resources can offer a roadmap to support effective garden-based teaching [5,16], teachers have expressed a need for additional support including professional development [1,3,4].
We created the Garden Technology Opportunities in Outdoor Learning Spaces (Garden TOOLS) program to provide professional development and instructional resources for integrating technology and IBT in school gardens and other outdoor learning spaces [25]. The Garden TOOLS program can be used to teach an integrated STEM experience. However, in this study, we focus on leveraging technology as a tool to support science learning. Garden TOOLS is designed to provide teachers with technology-rich learning experiences to shift from technology consumer to technology explorer and creator through the programming and/or use of BBC micro:bits which are accessible and affordable microcontrollers compatible with outdoor learning. Garden TOOLS allows learners to experience first-hand the diverse role of technology in agriculture and food production while supporting IBT.
Typically, PSTs learn and experience IBT during their science methods course. Ideally, such programs also provide PSTs with practicum opportunities to put their pedagogical knowledge into practice. Such experiences have been shown to increase PSTs’ science-teaching self-efficacy [26]. The Garden TOOLS professional development workshop has been shown to positively impact elementary PSTs’ science teaching self-efficacy when introduced during a science methods course without an opportunity to implement Garden TOOLS lessons during a practicum [27]. However, it is currently unknown if a practicum experience focused on using technology tools to support IBT would similarly improve elementary PSTs’ science teaching self-efficacy.
Combining the Garden TOOLS professional development workshop experience alongside a practicum is ideal because it allows PSTs to apply their knowledge and skills related to IBT and witness their students become technology explorers and creators. Through this experience, PSTs receive first-hand teaching experience in navigating IBT, leveraging technology tools to engage students in the science practices of collecting and analyzing data from outdoor spaces, and supporting student-centered exploration.

Aims of the Current Study

In this study, we examine the impact of a Garden TOOLS professional development workshop as part of a science teaching methods course and a follow-up practicum experience in which PSTs enact IBT via the implementation of a Garden TOOLS lesson. The purpose of this quantitative survey research study is to assess the impact of two treatment conditions: (a) a Garden TOOLS professional development workshop alone or (b) a Garden TOOLS professional development workshop followed by a practicum-based experience on elementary PSTs’ science teaching self-efficacy.
Research questions:
  • How does the Garden TOOLS professional development workshop intervention impact elementary PSTs’ science teaching self-efficacy?
  • How does the Garden TOOLS professional development workshop intervention + Garden TOOLS lesson implementation during a practicum experience impact elementary PSTs’ science teaching self-efficacy?

2. Theoretical Underpinnings

2.1. Role of “Inquiry” in Effective Science Instruction and Teacher Preparation

In the 1990s, “inquiry” became a central theme in science education reform efforts in the United States [28,29]. In part, such efforts sought to shift teachers’ science instructional practices from teacher-centered to student-centered. In other words, moving away from teachers primarily lecturing about science content while learners took notes, and toward teachers guiding learners to engage in “doing” science. The hope was to bring U.S. science education into closer alignment with authentic practices used by actual scientists.
Despite these well-intentioned efforts, teachers struggled to enact “inquiry” in their classrooms, in part, because of conflicting definitions and confusion about what it means to engage in inquiry in the science classroom. Anderson aptly summed up this confusion stating “Inquiry is an imprecise word… it has different meanings in varied contexts, and is hard to guess what particular meaning a given speaker has in mind when the word is used” [30]. To clear up confusion, current science education reform documents refer to “engaging students in science and engineering practices” rather than “inquiry” and explicitly outline eight science and engineering practices to provide more precise guidance on what it means to “do” science [31].
While the term “inquiry” certainly has its difficulties, it can be useful if appropriate definitions are outlined. Crawford discusses three uses of “inquiry” in science classrooms (modified from [32]) including: (1) scientific inquiry (the various ways in which scientists study the natural world): (2) inquiry learning (a process by which children acquire knowledge of science concepts and learn about nature of science); and (3) inquiry teaching (broadly defined as the pedagogy by which teachers engage students in inquiry)” [18]. We find these distinctions especially useful when describing how PSTs experience “inquiry” within their teacher preparation programs.
Research has shown the value of providing opportunities for PSTs to progress from experiencing inquiry learning as a student to reflecting on how to enact inquiry teaching in a science classroom [33,34,35]. However, such progressions are found relatively rarely in the published literature [17]. In Strat and colleagues’ systematic review of inquiry-based science education in science teacher education programs [17], 49% of the reviewed articles reported on inquiry learning as a method for learning science, but little was discussed about how PSTs developed the necessary knowledge and skills to implement inquiry teaching successfully in future classrooms. In the remaining 51% of reviewed articles in which inquiry teaching was addressed as part of the teacher preparation program, only a select few articles described a full progression from conducting inquiry learning as a student to enacting inquiry teaching in the teacher role. Based on this analysis, Strat and colleagues [17] recommend that teacher educators should use explicit modeling to provide examples of how to enact inquiry-based teaching in a future classroom, employ reflection sequences related to inquiry-based learning and teaching, and provide PSTs with opportunities to reflect on, critique, and modify inquiry-based teaching resources in order to equip PSTs with the confidence and skills to design and conduct inquiry-based science experiences.

2.2. Self-Efficacy and Elementary PSTs Science Teaching Preparation

Self-efficacy has long been a construct of interest in teacher preparation programs due to its impact on motivation and performance [36]. As part of Social Cognitive Theory, Bandura defines self-efficacy as a person’s belief in their ability to effectively perform a task to meet a valued goal. Self-efficacy consists of two dimensions—personal efficacy, a person’s belief in their ability to execute necessary behaviors and outcome expectancy, a person’s estimation that given behaviors will lead to certain outcomes [37].
In the context of science teaching, less efficacious teachers typically feel uncomfortable taking risks, so they are more apt to revert to more traditional views of science instruction based on their personal classroom experience as students [38]. In contrast, self-efficacious teachers are typically more willing and motivated to incorporate newer approaches such as inquiry-based STEM instruction [38].
Many studies have utilized Enochs and Riggs’ STEBI-B instrument [39] which contains 25 Likert-scale questions requiring a 5-point response ranging from strongly agree (5) or strongly disagree (1) for each question as a means of measuring preservice teachers’ self-efficacy in the two dimensions of science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE). Thirteen questions pertain to PSTE, and twelve questions pertain to STOE. Some studies report significant changes in both PSTE and STOE; while other studies show significant changes in one area but not the other. For instance, a study conducted in Northwest Turkey investigated changes in perceptions of science teaching self-efficacy through pre- and post-administration of the STEBI-B among seventy-two preservice elementary teachers enrolled in an elementary science teaching methods course [40]. Findings indicated the number of science courses taken and high school science experiences had a significant effect on pre-service teachers’ science teaching efficacy (PSTE), yet these factors did not significantly change preservice teachers’ STOE throughout the science teaching methods course. Similarly, a study conducted to determine if teacher candidates’ confidence would rise during teacher preparation if they were exposed to authentic teaching practice throughout their field-based science methods course revealed uneven results [41]. Thirty preservice teachers were placed at a public school for course instruction and teaching practice with elementary students. Preservice teachers learned and then taught the concepts to fifth-grade students using pedagogical methods during the first ten weeks. Teaching practice with fifth-grade students at the hosting elementary school occurred over five weeks toward the end of the course. A pretest-posttest administration of the STEBI-B determined that personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) increased significantly as hypothesized; however, science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE) increased, but to a lesser degree.
Alternately, some studies reveal significant increases in both PSTE and STOE. A parallel study conducted in 2020 indicated both personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE) were significantly impacted when 56 preservice teachers enrolled in an Elementary Science Methods Course for Fall 2019 [27]. In weeks 1 and 15 of the course, participants completed the STEBI-B. During the course, PSTs participated in a Garden TOOLS training experience [25] during which they coded the BBC micro:bits as outdoor technology tools including a compass, counter, thermometer, light level meter, and soil moisture probe. PSTs then engaged in basic tutorials to learn to code the BBC micro:bit using a block-based programming platform and worked in groups to design original lessons that could potentially be taught to elementary students in the future. Pre- and post-paired t-tests and correlations revealed significant values for both PSTE and STOE respectively; 0.000 for and 0.005 at a 95% confidence interval. As described in these previous studies, the STEBI-B instrument yields information regarding changes in PSTs’ self-efficacy which can be used to inform the quality of science education teacher educators provide in their courses.
These studies also align with research advocating for intentional teacher education programs. Research indicates that mastery experiences provided during science methods courses which increase content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and modeling are key factors affecting pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs [39,42,43].
To increase self-efficacy, it is recommended that PSTs participate in intentionally designed learning opportunities to grow their STEM content knowledge and to model developmentally appropriate pedagogy [40,41,44,45]. When educators participate in the very same hands-on, engaging learning experiences and practices recommended for young children, it can positively impact pre-existing anxiety and/or attitudes about STEM [46]. For instance, Chen, Huang, and Wu’s study [47] indicated that preschool PSTs who participated in STEM-related activities and/or had STEM teaching experience reported higher levels of STEM self-efficacy in terms of cognitive concept, affective attitude, and equipped skill. The findings support high-quality teacher development programs for practicing educators as a means of increasing self-efficacy and promoting early STEM instruction.
Therefore, our study similarly used the STEBI-B to measure PSTs’ self-efficacy before and after completing the 2.5-h Garden TOOLS training during their elementary science methods course; however, our study also included an experimental group of preservice teachers who taught an inquiry-based Garden TOOLS lesson to elementary students after the training. This layer provided additional insight into how/if experiential learning impacts preservice teachers’ self-efficacy (PSTE and STOE).

2.3. The Role of Technology in Supporting Inquiry-Based Teaching (IBT)

Within the framework of STEM education, researchers hold various perspectives on the definition of technology and the potential roles it plays in K-12 STEM instruction [48,49]. Some perspectives deem technology as any educational or instructional technology that is used to enhance teaching or learning [48]. Other perspectives tend to frame technology in more discipline-specific ways such as coding or computational thinking or tools and practices used by science, mathematics, and engineering practitioners [48]. While no singular definition of technology has been adopted, the variety of definitions likely contributes to confusion about the goal of technology integration in education and, consequently, what integration “looks like” in practice.
Many PSTs hold limited ideas about the role of technology in the science classroom [50] and may not realize the potential benefits of utilizing technology as a tool or practice of science, mathematics, or engineering practitioners. Some teachers’ view of technology may only extend as far as “screen time”, with students using computer laptops or tablets to primarily consume media. When additional tools or alternative uses are considered, technology has the potential to serve as more than a mere avenue for media consumption but as a powerful tool to stimulate curiosity and creativity within the context of IBT. When PSTs are learning to facilitate IBT, it may seem overwhelming to add technology to the mix. However, if PSTs are provided with experiences in which technology is used in service of enacting IBT, they may think of technology differently and be more open to using technology as a tool to support student-centered exploration during future science instruction.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

We used a quasi-experimental pre-post design [51] to assess the technology-enhanced STEM education experience intervention, Garden TOOLS, to answer the following research questions: (1) To what extent does Garden TOOLS professional development workshop impact science teacher self-efficacy among preservice elementary teachers enrolled in a science methods course? (2) Do participants who also employed an IBT Garden TOOLS lesson with learners in grades 3–5 as part of their science methods course practicum have differences in science teacher self-efficacy compared to teachers who only experienced the workshop and did not employ the IBT Garden Tools lesson plan as part of their practicum?

3.2. Participant Recruitment

Before the Garden TOOLS professional development workshop, we invited all 43 students enrolled in the 2023 spring semester science methods course to participate in the study. If students elected to participate, they submitted a signed consent form via the course’s content management system before they participated in the study.
Participants who consented to participate in the research study included 39 teachers enrolled in a 300-level practicum at a four-year, highly residential public institution in the rural Midwest. The majority of the participants were juniors or seniors, 36 were women, and 37 were white.

3.3. Garden TOOLS Intervention

To make the facilitation of the workshop more manageable, the class was divided into two equally sized sections (21–22 students per section). Each section participated in a 2.5-h Garden TOOLS professional development workshop on one of two dates (26 and 27 April). To ensure that the workshop experiences were consistent, the lead facilitator used a semi-scripted PowerPoint presentation, and all activities, discussions, and reflections were conducted as similarly as possible.
The Garden TOOLS professional development workshop leverages active learning experiences with technology playing a central role in encouraging participant curiosity and exploration. While the workshop does not prioritize the use of technology to teach computational thinking, it does follow the Use-Modify-Create learning progression [24] to scaffold learners’ computational thinking. This choice was made because coding the BBC micro:bit is necessary for teachers to enact the experience with their future classroom and the learning progression provides a non-threatening and scaffolded approach to introduce coding and computational thinking to PSTs.
The workshop focuses on five key learning objectives: (1) engaging PSTs’ prior knowledge and perceptions of technology, (2) introducing safe use of the BBC micro:bit, (3) introducing inquiry learning via exploration of potential functions of BBC micro:bits previously coded by the facilitator as light level, temperature, soil moisture, and step counting sensors, (4) experiencing inquiry learning via programming BBC micro:bits as light level, temperature, and soil moisture sensors and gathering data and analyzing data on variability of environmental conditions in an outdoor learning space, and (5) and engaging in modeling and reflective practice related to inquiry teaching via facilitation of a sense-making discussion. The workshop intentionally engages PSTs both as students experiencing inquiry-based learning as well as teachers learning how to bring IBT experiences to life in a future classroom.
Following the Garden TOOLS professional development workshop, all PSTs were assigned to work in small groups of 5–6 PSTs to plan and implement an IBT lesson. All PSTs were randomly divided into one of two groups. PSTs in the first treatment group (n = 24) planned and implemented an IBT lesson for students in grades K-2 that did not relate to the Garden TOOLS program and did not include coding or use of BBC micro:bits. The IBT lessons were derived from Project Learning Tree and Project Wild resources [52,53] and focused on environmental education in which the elementary students the opportunity to discover and gather data in an outdoor setting as PSTs facilitated the lesson by asking divergent questions to extend learning. PSTs in the second treatment group (n = 15) planned and implemented an IBT lesson for students in grades 3–5 using a Garden TOOLS lesson as a guide. All PSTs were provided with a 2.5-h class period on 9 May to work with their small group to prepare their lesson. During this time, a teacher educator was available to answer questions and provide guidance related to enacting IBT. On May 10, PSTs worked with their small group to implement their planned IBT lesson with a classroom of 25–32 students at a rural elementary school. The PST to elementary student ratio was approximately 1:5 for each of the classes.
The Garden TOOLS IBT lesson that PSTs in the second treatment group modified and implemented focused on exploration of weather and other environmental conditions in an outdoor learning space. PSTs had previously experienced this lesson from the perspective of a student (rather than a teacher) during the Garden TOOLS workshop. While PSTs were given the option to make modifications to the lesson plan to suit their needs, the same general instructional sequence was included in all lesson plan implementations. Students began the lesson describing the current weather conditions outdoors without the aid of any technology tools. Students were then given a previously-coded BBC micro:bit programmed to measure one of three environmental conditions: light level, temperature, or soil moisture. Students were asked to collect and record data on environmental conditions in an outdoor location using their BBC micro:bit to answer the following questions: Are the conditions the same everywhere? What are the most extreme conditions you can find? What do you notice and wonder? Students returned to the classroom and shared their results. Finally, students engaged in a teacher-facilitated discussion about the patterns they noticed in the collected data and questions they were eager to explore further. Students concluded by comparing their descriptions of environmental conditions before and after using the BBC micro:bit.

3.4. Survey Instrument

We collected pre- and post-survey data using the Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (STEBI-B) [39] to assess changes in science teaching self-efficacy. The STEBI-B is a 25-item instrument designed for use with elementary PSTs and consists of two subscales assessing personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE). The same survey questions were used for both the pre- and post-survey data collection. For all survey items, response categories were “strongly agree”, “agree”, “uncertain”, “disagree”, and “strongly disagree”. A sample item for the PSTE subscale is “Even if I try very hard, I will not teach science as well as I will most subjects.” A sample item for the STOE subscale is “When a student does better than usual in science, it is often because the teacher exerted a little extra effort”.
On 25 April, prior to the Garden TOOLS workshop, participants completed and electronically submitted the STEBI-B survey during the final 10 min of class. On 11 May, after the Garden TOOLS workshop and IBT lesson were implemented, participants once again completed the STEBI-B survey during the final 10 min of class.

3.5. Analysis

After collecting the pre- and post-data we matched data for each respondent, and we reverse coded negatively worded items. Using SPSS version 29, we then assessed scale properties and reliability. Finally, we used paired t-tests to adjust for the pre- and post-design and assessed change among the treatment and control groups.

4. Results

Descriptive statistics are available in Table 1. Alpha reliabilities for the PSTE pre-test and post-test were 0.87 and 0.75, and for the STOE were 0.73 and 0.66. Generally, speaking, alpha reliability above 0.7 indicates high internal consistency, a value between 0.65 and 0.7 is considered adequate for our purposes [54]. Prior to assessing change, we conducted independent samples t-tests on the pre-test variables to assess whether there were group differences at baseline (analysis not shown). We did not find a statistically significant difference between the two groups on either the PSTE or STOE pre-test means, indicating the two groups had similar scores at baseline. Next, we conducted paired t-tests to assess change within each group. Table 1 shows the results of the paired t-tests for the control and treatment groups.
The results from the paired t-test provide evidence that PSTs who attended the Garden TOOLS workshop saw a statistically significant increase in their PSTE STEBI-B subscale post-workshop after controlling for the pre-workshop attitudes. Pre-service teachers in the control group had a mean value of 3.88 (0.52) prior to the Garden TOOLS workshop and a mean value of 4.28 (0.36) after the Garden TOOLS workshop (t = −3.42, p = 0.001). The treatment group, which completed the Garden TOOLS workshop and implemented an IBT lesson plan during their practicum experience also saw an increase in the PSTE (pre-Mean = 3.37 (0.64) and post-Mean = 4.41 (0.42), p < 0.001). Cohen’s d values that are greater than +/−0.5 indicate moderate effect size, while a Cohen’s d value greater than +/−0.8 indicates a large effect size. For the PSTE, the treatment group had a large effect size for the treatment groups (Cohen’s d = −1.37) and moderate for the control group (Cohen’s d = −0.70). For the STOE, the treatment group had a strong effect size (Cohen’s d = −0.83) and the control group had a weak effect size (Cohen’s d = −0.18).
For the STOE STEBI-B subscale, we saw differences between PST who received the Garden TOOLS workshop and implemented the IBT lesson plan compared to those who participated in the Garden TOOLS workshop alone. Similar to prior research, mean values on the STOE subscale were slightly lower for PST teachers overall compared to the PSTE subscale. Although we see a slight increase in means pre- and post-test for the control group (pre-Mean = 3.73 (0.43) and post-Mean = 3.82 (0.45)), this difference was not statistically significant (t = −0.90, p = 0.189). For the treatment group, we find evidence that employing the IBT Garden TOOLS lesson in addition to the 2.5-h workshop had a positive impact on the STOE. PST who implemented the IBT Garden TOOLS lesson had a mean value on the STOE of 3.52 (0.49) prior to Garden TOOLS workshop and lesson implementation, and a mean value of 3.89 (0.41) after, and this increase was statistically significant (t = −3.23, p = 0.003). Cohen’s d indicates this effect size to be weak to moderate (0.45). Figure 1 shows the mean differences for the PSTE and STOE for each group at both time points.

5. Discussion

This study contributes to our understanding of how a technology-enhanced, inquiry-based teaching (IBT) experience in an outdoor learning space can impact pre-service teachers (PST) science teaching self-efficacy. The main goals of this study were to examine the impact of (1) the Garden TOOLS professional development workshop alone and (2) the additional impact of a follow-up practicum experience in which PSTs enact IBT via the implementation of a Garden TOOLS lesson on PSTs science teaching self-efficacy.
Our results provide additional evidence that the Garden TOOLS workshop alone has the potential to impact PSTs’ self-efficacy, but the value may be more subtle than our previous study indicated in which both personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE) were significantly impacted [45]. Our previous study involved a more involved training experience where PSTs coded the BBC micro:bits and worked in groups to design original lessons. These added experiences may have impacted the STEBI-B survey data. The more tempered effect of the workshop in this study aligns with results from previous studies which have shown that interventions during science teaching methods courses may positively impact PSTE, but not STOE [40].
Unsurprisingly, our results suggest a stronger impact on PST science teaching self-efficacy when PSTs participated in the Garden TOOLS workshop and then applied their learning during a practicum experience to enact IBT using a Garden TOOLS lesson for support. Our results suggest that practicum experiences provide a pathway to developing more confident teachers who feel capable and eager to use technology in school garden spaces to support the implementation of inquiry-based STEM learning. These results align with previous studies showing that field-based science methods courses in which PSTs focus on building science content and pedagogical knowledge in addition to experiencing authentic teaching practice have a positive impact on both PSTE and STOE [41]. Several factors could have played a role in the success of PSTs enacting IBT including leveraging technology, exploring an outdoor space, or some combination of the two. We intentionally selected BBC micro:bits for the Garden TOOLS program because they provided a developmentally appropriate technology tool that upper elementary students were capable of using and programming. This likely contributed to PSTs enacting a successful IBT experience. It is also possible that the outdoor learning space provided students with an authentic context to explore. However, we are unable to definitively credit either the technology tool or the outdoor context as the deciding factor in PSTs confidently enacting IBT with elementary students.

5.1. Limitations

This study has limited generalizability due to the specific context in which it was conducted. We acknowledge the unique opportunities available in our institution’s teacher preparation program that were fundamental to the success of the intervention and recognize that other institutions may face barriers to offering this type of experience. Several factors allowed for an embedded practicum experience within the science teaching methods course including a strong partnership between our institution and the elementary partner school and a small program size. In addition, the elementary school was equipped with an accessible school courtyard to conduct the Garden TOOLS lesson. Such affordances provided PSTs with an ideal environment to practice using the knowledge and skills gained during the Garden TOOLS workshop. In addition, this study was conducted with a small sample size and a largely homogenous population of PSTs in terms of race and gender (white women). We acknowledge that these realities may limit the generalizability of our results to other institutional contexts or heterogeneous populations of PSTs with more varied backgrounds and demographics.

