You are here:

Teacher Self-efficacy During the Implementation of a Problem-based Science Curriculum

, Georgia Southern University, United States ; , Georgia Institute of Technology Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Computing (CEISMC), United States ; , Georgia Southern University, United States

CITE Journal Volume 16, Number 4, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


This study was conducted to investigate eighth-grade science teachers’ self-efficacy during the implementation of a new, problem-based science curriculum. The curriculum included applications of LEGO® robotics, a new technology for these teachers. Teachers’ responded to structured journaling activities designed to collect information about their self-efficacy for teaching with the curriculum and, later, to a survey designed to probe their self-efficacy for enacting specific elements of the curriculum. Participants reported high confidence levels throughout the study but expressed some concerns related to their local contexts.


Hodges, C., Gale, J. & Meng, A. (2016). Teacher Self-efficacy During the Implementation of a Problem-based Science Curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(4), 434-451. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 20, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Andersen, A., Dragsted, S., Evans, R., & Sorensen, H. (2004). The relationship between changes in teachers' self-efficacy beliefs and the science teaching environment of Danish first-year elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), 25-38.
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman
  3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  4. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In T. Urdan & F. Pajares (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Charlotte, NC:
  5. Czerniak, C., & Schriver, M. (1994). An examination of preservice science teachers' beliefs and behaviors as related to self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 5, 77-86.
  6. Dunlap, J.C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 65-85.
  7. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149-169.
  8. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co.
  9. Guskey, T.R. (1988). Teacher self-efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4 (1), 6369.
  10. Haney, J.J., Lumpe, A.T., Czerniak, C.M., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 171-187.
  11. Keys, C.W., & Bryan, L.A. (2000). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631645.
  12. Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R.B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C.N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education preservice teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers& Education, 91(15), 14-31.
  13. Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  14. Mills, K.A., Chandra, V., & Park, J.Y. (2013). The architecture of children’s use of language and tools when problem solving collaboratively with robotics. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40(3), 315-337.
  15. Minshew, L., & Anderson, J. (2015). Teacher self-efficacy in 1:1 iPad integration in middle school science and math classrooms. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3). Retrieved from Cfm
  16. Mowbray, C.T., Holter, M.C., Teague, G.B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 315340.
  17. Park, J. (2015). Effect of robotics enhanced inquiry based learning in elementary science education in South Korea. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(1), 71-95.
  18. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  19. Penuel, W.R., & Fishman, B.J. (2012). Large-scale science education intervention research we can use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (3). 281-304.
  20. Riggs, I.M., Enochs, L.G., & Posnanski, T.J. (1998). The teaching behaviors of high versus low efficacy elementary science teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.
  21. Roberts, J.K., Henson, R.K., Tharp, B.Z., & Moreno, N. (2000, January). An examination of change in teacher self-efficacy beliefs in science education based on the duration of inservice activities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Dallas, TX.
  22. Rosen, J., Stillwell, F., & Usselman, M. (2012). Promoting diversity and public school success in robotics competitions. In B.S. Barker, (Ed.), Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning (pp. 326-342). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  23. Savery, J.R.(2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). Doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1002
  24. Smith III, J.P. (1996). Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: A challenge for reform. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4). 387-402.
  25. Taylor, K. (2016). Collaborative robotics, more than just working in groups: Effects of student collaboration on learning motivation, collaborative problem solving, and science process skills in robotic activities (Doctoral dissertation, Boise State University, Boise, ID).
  26. Tobin, K., Tippins, D.J., Gallard, A.J., & Gabel, D.L. (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York, NY: Macmillan. Tufts Center for Engineering Education& Outreach. From
  27. Usselman, M., & Ryan, M. (2015). SLIDER: Science learning integrating design, engineering, and robotics. In C. Sneider (Ed.), The go-to guide for engineering curricula, grades 6-8: Choosing and using the best instructional materials for your students (pp. 53-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  28. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R.B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343356.
  29. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Author Notes

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact