1
The Analysis of SMT Teachers’ Self-Efficacy towards Enhancing Student Thinking and
Problem-Solving Skills: Preliminary Study
1Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit, 2Apisit Tongchai
1Faculty of Science and Technology, Thepsatri Rajabhat University, Lop Buri, Thailand
2The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST) Bangkok, Thailand
1Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract
Purpose - This preliminary study aimed to investigate teacher self-efficacy over a one-year period under a project called
“Professional development to enhance student thinking and problem-solving skills.” Teachers’ self-efficacy was focused due to the fact that personal belief in one’s capabilities to complete tasks or achieve goals or self-efficacy influences their practice.
Method - Ninety-five teachers from science, mathematics and technology (or SMT) teachers completed a Google form on the five-point Likert scale for self-efficacy scale, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95. The form was comprised of 29 statements asking for basic information as well as perceived self-efficacy in teaching student thinking and problem- solving skills. Data was collected at the beginning of the project and analysed by descriptive statistics with multiple regression to find relations among variables as well as one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Findings – Results showed that there was no statistical difference (F value = 1.80, Fcri = 3.10) among Science (M = 3.50), Math (M = 3.69) and Technology (M = 3.76) teachers perceived their self-efficacy. The result of regression analysis illustrated that only beneficial current practices of teachers had relations to the teachers’ self-efficacy, while others had no relation to self-efficacy (R = 0.30, R2=0.10). Finally, most average scores for the beneficial current practices of the SMT teachers were at the moderate levels. Only the average scores of beneficial current practice of primary science teachers and secondary technology teachers were at the high levels.
Significance – This survey covered a number of aspects of teachers’ belief and practice to promoting students’ thinking and problem-solving skills. The article purposely highlighted certain crucial issues that would be used to inform educators rethink ways to better address participants’ efficacy in the future professional development courses.
Keywords: Professional development, Self-efficacy, Thinking skills, Problem solving, Thailand
Introduction
Enormous changes in technology have caused all sections of contemporary society to address a wide variety of complex problems including persistent poverty, food security, medical and health issues, energy shortages, global climate change, environmental degradation, and so on (Kozma & Roth, 2012). Changes in technology also play a crucial role in changing other sectors of society, including education. Education systems of each country aim to prepare young citizens to understand such complex problems, and to continually produce new knowledge and ways to solve them. These are core skills needed for success in the twenty-first century (Thongchai, Wichaidit, & Koocharoenpisal, 2019). Therefore, old standards or skills of the nineteenth or twentieth centuries are not enough for this era of disruptive technology. To meet this challenge, schools must be transformed to enable students to acquire the complex thinking, flexible problem solving, and collaborative and communication skills they will need to be successful in work and life (Binkley, Erstad, Herman,
2 Raizen, Ripley, Miller-Ricci, & Rumble, 2012). Similar to other countries, in 2017 Thailand adjusted its learning indicators of the Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (Thailand Ministry of Education, 2008) by focusing on three disciplines which include Science, MathemaDeitics and Social studies, Religion and Culture. This adaptation is to better prepare Thai citizens to face this period of ever-increasing technological change. It also needs to adopt learning indicators into the core curriculum to best serve these changes. As aforementioned, one such change is focusing on improve thinking and problem-solving skills. It is generally agreed among scholars that a number of teaching methods can effectively improve students’ thinking and problem-solving abilities. These include STEM learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning and inquiry learning (Pearson, 2017). However, no matter what teaching method the teacher uses, it must be combined with teachers’ questioning strategies (Akben, 2020) and well-designed learning strategy (Kikas et al., 2020) that benefits classroom management ability while promoting high teacher self-efficacy in the process.
To be effective future citizens, students should be able to think creatively, critically and analytically as well as be able to solve problems in novel contexts (Thongchai et al., 2019). Unfortunately, students are not always competent thinkers (Tebbs, 2000). Therefore, teaching students to think in effective ways may not be an easy task for teachers. In other words, it can be a challenge to make teachers value how crucial thinking and problem-solving skills are for their students. Moreover, it is also difficult to educate students to nurture their own cognitive demand capabilities.