5.2. Future Work

Future opportunities exist to examine the impact of the Garden TOOLS program on different dimensions of teacher self-efficacy or with different audiences. First, while the Garden TOOLS program has been shown to positively impact elementary PSTs’ science teaching self-efficacy, we do not yet know the impact on PSTs’ self-efficacy related to STEM or engineering. Additionally, we are uncertain of how the Garden TOOLS program might impact in-service (rather than pre-service) teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy. Should the opportunity arise, we would welcome the chance to further evaluate the program and its impact.
School gardens are simply one outdoor learning space that can benefit from technology integration to support inquiry-based teaching. Many other outdoor areas may be explored without the added costs or upkeep necessary for a school garden. To support these alternative uses, future iterations of the Garden TOOLS program or similar programs may shift toward guiding using BBC micro:bits or other technology tools in outdoor areas that are not managed for food production but rather for wildlife conservation such as school courtyards or recreation use for humans such as school playgrounds. In these cases, teachers would likely benefit from professional development and instructional resources that provide guidance on how to flexibly leverage technology tools to investigate scientific questions or design engineering solutions to address issues related to these non-garden spaces.
While the Garden TOOLS program is currently targeted toward supporting upper elementary teachers and students, future program iterations may find success targeting middle school teachers and students. There are several benefits of shifting focus to slightly older students. Middle school science teachers are trained as content specialists (rather than elementary teachers who are trained as content generalists) and may need less support in gaining the necessary science content knowledge and can focus more of their efforts on successfully leveraging technology to support inquiry teaching. While the functionality of BBC micro:bits may suit the needs of middle school investigations, more sophisticated technology tools such as Arduinos or Raspberry Pi computers are also available and may provide a better match for the developmental abilities of middle school students. Such technologies could provide additional functionality and expand the possibilities for student exploration and creativity.

6. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of providing PSTs with Garden TOOLS training and instructional resources to support their successful adoption of IBT practices. Our results indicate that providing professional development where PSTs can act as both the student engaging inquiry learning and act as the teacher facilitating inquiry teaching has the greatest impact on PST’s science teaching self-efficacy. The Garden TOOLS program does provide inquiry-based teaching lesson plans, however, providing curricular resources alone is often insufficient to shift teachers’ instructional practices from teacher-centered to student-centered. Professional development, such as the Garden TOOLS training, is fundamental to PSTs’ success in implementing IBT. In addition, teachers need opportunities to practice using technology in outdoor learning spaces to support IBT learning. Sustained professional development interventions are necessary to support lasting change [55] and thus, short-term interventions, such as the Garden TOOLS workshop, may provide a foundation, but are insufficient for enduring change. If the promise of integrating technology into outdoor learning spaces to support student-centered STEM education is to be fully realized, ongoing professional development such as professional learning communities is necessary.

