Exploring Teachers Beliefs and Science Curricular Alignment: Cases of Senior High School Philippine STEM Teachers

Zaldy Jose M. Lazara, Jr., Marie Paz E. Morales

Abstract


This study determined the efficacy beliefs of completely enumerated STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) teachers in a government-owned school in Rizal Province, Philippines and their role in the alignment of the intended, enacted and received Grade 11 science curriculum during the AY 2017-2018. Descriptive case study (qualitative research design) utilizing both qualitative and quantitative strategies, thoroughly examined the STEM curriculum and the teacher participants’teaching efficacy beliefs. Proper alignment of the intended and teacher efficacy beliefs-influenced enacted curriculum confirmed from the class interaction and students’ engagement, resulted to a high passing rate of students in their final examination and a high percentage of students who obtained passing grades (received curriculum). These high level of efficacy beliefs helped the teacher cases come up with a better enacted curriculum consistent with the intended curriculum, which stimulated the received curriculum. These results may inform STEM teacher-trainings and in-service programs curricular assessment and evaluation as well, for improved implementation of the curricular reform. Furthermore, identification of congruence and gaps within the intended, enacted and received curriculum can be done to analyze the current status of the curriculum. Significantly, results may improve enacting the new curriculum (K to 12) that may better highlight the spiral progression of content standards and learning competencies for each grade level and emphasize connections and inter-relations in STEM to better prepare our Generation Z learners for the new industrial era.

Keywords


Efficacy beliefs; Outcome expectancy beliefs; Philippine K to 12 Senior High School Program

References


Allen, M. (2014). Using rubric to grade, assess, and improve student learning. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= web&rct=&url=http//www.mdc.edu/sailearn /documents/4.1%2520Rubric

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (pp. 36 - 78). New York,NY:Freeman

Brown, L., Wiley, J., Wolitzky-Taylor K., Roy-Byrne, P., Sherbourne, C., Stein, M., & Craske M. (2014). Changes in self-efficacy and outcome expectancy as predicators of anxiety outcomes from the CALM Study. HSS Public Access, 31(8), 678-689. doi:10.1002/da.22256

Bullock, M. (2015). What makes a good teacher? Exploring teachers and students beliefs on good teaching. St. Mary’s College o fMaryland: Rising Tide 7

Ciascai, L., & Vlad, I. E. (2014). Perception of school and university students of ideal teacher behaviors (II). Pilot study. Acta DidacticaNapocensia,7,49-58.

Domenech-Betoret, F., Abellan-Rosello, L., & Gomez-Artiga, A. (2017). Self-efficacy, satisfaction, and academic achievement: The moderator role of students’ expectancy-value beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1193. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01193

Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. The National Academies

National Research Council Board of Science Education, Center for Higher Education. Michigan State University. Retrieved from http://www.nationalacademies.org/bose/F airweather Commissionedpaper.pdf

Gluckman, P. (2011). Looking ahead: Science education for the twenty-first century. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research

International Education Advisory Board (2014). Learning in the 21st century: Teaching todays student on their terms. Retrieved from http://www.certiport.com/Portal/Common/ Document%20Library/IEAB Whitepaper0 40808.pdf&ved

Luistro, A. (2010). The enhanced basic education K+12 program rationale. Philippine Education Research Journal. Retrieved from https://perj.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/the -enhanced-k12-basic-education-programrationale/

Marzano, R. (2010). Formative assessment and standards-based grading. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory

Marzano, R. (2015). Building fluency with procedural knowledge and guided practice – Part I. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory

Morris, D. (2017). Teaching self-efficacy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. doi:10.1093 /acrefore/9780190264093.013.86

National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2016). Barriers and opportunities for 2-year and 4-year STEM Degrees. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (2009). Partnership for 21st century skills (P21). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://science.nsta.org/ps/Final21stCSkills MapScience.pdf

Nolet, M., & McLaughlin J. (2000). Assessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph/books/about /accessingtheGeneralCurriculum

Paek, P. L.,Braun,H.,Trapani,C.,Ponte,E.& Powers,D.(2005). TheRelationshipofAP teacher practices and student AP exam performance. Research Report Series. doi: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.2005.tb01987.x

Pan, Y.H. (2012). The development of a teacher’s self-efficacy instrument for high school physical education teachers. World Academy of Science. Engineering and Technology, 66, 1152–1157. doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.2.241

Petroski, H. (2010). The essential engineer: Why science alone will not solve our global problems. Retrieved from http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/720 4397-the-essential-engineer

Pfitzner-Eden, F. (2016). I feel less confident so I quit? Do true changes in teacher self-efficacy predict changes in preservice teachers’ intention to quit their teaching degree? Teaching and Teacher Education, 55,240–254

Renjen, P. (2018). Industry 4.0: Are you ready? Deloitte Review, 22. Retrieved from https://www2.delloitte .com/insights/us/en/deloitte-review/issue-2 2/industry-4-0-technology-manufacturing-r evolution.html&ved

Sanders,M.(2009). STEM,STEMEducation, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.

Summer, J., Davis, H., & Wookfolk Hoy, A., (2016). The effects of teachers’ efficacy beliefs on students’ perceptions of teacher relationship quality. Learning and Individual Differences,53,17-25.

Teaching and Learning International Survey (2013). The TALIS 2013 conceptual framework. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS%2 0Conceptual%20Framework FINAL.pdf

Thompson, R. E. (2016). The effects of teachers’ self-efficacy and a positive learning environment on marginal students in mainstream high school settings. Retrieved from http://dune.une.edu/theses/71

Ting, W., Albion, P. R. (2014). Remote access laboratories enhancing STEM education. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S. K. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and reality: Critical perspective on educational technology. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= web&rct=j&url=http://www.ascilite.org/conf erences/dunedin2014/files

Van Duuren, O. (2017). The industrial revolution 4. The Dualarity. Retrieved from https://www.thedualarity. com/industrial-revolution-4-0-2/&ved

Windschitl, M. (2009). Science teacher readiness for developing 21st century skills. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK3 2691/# NBK32691 pudbet

White, P. (2009). Differences: The effects of teacher efficacy on student achievement in an urban district. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved fromhttps;//theses.lib.vt.edu/unrestricted

Wyatt, M. (2010). Towards a re-conceptualization of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Tackling enduring problems with the quantitative research and moving on. International Journal of Research and Methods in Education, 37(4),166-189.

Xanthoudaki, M. (2010). Quality science education: Where do we stand? Guidelines for practice from a European experience. Retrieved from http://www.museoscienza.org/setac/

Xing, B., & Marwala, T. (2017). Implications of the fourth industrial age for higher education. The Thinker: For the Thought Leaders, 73(73), 10–15. Retrieved from http://www.thethinker.co.za/

Yap, R.D. (2011). K to 12: The key to quality education. Senate Economic Planning Office. Senate of the Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.sepo.gov.ph/policybriefk12


Full Text: JEHRD010

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.