The fact is that the quality of teachers, or teacher practices, is likely to affect student achievement (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi,
& Gallagher, 2007; Gerber, Marek, & Martin, 2011; Kang, Cha, & Ha, 2013). Teachers are also the key component in bringing educational policy to practice. Thus, all successful educational policies start from enhancing understanding of teachers (Wichaidit, Wichaidit, Tadee, & Nungjak-auan, 2017) while increasing teacher self-efficacy in the process.
According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy is a personal belief that one can capably complete tasks, achieve goals or producing other desirable outcomes. Bandura (1994) elaborated crucial aspects of concerning one self-efficacy because it can determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave, and affect through four major processes including cognitive, motivational, affective and selection processes. To success in the instruction, role of teachers has to deal with these four processes. Therefore, self-efficacy in this study means that SMT teachers belief that they can capably complete tasks as well as achieve goals or desirable outcomes in enhancing students’ thinking and problem solving skills.
A number of researches studied have reported that teacher self-efficacy is a crucial factor influencing their teaching and learning skills and even attitudes toward teaching (Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk- Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Baysal, Arkan, & Yildirim, 2010; Norris, Morris, & Lummis, 2018; Yildizli, 2019). For instance, self-efficacy was found to be highly related to the capability of a teacher to determine levels of appropriate taxonomy, strategy, teaching methods and techniques (Kaygisiz, Uygun, & Uçar, 2020), as well as classroom and behavior management (Sciuchetti & Yssel, 2019). Therefore, it is important to know teachers’ self-efficacy at the outset before designing professional development programs. This will help increase teacher self-efficacy and their self-belief that they are capable of performing such instruction.
Professional development has remained a key strategy in the educational reform movement, but the means of delivery have shifted in fundamental ways (Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003). Regardless whether the design process is top-down or bottom-up, professional development programs are potentially beneficial to the education system (Mamlok-Naaman, Eilks, Bodner, & Hofstein, 2018). The main project is the knowledge-based professional development design focusing on teachers of SMT disciplines, both at the primary and secondary levels.
3 This article is based on a preliminary study to explore current practices of teachers in terms of improving student thinking and problem-solving skills, and to investigate the teacher self-efficacy in this context.
Research questions
1. What is the level of teacher self-efficacy toward improving student thinking and problem-solving skills?
2. What factors affect teacher self-efficacy towards enhancing student thinking and problem solving skills?
3. What are the current teacher practices that benefit and promote student thinking and problem solving skills?
Methodology
This preliminary study aims to obtain quantitative data of Thai teachers’ self-efficacy toward enhancing student thinking and problem-solving skills. The whole process of the professional development project started in January 2019 and ended in August 2019. This study generated needed information regarding teacher self-efficacy during a four-day workshop in Bangkok from May 28 to June 1, 2019. The results of the study were intended for use in proposing necessary approaches for the design of professional development programs to address the specific requirements of the target group.
Participants
The participants were SMT teachers from both primary and secondary schools who applied to be a part the project entitled, “Professional Development Program for SMT Teachers to Enhance Student Thinking and Problem Solving Skills.” More than 1,600 persons submitted applications for the project, of which only 120 teachers were eventually selected. The criteria for participant selection were based on the following qualification: 1) minimum five years teaching experience, 2) must teach an SMT discipline, 3) must not be older than fifty years old, and 4) possess a good attitude towards promoting student thinking and problem-solving skills. At the end of the selection process, selected participants were notified by email. A final total of 95 in-service teachers were selected and subsequently registered. Of these, 34 were male (35.79%) and 61 female (64.21%). Most had teaching experience in the 10-15 year range. Over eighty percent had master’s degrees. In addition, there were 6 teachers who had doctoral degrees in education (i.e., curriculum and instruction, assessment and evaluation, science education).
(a) (b) Figure 1. Ratio of participating teachers
Figure 1 illustrates the ratios of the participants, separated both by teaching level and the subjects they primarily has taught. There were 54 primary school teachers (56.84%) and 41 secondary school teachers (43.16%) from different schools all over the country (Figure 1a). Of all 95 SMT teachers, there were 35 Science teachers (36.84%), 31
Primary school teacher 57%
Secondary school teacher 43%
Science 37%
Mathematics 33%
Technology 30%
4 Mathematics teachers (32.63%) and 29 Technology teachers (30.53%) (Figure 1b). The teachers participated in a professional development program aimed at improving teaching capability in enhancing student thinking and problem- solving skills through teaching Science, Mathematics and Technology.