Author Contributions

Authors contributed to the research and manuscript in the following manner: Conceptualization, E.I. and D.H.; methodology, E.I. and D.H.; statistical analysis, T.W.H.; investigation, E.I. and D.H.; data curation, E.I., J.K. and T.W.H.; writing—original draft preparation, E.I., J.K. and T.W.H.; writing—review and editing, E.I., J.K. and T.W.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the University of Nebraska–Kearney Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects (IRB #032923-1 approved on 3 April 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The deidentified raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the Nebraska Corn Board for generously providing support for the Garden TOOLS program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ingram, E.; Keshwani, J. Nebraska School Gardens and the Potential for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Learning. J. Ext. 2020, 58, 14:1–14:22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Turner, L.; Eliason, M.; Sandoval, A.; Chaloupka, F.J. Increasing Prevalence of US Elementary School Gardens, but Disparities Reduce Opportunities for Disadvantaged Students. J. Sch. Health 2016, 86, 906–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Life Lab. 2010–2011 California School Garden Survey; Life Lab: Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  4. Life Lab. 2014 California School Garden Survey; Life Lab: Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  5. Burt, K.G.; Koch, P.; Contento, I. Implementing and Sustaining School Gardens by Integrating the Curriculum. Health Behav. Policy Rev. 2017, 4, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Graham, H.; Beall, D.L.; Lussier, M.; McLaughlin, P.; Zidenberg-Cherr, S. Use of School Gardens in Academic Instruction. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2005, 37, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Cater, M.; Fox, J.; Fletcher, B., Jr. Louisiana 4-H Seeds of Service School Gardens: A Descriptive View. J. Ext. 2012, 50, 16:1–16:5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kelley, S.S.; Williams, D.R. Teacher Professional Learning Communities for Sustainability: Supporting STEM in Learning Gardens in Low-Income Schools. J. Sustain. Educ. 2013, 5, 327–345. [Google Scholar]
  9. Klemmer, C.D.; Waliczek, T.M.; Zajicek, J.M. Growing Minds: The Effect of a School Gardening Program on the Science Achievement of Elementary Students. HortTechnology 2005, 15, 448–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lawrence, S.G.; Rayfield, J. School Gardens: Ripe with STEM and Experiential Learning; Fertile Soil for Agricultural Program Growth. Agric. Educ. Mag. 2012, 84, 7. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zuiker, S.J.; Wright, K. Learning in and beyond School Gardens with Cyber-Physical Systems. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2015, 23, 556–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Blair, D. The Child in the Garden: An Evaluative Review of the Benefits of School Gardening. J. Environ. Educ. 2009, 40, 15–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Banilower, E.R.; Smith, P.S.; Weiss, I.R.; Malzahn, K.A.; Campbell, K.M.; Weis, A.M. Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education; Horizon Research, Inc.: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Banilower, E.R.; Smith, P.S.; Malzahn, K.A.; Plumley, C.L.; Gordon, E.M.; Hayes, M.L. Report of the 2018 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education; Horizon Research, Inc.: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  15. Capps, D.K.; Shemwell, J.T.; Young, A.M. Over Reported and Misunderstood? A Study of Teachers’ Reported Enactment and Knowledge of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2016, 38, 934–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Burt, K.G.; Luesse, H.B.; Rakoff, J.; Ventura, A.; Burgermaster, M. School Gardens in the United States: Current Barriers to Integration and Sustainability. Am. J. Public Health 2018, 108, 1543–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Strat, T.T.S.; Henriksen, E.K.; Jegstad, K.M. Inquiry-Based Science Education in Science Teacher Education: A Systematic Review. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2023, 1–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Crawford, B.A. From Inquiry to Scientific Practices in the Science Classroom. In Handbook of Research on Science Education; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; Volume II, ISBN 978-0-203-09726-7. [Google Scholar]
  19. Crawford, B.A.; Capps, D.K. Teacher Cognition of Engaging Children in Scientific Practices. In Cognition, Metacognition, and Culture in STEM Education: Learning, Teaching and Assessment; Dori, Y.J., Mevarech, Z.R., Baker, D.R., Eds.; Innovations in Science Education and Technology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 9–32. ISBN 978-3-319-66659-4. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee, C.A.; Houseal, A. Self-Efficacy, Standards, and Benchmarks as Factors in Teaching Elementary School Science. J. Elem. Sci. Edu. 2003, 15, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Krajcik, J.S. Kongju Mun Promises and Challenges of Using Learning Technologies to Promote Student Learning of Science. In Handbook of Research on Science Education; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; Volume II, ISBN 978-0-203-09726-7. [Google Scholar]
  22. Crompton, H.; Burke, D.; Gregory, K.H.; Gräbe, C. The Use of Mobile Learning in Science: A Systematic Review. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2016, 25, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shute, V.J.; Sun, C.; Asbell-Clarke, J. Demystifying Computational Thinking. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017, 22, 142–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lee, I.; Martin, F.; Denner, J.; Coulter, B.; Allan, W.; Erickson, J.; Malyn-Smith, J.; Werner, L. Computational Thinking for Youth in Practice. Acm Inroads 2011, 2, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ingram, E.; Keshwani, J.; Mittelstet, T.; Thomas, J. Garden TOOLS: Technology-Rich Agricultural Engineering Opportunities in Outdoor Learning Spaces. In Proceedings of the 2020 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Montreal, QC, Canada, 22–26 June 2020. [Google Scholar]
  26. Fitzgerald, A. Out in the Field: Examining the Role of School-Based Experiences in Preparing Primary Pre-Service Teachers as Confident and Competent Teachers of Science. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2020, 42, 290–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mittelstet, T.; Thomas, J.; Ingram, E. Exploring BBC Micro: Bits As a Tool for Improving Elementary Preservice Teacher STEM Preparation and Science Teaching Self-Efficacy. In Proceedings of the 2020 Association of Science Teacher Education (ASTE) Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, 9–11 January 2020. [Google Scholar]
  28. National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  29. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards: Observe, Interact, Change, Learn; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; ISBN 0-309-05326-9. [Google Scholar]
  30. Anderson, R.D. Inquiry as an Organizing Theme for Science Curricula. In Handbook of Research on Science Education; Abell, S.K., Appleton, K., Hanuscin, D., Eds.; Routledge: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 807–830. [Google Scholar]
