TEACHERS’ CONFIDENCE AND PREPAREDNESS IN TEACHING SCIENCE IN THE PRIMARY SCHOOLS
2. Method
2.1 Questionnaire
The questionnaire was adapted from Dhindsa (2011) for investigating primary teachers‟ science teaching competency. Prior to the administration of the questionnaires, permission was first sought in November 2012 from the Ministry of Education in accordance to the normal protocol procedure. The questionnaires were sent by post to head teachers of 62 primary schools randomly selected in January 2013 in all the four districts in Brunei Darussalam.
The head teachers were informed that only teachers teaching primary science would be involved in the study. The questionnaires were returned to the researcher by post in self-addressed stamped envelopes. In total the researcher received 154 completed questionnaires from 49 head teachers.
From the 154 questionnaires received, 8 had not been completely filled by teachers and therefore were not included in the study. Results and discussion that followed were based on responses from 146 teachers; 20% male and 80% female.
The questionnaire consisted of six sections and in this paper, only two sections on teachers‟
confidence and preparedness in teaching primary science were presented and discussed. In the first section teachers were asked to rate the level of confidence in their ability to teach science in Years 1-6 classes by indicating 1 for not confident (I need a lot of help), 2 for moderately confident (I need some help), 3 for confident (I need a little help) and 4 for very confident (I do not need any help). The second section consists of a list of topics/themes found in Years 1-6 textbooks. Teachers were asked to rate how well prepared are they to teach these topics by indicating 4 for very well prepared, 3 for well prepared, 2 for slightly well prepared and 1 for not well prepared. The mean scores for confidence (C) and preparedness (P) were interpreted as follows:
3.41-4.00 = the highest level of C or P 2.81-3.40 = a high level C or P 2.21-2.80 = a medium level C or P 1.61-2.20 = a low level of C or P 1.00-1.60 = the lowest level of C or P 3. Results and Discussion
In analysis using descriptive statistics, the mean scores obtained range from 2.44 to 2.95 which indicated that teachers have a high level of confidence in their ability to teach science at Years 1 to 3 levels and a medium level of confidence in teaching science at Years 4 to 6 levels (Table 1).
This shows that teachers were more confident in teaching science at the lower levels than at the
upper levels. Furthermore, the mean values obtained show a steady decline from Year 1 to Year 6 which indicates that teachers‟ confidence in teaching science decreases when they teach the higher levels.
Table 1. Teachers‟ Confidence in their Ability to Teach Primary Science at different Year Level
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mean 2.95 2.98 2.91 2.80 2.64 2.44 SD 0,74 0,69 0,69 0,75 0,81 0,90 N=146
Teachers‟ confidence in teaching science was further analyzed using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine if significant differences exist between the year levels. In Table 2, the F value obtained indicates that teachers‟ confidence significantly decreases with year levels (p<.001). In other words, teachers have more confidence in their ability to teach science at Year 1 than at Year 6 level.
Table 2. Results obtained from ANOVA for Teachers‟ Confidence between Groups Confidence
Sum of Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups 28,676 5 5,735 9,608 0,000 Within Groups 445,900 747 0,597
Total 474,576 752
The level of teachers‟ confidence in teaching science was further demonstrated by the percentage breakdown of teachers who expressed their confidence in teaching science at different year levels. As shown in Table 3, the percentage of teachers who were not confident or slightly confident in teaching science was 22.5% at Year 1, 24.1% at Year 2, 25.6%% at Year 3, 27.5% at Year 4, 34.7% at Year 5 and 43.6% at Year 6.
Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Teachers‟
Confidence in their Ability to Teach Primary Science at different Year Level Level of
Confidence
Teachers (%) Year
1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6 Not
confident
3.9 1.6 1.6 6.5 11.3 20.2 Slightly
confident
18.6 22.5 24.0 21.0 23.4 23.4 Confident 56.6 52.7 56.6 58.9 55.6 48.4 Very
confident
20.9 23.3 17.8 13.7 9.7 8.1 N=146
An important observation that can be drawn from this finding is that the percentage of teachers who were not confident or slightly confident increases from the lower level to the upper level.
This means that the amount of help that teachers need increases as they teach science at the higher levels. It seems that teachers are more confident in teaching science at the lower levels where they need less help than at the higher levels where they need more help.
In terms of teachers‟ preparedness in teaching science the means obtained by descriptive statistics ranged from 2.53 to 3.15 (Table 4). It seems that teachers have a high level of preparedness in teaching science at Years 1 to 3 and a medium level of preparedness in teaching science at Years 4 to 6.
The result also shows that there was a steady decline in teachers‟ preparedness in teaching science from Year 1 to Year 6 levels. These findings seem to suggest that there is a gradual decrease in teachers‟ ability to teach primary science content from Year 1 to Year 6 levels.
Table 4. Teachers‟ Preparedness in Teaching Primary Science Content at different Year
Levels
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mean 3.15 3.03 2.97 2.73 2.61 2.53
SD .58 .62 .59 .71 .73 .76
N=146
Teachers‟ preparedness in teaching Years 1 to 6 was further analyzed using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine if significant differences exist between the year levels. Results in Table 5 show that the F value obtained indicates that teachers‟ preparedness significantly decreased with year levels (p<.001). In other words, teachers were better prepared in teaching science at Year 1 than at Year 6 level.
Table 5. Results obtained from ANOVA for Teachers‟ Preparedness between Groups
Preparedness
Sum of Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups 41.957 5 8.381 17.866 .000 Within
Groups 364.950 717 .470
Total 406.907 782
The level of teachers‟ preparedness in teaching science was further demonstrated by the percentage breakdown of teachers who expressed their ability in teaching science at different year levels. As shown in Table 6, the percentage of teachers who were not well prepared or slightly well prepared in teaching science was 12.6% at Year 1, 19.2% at Year 2, 21.5%% at Year 3, 32.4%
at Year 4, 38.3% at Year 5 and 43.1% at Year 6. An
important observation that can be drawn from such a finding is that teachers‟ ability in teaching science decreases from Year 1 to Year 6 levels. This decrease in the preparedness was significant as indicated in Table 5.
Table 6. Percentage Distribution of Teachers‟
Preparedness in Teaching Science Content at different Year Levels
Level of Prepared-
ness
Teachers (%)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6 Not
well
.2 .6 1.0 8.1 10.0 12.9 Slightly
well
12.4 18.6 20.5 24.3 28.3 30.2 Well 57.7 56.8 58.8 54.2 52.0 47.6 Very
well
29.7 24.0 19.7 13.5 9.7 9.3 N=146
Teachers‟ ability in teaching the various topics/themes in terms of their preparedness at each year level is presented in percentage response as well as in means and standard deviations for each topic/theme. There are altogether 27 topics in the primary science syllabus for Years 1 to 6 levels which can be broadly divided into 14 topics related to biology and 13 topics related to physics.
Results in Table 7 show the topics/themes which have the highest mean scores (M) and highest percentage responses by teachers were (1) Your body (M=3.21, 90.9%), (2) Living and Non- living things (M=3.23, 91.0%), (3) Growing plants (M=3.04, 79.1%), (4) Colors (M=3.19, 87.3%), (5) Staying healthy (M=3.19, 88.9%), (6) Grouping objects (M=3.13, 86.6%), (7) Healthy living (M=3.11, 86.5%) and (8) Grouping living things (M=3.08, 85.8%). These topics/themes are covered in Year 1to Year 3 science syllabuses.
Topics which have the lowest mean scores and lowest percentage scores on preparedness were (15) Energy and forces, i.e. light and sound, (M=2.63, 65.1%), (16) Cycles (M=2.78, 69.7%), (18) Systems, i.e. transport, digestion (M=2.51, 53.9%), (19) Variety and classification (M=2.55, 60.1%), (20) Energy and forces (M=2.61, 60.9%), (21) Cycles (M=2.70, 68.0%), (22) Personal health and the environment, i.e. diseases, (M=2.53, 55.5%), (23) Systems (M=2.68, 63.8%), (24) Energy and forces, i.e. electrical, (M=2.60, 61.9%), (25) Cycles (M=2.51, 56.3%), (26) Personal health and the environment, i.e. drugs, (M=2.60, 60.3%) and (27) Systems , i.e. electrical and mechanical (M=2.44, 49.2%). These topics are covered in Year 4 to Year 6 science syllabuses. Results show that between 30- 50% of teachers were found to have a moderate level of preparedness in teaching these topics.
Table 7. Teachers‟ Preparedness in Teaching the Various Topics/Themes in Primary Science Syllabus at different Year Levels Topics/
themes
Level of Preparedness
M SD
4 3 2 1
Year 1
1.Your body 31.1 59.8 8.3 .8 3.21 .62 2. Living &
Non-living things
31.6 59.4 9.0 0 3.23 .60
3. Growing plants
24.6 54.5 20.9 0 3.04 .68
4. Colours 31.3 56.0 12.7 0 3.19 .64 5. Staying
healthy
2.99 59.0 11.2 0 3.19 .61
Year 2 6. Grouping objects
28.4 58.2 13.4 0 3.15 .63
7. Healthy Living
24.8 61.7 13.5 0 3.11 .61
8. Light energy
21.1 55.6 21.8 1.5 2.96 .70 9. Pushes &
pulls
21.8 51.9 25.6 .8 2.95 .71 Year 3
10. Grouping Living things
22.6 63.2 14.3 0 3.08 .60
11. A Clean environment
21.8 54.9 23.3 0 2.98 .67
12. Reuse, Recycle
16.5 60.2 21.8 1.5 2.92 .66 13. Electricity 18.0 57.1 22.6 2.3 2.91 .70 Year 4
14. Variety &
Classification
18.6 58.1 17.1 6.2 2.89 .77 15. Energy &
Forces
9.3 55.8 25.6 9.3 2.65 .78 16. Cycles
(plants, water)
14.7 55.0 21.7 8.5 2.78 .76
17. Personal Health & the environment
17.1 55.8 21.7 5.4 2.84 .79
18. Systems (movement, transport)
7.8 46.1 35.2 10.9 2.51 .79
Year 5 19. Variety &
Classification
6.2 53.9 28.1 11.7 2.55 .78 20. Energy &
Forces
8.6 52.3 30.5 8.6 2.61 .76 21. Cycles
(animals)
12.5 55.5 21.9 10.2 2.70 .82 22. Personal
Health & the environment
7.8 47.7 34.4 10.2 2.53 .78
23. Systems 13.4 50.4 26.8 9.4 2.68 .82 Year 6
24. Energy &
Forces
10.3 51.6 26.2 11.9 2.60 .83 25. Cycles
(Earth, Sun)
8.7 47.6 29.4 14.3 2.51 .84 26. Personal
health & the environment
11.9 48.4 27.8 11.9 2.60 .85
27. Systems (electrical, mechanical)
6.3 42.9 37.3 13.5 2.42 .80
4=very well prepared, 3=well prepared, 2=slightly well prepared, 1=not well prepared, M=mean, SD=standard deviation
Gleaning from these results, it seems that teachers were more comfortable teaching topics related to biology than topics related to physics.
This finding concurs with those reported by Harlen et al. (1995) for UK primary teachers. In this study, however, there are some biology topics which are particularly difficult for teachers and they include Personal Health and the environment (infectious diseases: TB, cholera, malaria, red eye, spread and prevention of diseases), Variety and Classification (microorganisms, bacteria, fungi, plants and animals, animals with and without backbones) and Systems (body system like movement, transport, digestion, breathing and nervous). Concerning physics topics that teachers find most difficult are Systems (electrical and mechanical systems, simple machines and uses, systems in machines) and Cycles (the Earth and the Sun, the Earth and the moon, solar system, use and conservation of water).
In general, teachers are better prepared to teach science at the lower levels than the higher levels when the mean scores of all the topics in each year level are taken into consideration (see Table 4).
This indicates that the coverage of the topics/themes in the science syllabus for primary pupils increases in both breadth and depth from Year 1 to Year 6. The increase in content coverage inevitably emasculates teachers‟ ability in terms of their confidence and preparedness to teach science more effectively.
4. Conclusion
Findings elucidated from the study demonstrated that teachers were more confident in teaching lower primary science in Years 1 to 3 than upper primary science in Years 4 to 6. Results also supported the findings which indicate that teachers‟
confidence in their ability to teach science significantly decreases with year levels. Another observation was the percentage of teachers who rated „not confident‟ or „slightly confident‟ in teaching science increases with year levels. This observation means that the higher the level they teach the more help they would need to teach science effectively.
Similar to confidence, teachers‟ preparedness also show a steady decrease from Year 1 to Year 6.
They seem to have higher ability in teaching lower primary science than teaching upper primary science. In addition, they were also found to be more comfortable with teaching topics that are related to biology than topics related to physics.
This observation concurs with Lawrenz (1986) which show elementary school teachers have poor background in physical science. These limitations are likely to engender teachers‟ ability to teach science effectively.
Teachers need to build in children a strong foundation in science at the primary level. This is will empower them to take up science at the
secondary level. As Postlethwaite and Wiley (1992) have demonstrated that science achievement of secondary students is closely linked to science achievement of primary students, it becomes apparent that improvement in science education at the secondary level must take into consideration on how successful science is taught at the primary level. Teachers will be in a better position to respond effectively to this expectation if they have the confidence and preparedness to teach science at the primary level. As Caillods, Gottelmann-Duret, and Lewin (1996, p.60) argued “How teachers teach is a function of how adequate their knowledge of science is and the sophistication of their conceptions of science constructs; it also depends on their interpersonal skills with students, their pedagogical skill, the leadership they receive and the learning culture in schools.” Therefore, the key to improving the quality of science education is to improve the quality of primary school teachers because they are the ones responsible for carrying out the new curricula and initiatives that are stipulated in the reform agenda.