Research instrument
Self-efficacy of the SMT teachers toward enhancing student thinking and problem-solving skills was measured by a self-efficacy scale. Original statements to elicit teacher self-efficacy were constructed as 40 statements. After verified face validity by six experts, three IPST academic officers and three university science education experts, the final version was composed of 29 statements with internal consistency or Cronbach’s alpha reliability of 0.95. The scale is a five- point Likert format include two main parts. The first part obtains general information of the participants (e.g. level of teaching, education background, teaching experience (years), teaching subject, school size). The second part obtains the following subcategories: 1) teachers current practice (15 items), 2) teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities to teach students to improving thinking and problem solving skills (6 items), and 3) teachers’ confidence in their ability to promote their students’ thinking and problem-solving skills (8 items) (Table 1). The scale then was produced as a Google form with links generated via QR code for teachers ease of access and reply.
Table 1
Self-Efficacy Scale
Statement Level of opinion
Teacher current practice 5 4 3 2 1
1. Activating students’ interest by using challenge real-life situations
2. Giving students the opportunity to ask when they have questions during the class 3. Posing questions to encourage students to think or solve problems
4. Incorporating learning activities to enhance student thinking and problem-solving skills 5. Organising learning activities for students to analyse significance, relation, or principle of each
element
6. Providing students time and motivation to analyse information before making a decision and draw a reasonable conclusion
7. Assigning students to design or create innovation by using novel and flexible ideas or several different perspectives
8. Students are given chances to solve problem, design and select solutions fit to the problems and to evaluate solution and revised them
9. Students use a variety of learning materials
10. Students have a chance to communicate with one another 11. Students search for information during the learning process
12. Students have a chance to present and communicate their thoughts with peers 13. Students sometime work in group
14. Students sometimes use technology to access online learning resources or information 15. Students are encouraged to learn by using various learning resources
5
Teachers’ beliefs in their capability to teach students for improving thinking and problem solving 1. I know the necessary process for learning management to improve students’ analytical thinking 2. I know the important step for learning management to enhance students’ critical thinking 3. I know the needed steps for learning management to increase students’ creative thinking 4. I know the necessary process for learning management to raise students’ problem-solving skills 5. I understand principle of learning management to develop students’ thinking and problem solving
in science, mathematics, or technology subjects
6. I continually develop myself as an effective teacher from several learning resources Teachers’ confidence in promoting their students’ thinking and problem-solving skills
1. I am confident in my ability to manage students’ learning to improve analytical thinking effectively 2. I am confident in my ability to manage students’ learning to enhance critical thinking effectively 3. I am confident in my ability to manage students’ learning to increase creative thinking effectively 4. I am confident in my ability to manage students’ learning to raise problem-solving skills effectively 5. If I have a chance, I will invite my college to observe and reflect upon my instruction
6. I am confident that I can answer all questions from my students during the instruction 7. If students get conceptually confused, I am confident that I can assist them to understand such
concepts
8. I know how to improve students’ understanding of the subject
Data collection and analysis
Data of the teachers’ self-efficacy was collected on the first day of four-day workshop. The participating teachers used their personal mobile phones to access the aforementioned Google form. For the current classroom practice, the questionnaire was a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (moderate), 4 (agree), until 5 (strongly agree). The 95 participants completed the form. Gained data of the teachers’ response were used to examine the scale reliability as well as self-efficacy of the SMT teachers. As previously mentioned, the scale consisted of two parts intended to gain general information (i.e. teaching experience (years), education level, school size, and level of understanding) and teachers’ self-efficacy. Descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, standard deviation, average) were used to analyse the data, and the interpretation of mean score based upon the following criteria: more than 4.51 (very high), 3.51-4.50 (high), 2.51-3.50 (moderate), 1.50-2.50 (low), and less than 1.50 (very low) subsequently. Moreover, the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was adopted to analyse the means of the three groups (i.e. science, mathematics, and technology teachers) and whether they differed from one another in their scores on the self-efficacy scale. Finally, multiple regression analysis was performed.
Findings
In order to gain the preliminary information of SMT teachers who participated in the workshop to improve student thinking and problem-solving skills, three research questions were specifically addressed. Results of the analysis are illustrated as follows:
6 1. Results of One-way Analysis of Variance (One-way ANOVA)
The first research question stated the level of the teachers’ self-efficacy toward improving student thinking and problem- solving skills and whether they differed from each other. Result of the one-way ANOVA as in Table 2 and 3 are as follows:
Table 2
Summary of Descriptive Statistics
Groups N Sum Average Variance
Science teachers 35 122.28 3.49 0.32
Mathematics teachers 31 107.86 3.48 0.37
Technology teachers 29 110.00 3.79 0.17
Table 3
ANOVA Results of Initially Self-Efficacy of SMT Teachers
Source of Variation SS df MS F p-value F-crit
Between Groups 1.89 2 0.95 3.23 0.04 3.10
Within Groups 26.92 92 0.29
Total 28.81 94
Note. * p < .05
Table 2 illustrates the summary of SMT teachers’ self-efficacy at the beginning of participating and throughout the project, also separately analysed by discipline. Average mean scores of SMT teachers were 3.49, 3.48, and 3.79 chronologically. Based on the criteria, only self-efficacy of technology teachers was at a high level (M = 3.79), while self-efficacy of science and mathematics teachers were at the moderate level (M = 3.49 and 3.48). Result of the one- way analysis of variance (ANOVA) as presented in the Table 3 showed that the F-value was at the 3.23, which is greater than the F-critical (3.10), or F(2, 92) = 3.23, p<.05. It means that the null hypothesis was rejected. It can say that the self- efficacy of the three groups of SMT teachers did statistically differ from one another in their scores on the self-efficacy scale at the beginning of participating through the project. Scheffe post-hoc test for One-Way ANOVA found that F- comparison between groups of science and math teachers was 0.03 while the F-comparison between groups of mathematics and technology teachers was 2.57, and the F-comparison between groups of science and technology teachers was 0.01. Because the F was not greater than F-critical, the results can be summarized that self-efficacy of SMT teachers before participating through the project were not differ from one another.
2. Results of the Multiple Regression Analysis
Second research question was set to determine what factor affect teacher self-efficacy towards enhancing student's thinking and problem-solving skills. To address this research question, multiple regression was utilized. As stated earlier, basic information about the participants that might affect teacher self-efficacy had been collected. The basic information – teaching experience, education level, school size and benefit current practice – were obtained and used for analysis.
Teaching experience, independent variable 1 or X1, was classified and coded to be 1 (5-10 years), 2 (11-15 years), 3 (16-20 years) and 4 (more than 20 years). Level of Education, independent variable 2 or X2, was classified and coded to be 1 (bachelor’s degree), 2 (master’s degree), and 3 (doctoral degree). School size, independent variable 3 or X3, was
7 classified and coded to be 1 (less than 500 students), 2 (501-1,000 students), 3 (1,001-1,500 students), and 4 (more than 1,500 students). Finally, average scores of current practices (X4), were marked according to frequency: never (1), seldom (2), some (3), most (4), and always (5). These values were analysed to determine whether they affected the teacher self- efficacy (Y variable).
Table 4
Regression Analysis
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.83
R Square 0.69
Adjusted R Square 0.67
Standard Error 0.32
Observations 95
Table 5
Result of ANOVA
Df SS MS F Sig.
Regression 4 19.81 4.95 49.69 0.00
Residual 90 8.97 0.10
Total 94 28.79
Table 6 Coefficients
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat p-value
Intercept 1.23 0.25 4.88 0.00
Teaching experience (X1) -0.03 0.04 -0.75 0.45
Level of education (X2) -0.03 0.08 -0.30 0.76
School size (X3) -0.02 0.03 -0.94 0.35
Current practice (X4) 0.73 0.05 13.35 0.00
A simple linear regression was calculated to predict teacher self-efficacy based on teaching experience (X1), level of education (X2), school size (X3), and current practice (X4). Results of the regression analysis as in the Table 4 show that correlation of how variables move in relation to each other (R = 0.83) and the coefficient of the determination or the covariance (Rsquare = 0.69). From the Table 5, a significant regression equation was found (F(4, 90)) = 49.69, p<.05), with an R2 of 0.69 or it can say that 69 percent of the X-variables can predict Y-variable (self-efficacy). Moreover, results from Table 6, the model to predict teachers’ self-efficacy, is equal to Y = 1.23 + 0.73X4, or, in other words, only benefit current practice (X4) is in a relation to teachers’ self-efficacy variable (Y).
3. Results of the Beneficial Current Practices
According to the previous analysis of the factors that might affect to teachers’ self-efficacy, the result indicated that only beneficial current practice is related to those of interest. This article then analyses, deeply and in detail, the relations among such practices. The five-point Likert scale format asking the SMT teachers’ practice in their school contained 15 statements as presented in Table 7. To address the third research question, “what are the current teachers’ practices benefit to promote students’ thinking and problem-solving skills?” Results of the arithmetic means and standard deviation of each statement are presented in the Table 7 below.
8
Table 7
Results of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy
Statement M SD Interpretation
Teacher current practice
1. Activating students interest by using challenge real-life situations 3.43 0.88 Moderate 2. Giving students the opportunity to ask when they have questions during the class 4.22 0.74 High 3. Posing questions to encourage students to think or solve problems 3.74 0.81 High 4. Incorporating learning activities to enhance students thinking and problem-
solving skills
3.44 0.82 Moderate
5. Organising learning activities for students to analyse significance, relation, or principle of each element
3.09 0.83 Moderate
6. Providing students to analyse information before making a decision and draw a reasonable conclusion
3.29 0.81 Moderate
7. Assigning students to design or create innovation by using novel and flexible idea or several perspectives
3.02 0.88 Moderate
8. Students have a chance to solve problem, design and select solutions fit to the problems and evaluate solution and revise them
3.08 0.80 Moderate
9. Students use a variety of learning materials 3.46 0.89 Moderate
10. Students have a chance to communicate with other 3.58 0.80 High
11. Students searched for information during learning 3.43 0.99 Moderate
12. Students have a chance to present and communicate their thoughts with peers 3.36 0.87 Moderate
13. Students sometimes work in groups 3.66 0.82 High
14. Students sometime use technology to access online learning resources or information
3.38 0.92 Moderate
15. Students are encouraged to learn by using various learning resources 3.52 0.90 High Teachers’ belief in their capability to teach students to improving thinking and problem-solving skills
1. I know the necessary processes for learning management to improve students’
analytical thinking
3.59 0.88 High
2. I know the important steps for learning management to enhance students’
critical thinking
3.53 0.93 High
3. I know the needed steps for learning management to increase students’ creative thinking
3.53 0.86 High
4. I know the necessary processes for learning management to raise students’
problem-solving skills
3.57 0.84 High
5. I understand principles of learning management to develop students’ thinking and problem solving in science, mathematics or technology subject
3.55 0.82 High
6. I continually develop myself as an effective teacher from several learning resources
4.09 0.82 High
Teachers’ confidence in promoting their students’ thinking and problem-solving skills
9
1. I am confident in my ability to manage students’ learning to improve analytical thinking effectively
3.71 0.87 High
2. I am confident in my ability to manage students’ learning to enhance critical thinking effectively
3.71 0.87 High
3. I am confident in my ability to manage students’ learning to increase creative thinking effectively
3.73 0.88 High
4. I am confident in my ability to manage students’ learning to raise problem- solving skills effectively
3.78 0.78 High
5. If I have a chance, I will invite my college to observe and reflect upon my instruction.
3.91 0.80 High
6. I am confident that I can answer all questions from my students during the instruction.
3.73 0.80 High
7. If students get confused in concepts, I am confident that I can assist them to understand such concepts.
3.94 0.83 High
8. I know how to improve students’ understanding of the subject. 3.78 0.80 High
Table 7 illustrates that mean scores of each statement in the aspects of both teachers’ beliefs in their capability and their confidence in promoting their students’ thinking and problem solving skills were at the high level (average score greater than 3.51). However, statements of the teachers’ beneficial current practice differed. Only five statements of beneficial current practice were at the high level; the rest of the statements were at moderate level, however. This result indicates that the professional development team should bring the current practice in the moderate level to be considered and also to design the program to raise the awareness of such practices. The same set of data was also analysed to discover whether teachers of each different subject and level of teaching had similar practices.
Table 8
Teachers’ Current Practice in Overall Subject (N = 95)
Groups Teaching subject Mean Interpretation
Primary school teacher Science 3.56 High
Mathematics 3.11 Moderate
Technology 3.45 Moderate
Secondary school teacher Science 3.33 Moderate
Mathematics 3.38 Moderate
Technology 3.95 High
Result of an analysis of teachers’ current practices, separated by teaching levels and subjects, are presented as in the Table 7. It was found that science teachers from primary level were at a high level (M = 3.56), while science teacher from secondary levels were at moderate levels (M = 3.33). Current practices to enhance students’ thinking and problem-solving skills of mathematics teachers, from both primary and secondary levels, were at the moderate levels (M = 3.11 and 3.38, respectively). Finally, current practices of technology teachers from primary level were at the moderate level (M = 3.45) while those of the secondary level were at the high level (M = 3.95). In summary, current practices of primary science teachers and secondary technology teachers were at the high level, while the rest were at the moderate levels.
As mentioned earlier, the survey covered several aspects of teachers’ abilities to promoting student thinking and problem-solving skills. However, this paper purposely highlights certain crucial issues of the survey that will be
10 used to inform educators rethink ways to better address participants’ efficacy in future professional development courses.
Conclusions and Discussion
This preliminary study aimed to explore self-efficacy of SMT teachers before participation in a professional development (PD) program aimed at improving students’ thinking and problem-solving skills. Teacher self-efficacy has been the focus because it directly relates to the widely accepted beliefs and practices that stem from the well-known social cognitive theory proposed by Albert Bandura. According the Bandura (1986), human cognition is product of learning, and human learning is influenced by three related reciprocal factors: personal, environmental and behavioral.
Self-efficacy also influences behavior, or the ways one believes that can or cannot accomplish a desired result. Before the workshop began, self-efficacy related data of SMT teachers was obtained and carefully analysed. Research found that the self-efficacy of science teachers was at a moderate level, while self-efficacy of mathematics and technology teachers were at high levels; however, the result of analysis of variance among the three groups showed there was no statistically significant difference among them. To find factors affecting teachers’ self-efficacy, the second research question, the results of the regression analysis illustrated that only beneficial current practices were related to teacher self-efficacy. Finally, to explore how teachers’ practices benefit promotion of students’ thinking and problem-solving skills, the third research question, the results revealed that only the practices of primary science teachers and secondary technology teachers were at a high level, while the rest were at the moderate levels.
Teacher self-efficacy has been reported to be a crucial factor that largely affects classroom teaching practices and, thus, results in students’ learning outcome (Baysal et al., 2010; Bray-Clark & Bates, 2003; Norris et al., 2018). In any professional development program, self-efficacy should be a concern that should be addressed when designing a training program (Ross & Bruce, 2007). When the deep consideration of current teacher practices beneficial to enhancement of students’ thinking and problem-solving abilities (e.g. giving students opportunities to ask question during class, posing questions to encourage students’ thinking and problem solving, or providing students the chance to systematically analyse information before making a decision and draw a reasonable conclusion, and so on), it was found that all statements can be applied to various learning models: inquiry learning, problem-based learning, or project-based learning.
A number of suggestions emerged from the preliminary research findings as follows: First, PD programs should address the importance of thinking and problem-solving skills for today’s students and how the fact that everything is rapidly changing influences learning behavior among those in school. Second, the program should introduce effective questioning strategies for SMT teachers in a classroom setting. A number of scholars have suggested ways for teachers to effectively ask questions in the classroom. The classification of such questions can be based on several criteria: opened or closed questions, lower- or higher-level thought questions. Therefore, the PD course designers should collaborate to bring their experiences into the design element, with these questioning aspects specific to the congruent needs of science, mathematics, and technology teachers. Third, while taking part participants should experience the training as if they themselves are students. They should have a chance to feel the emotions of curiosity and eagerness to learn. If the teachers are provided a chance to act like students, they can experience for themselves student emotions toward the activities and which parts of the learning process may cause perplexity. Finally, participating teachers should have room to express their own practices that they have found to benefit the improvement of students’ thinking and problem solving skills. Lastly, they should be given time to discuss what they have learned following the workshop and what they want to learn in the future.
11 Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express deep gratitude to the Institute for The Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST), the Ministry of Education, Thailand, for supporting and funding this professional development program. We also express our thankfulness to the Thai SMT teachers who participated in the project. Our special appreciation goes to JSMESEA referee and editorial team for their suggession which very helpful in improving manuscript.
References
Akben, N. (2020). Effects of the problem-posing approach on students’ problem solving skills and metacognitive awareness in science education. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 1143-1165.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived self-inefficacy. American Psychologist, 41(12), 1389–1391.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81).
New York: Academic Press.
Baysal, Z. N., Arkan, K., & Yildirim, A. (2010). Pre-service elementary teachers’ perceptions of their self-efficacy in teaching thinking skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 4250–4254.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty- first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp.17-66). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bray-Clark, N., & Bates, R. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs and teacher effectiveness: Implications for professional development. Professional Educator, 26(1), 13-22.
Chester, M. D., & Beaudin, B. Q. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newly hired teachers in urban schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 233–257.
Desimone, L.M., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Yoon, K.S. & Birman, B.F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L.M., Birman, B.F. & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teacher. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915- 945.
Gerber, B.L., Marek. E.A. & Martin, E.P. (2011). Designing research-based professional development for elementary school science and mathematics. Education Research International. Doi: 10.1155/2011/908014.
Kang, H.S., Cha, J. & Ha. B-W. (2013). What should we consider in teachers’ professional development impact studies?
Based on the conceptual framework of desimone. Creative Education, 4(4A), 11-18.
Kaygısız, G.M., Uygun, N. & Uçar, F.M. (2020). The Relationship between the levels of self-efficacy beliefs of pre- service teachers and their levels of determining suitable taxonomy, strategy, and method-technique for science objectives. Science Education International, 31(1), 117-126.
Kikas, E., Madamurk, K. & Palu, A. (2020). What role do comprehension-oriented learning strategies have in solving math calculation and word problems at the end of middle school? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(S1), 105-123.
Kozma, R.B., & Roth, M. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. In P.Griffin, B. McGaw & E. Care (Eds.). Dordrecht: Springer.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K.E. Mundry, S. & Hewson, P.W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
12 Norris, C.M., Morris, J.E. & Lummis, G.W. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy to teach primary science based
on ‘science learner’ typology. International Journal of Science Education, 40(18), 2292-2308.
Mamlok-Naaman, R., Eilks, I., Bodner, G. & Hofstein, A. (2018). Professional Development of Chemistry Teachers:
Theory and Practice. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Pearson, G. (2017). National academies piece on integrated STEM. Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 224-226 Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Yamaguchi, R. & Gallagher, L.P. (2007). What makes professional development effective?
Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.
Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of randomized field trial.
Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 50–60.
Sciuchetti, M. B., & Yssel, N. (2019). The development of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for classroom and behavior management across multiple field experiences. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(6), 18-34.
Tebbs, T. J. (2000). Assessing teachers' self-efficacy towards teaching thinking skills. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Connecticut). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Trevor_Tebbs/publication/27402661_Assessing_teachers'_self- efficacy_towards_teaching_thinking_skills/links/00b4952bdefead6195000000/Assessing-teachers-self- efficacy-towards-teaching-thinking-skills.pdf.
Thailand Ministry of Education. (2008). Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). Retrieved from http://academic.obec.go.th/images/document/1525235513_d_1.pdf.
Thongchai, A., Wichaidit, P.R., & Koocharoenpisal, N. (2019). A professional development program to enhance thinking and problem solving skills for Thai science, mathematics and technology (SMT) teachers. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 42(2), 1-25.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher-efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Wichaidit, P.R., Wichaidit, S., Tadee, S. & Nungjak-auan, P. (2017). Putting policy in practice: A professional development program for STEM education for teachers at small primary schools in rural areas. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 40(1), 17-47.
Yildizli, H. (2019). Structural relationships among teachers’ goal orientations for teaching, self-efficacy, burnout, and attitudes towards teaching. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 12(4), 111- 125. http://dx.doi. org/10.7160/eriesj.2019.120402
Author(s):
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit
Faculty of Science and Technology, Thepsatri Rajabhat University, Lop Buri, Thailand Email: [email protected]
Apisit Tongchai
The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST), Bangkok, Thailand Email: [email protected]