  31. NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  32. Anderson, R.D. Reforming Science Teaching: What Research Says About Inquiry. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2002, 13, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Baxter, B.K.; Jenkins, C.C.; Southerland, S.A.; Wilson, P. Using a Multilevel Assessment Scheme in Reforming Science Methods Courses. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2004, 15, 211–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Varma, T.; Volkmann, M.; Hanuscin, D. Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Understanding of Inquiry and Inquiry-Based Science Pedagogy: Influence of an Elementary Science Education Methods Course and a Science Field Experience. J. Elem. Sci. Edu. 2009, 21, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Haefner, L.A.; Zembal-Saul, C. Learning by Doing? Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Developing Understandings of Scientific Inquiry and Science Teaching and Learning. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2004, 26, 1653–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action; Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 1986; pp. 23–28. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Jones, M.G.; Carter, G. Science Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs. In Handbook of Research on Science Education; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 1067–1104. ISBN 978-0-203-82469-6. [Google Scholar]
  39. Enochs, L.G.; Riggs, I.M. Further Development of an Elementary Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument: A Preservice Elementary Scale. In Proceedings of the 1990 National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 8–11 April 1990. [Google Scholar]
  40. Savasci-Acikalin, F. A Study of Pre-Service Teachers’ Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs During the Elementary Science Laboratory Course. Procedia–Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 141, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Flores, I.M. Developing Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy through Field-Based Science Teaching Practice with Elementary Students. Res. High. Educ. J. 2015, 27. [Google Scholar]
  42. Brand, B.R.; Wilkins, J.L.M. Using Self-Efficacy as a Construct for Evaluating Science and Mathematics Methods Courses. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2007, 18, 297–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gunning, A.M.; Mensah, F.M. Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Development of Self-Efficacy and Confidence to Teach Science: A Case Study. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2011, 22, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. McClure, E.R.; Guernsey, L.; Clements, D.H.; Bales, S.N.; Nichols, J.; Kendall-Taylor, N.; Levine, M.H. STEM Starts Early: Grounding Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education in Early Childhood; Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hechter, R.P. Changes in Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Personal Science Teaching Efficacy and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancies: The Influence of Context. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2011, 22, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lange, A.A.; Robertson, L.; Tian, Q.; Nivens, R.; Price, J. The Effects of an Early Childhood-Elementary Teacher Preparation Program in STEM on Pre-Service Teachers. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2022, 18, em2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, Y.-L.; Huang, L.-F.; Wu, P.-C. Preservice Preschool Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in and Need for STEM Education Professional Development: STEM Pedagogical Belief as a Mediator. Early Child. Educ. J. 2021, 49, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ellis, J.; Wieselmann, J.; Sivaraj, R.; Roehrig, G.; Dare, E.; Ring-Whalen, E. Toward a Productive Definition of Technology in Science and STEM Education. Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. 2020, 20, 472–496. [Google Scholar]
  49. Cullen, T.A.; Guo, M. The Nature of Technology. In Critical Questions in STEM Education; Akerson, V.L., Buck, G.A., Eds.; Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 21–32. ISBN 978-3-030-57646-2. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rehmat, A.P.; Bailey, J.M. Technology Integration in a Science Classroom: Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2014, 23, 744–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shadish, W.R.; Cook, T.D.; Campbell, D.T. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, 2nd ed.; Wadsworth Publishing: Boston, MA, USA, 2001; ISBN 978-0-395-61556-0. [Google Scholar]
  52. Project WILD: K-12 Activity Guide; Western Association of Fish Agencies, Wildlife Education, Council for the Environment: Washington, DC, USA, 1992.
  53. Project Learning Tree: PreK-8 Environmental Education Activity Guide, 13th ed.; Sustainable Forestry Initiative: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
  54. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Loucks-Horsley, S.; Stiles, K.E.; Mundry, S.; Love, N.; Hewson, P.W. Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Education 14 00065 g001
Figure 1. Shows the means on pre-test and post-test results for the PSTE and STOE for the control (n = 24) and treatment (n = 15) groups.
Figure 1. Shows the means on pre-test and post-test results for the PSTE and STOE for the control (n = 24) and treatment (n = 15) groups.
Education 14 00065 g001
Table 1. Paired t-test results on the STEBI-B PSTE and STOE for elementary pre-service teachers before and after receiving a workshop only (control) and a workshop + lesson plan implementation during practicum (treatment).
Table 1. Paired t-test results on the STEBI-B PSTE and STOE for elementary pre-service teachers before and after receiving a workshop only (control) and a workshop + lesson plan implementation during practicum (treatment).
Pre-TestPost-Test
MSDMSDtdfpCohen’s d
PSTE
Control3.880.524.280.36−3.42230.0010.70
Treatment3.730.644.410.42−5.3014<0.0011.37
STOE
Control3.730.433.820.45−0.90230.1890.18
Treatment3.520.493.890.41−3.23140.0030.83
Note: Control group n = 24, treatment group n = 15, p-values are reported for one-sided t-test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ingram, E.; Hill, T.W.; Harshbarger, D.; Keshwani, J. Improving Elementary Pre-Service Teachers’ Science Teaching Self-Efficacy through Garden-Based Technology Integration. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010065

AMA Style

Ingram E, Hill TW, Harshbarger D, Keshwani J. Improving Elementary Pre-Service Teachers’ Science Teaching Self-Efficacy through Garden-Based Technology Integration. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(1):65. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010065

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ingram, Erin, Trish Wonch Hill, Dena Harshbarger, and Jenny Keshwani. 2024. "Improving Elementary Pre-Service Teachers’ Science Teaching Self-Efficacy through Garden-Based Technology Integration" Education Sciences 14, no. 1: 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010065

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop