Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In out-of-school-learning (OSL) environments, individuals are exposed to tasks that are not excessively difficult, and as a result, they gain experience rather than knowledge. Through the experiences that will be provided to teacher candidates, this situation can affect their pedagogical beliefs and attitudes toward classroom practices. This study investigated the impact of experiencing learner-centered processes in OSL environments on teacher candidates’ pedagogical beliefs and classroom practices attitudes. According to the findings, while teaching in OSL environments led to a change in the pedagogical beliefs of teacher candidates, it did not result in a significant shift in their attitudes toward classroom practices. In the context of research conducted on teacher candidates, it is beneficial to explore the mediating elements that may influence the relation between belief and practice. This approach may contribute to a more thorough understanding of the subject matter.

Keywords

metaphor in-class implementations out-of-school learning pedagogical beliefs teacher education classroom practice

Introduction

Out-of-school learning (OSL) experiences affect both cognitive and affective areas in individuals (Berman, 2020). Research on the benefits of OSL environments (Ballantyne et al., 2021; Schmäing & Grotjohann, 2022) has drawn attention to the fact that a significant portion of the individual’s time is spent outside school (Mavropoulou et al., 2019). Accordingly, it was stated that the science-society relationship, which could not be gained in classroom-based science learning environments, was more accessible in non-school settings (Dale et al., 2020). According to Gramatakos and Lavau (2019), activities carried out in OSL environments help each individual acquire knowledge at their own pace and encourage learning. OSL environments also make significant contributions to the acquisition of affective characteristics such as motivation, interest, curiosity, enthusiasm, and willingness to learn, which are sometimes overlooked in schools (Rennie, 2021). According to Aurélio et al. (2022), these environments provide a contrast to the repetitive nature of the typical classroom setting. As noted by Fűz (2018), they also provide experiential learning possibilities via direct physical engagement. However, this process should be well managed by teachers in order for students to associate their experiences with the targeted achievements and to establish conceptual connections for learning.

Domenici (2022) argued that teacher training programs should cooperate more with OSL environments in order to provide a strong and authentic learning environments. Similarly, Bravo et al. (2022) emphasized the need for teacher candidates to gain long-term practical experience in OSL settings. In OSL environments, individuals are faced with tasks that are not overly challenging, and this provides experience rather than knowledge (Nachtigall & Rummel, 2021). Through the experiences that will be provided to teacher candidates, this situation can affect their pedagogical beliefs and classroom practices. In fact, in Cheng and Tsai’s (2019) study, it was seen that OSL environment experiences contributed to raising awareness of OSL-based teaching. However, the relevant literature has drawn attention to the contrast between raising awareness and believing in the usefulness of the OSL environment and classroom practices (Kervinen, 2020; Shaby et al., 2019; Shume & Blatt, 2019). This indicates that belief systems and classroom practices should be considered together rather than independently. Thus, the relationship between belief and practice can be revealed in reality. Therefore, this study deals with the pedagogical belief systems and attitudes toward classroom practices of teacher candidates who have experience in OSL environments.

Background

Pedagogical Beliefs

Pajares (1992) argued that beliefs are superior to knowledge in problem-solving and knowledge organization. As a result of the classroom’s complex and multidimensional structure, information alone is insufficient to make sense of situations (Li & Huang, 2023). In this case, beliefs were acknowledged as significant indicators for explaining classroom behavior (Ansari et al., 2020; Villarreal Ballesteros et al., 2020). These related indicators actually contain implicit assumptions about the processes taking place (Lawson et al., 2019) and generally serve to reveal unconscious ideas (Rokeach, 1968). Teachers’ perspectives on learning and instruction shape their pedagogical beliefs (Dignath et al., 2022), and pedagogical beliefs serve as decision-making guides (Pajares, 1992). In addition, the belief systems of teacher candidates form the basis of their teaching intentions (K. Liu & Ball, 2019). Consequently, by revealing teaching intentions, the change obtained from reform-based processes will also be examined (Anders & Evans, 2019). For this reason, determining the pedagogical belief systems of teacher candidates were considered valuable in terms of examining their initial ideas (Dignath et al., 2022).

At this point, it was stated that the pedagogical beliefs of teacher candidates were based on previous instructional experiences (Kinchin, 2019), and it was emphasized that these beliefs were resistant to change (Ansari et al., 2020; Torsney et al., 2019; Ulusoy, 2022). This trend raised the question of whether teacher candidates’ pedagogical belief systems could actually be altered (Shirrell et al., 2019). The relevant literature mentions that belief change can only occur under certain conditions. Accordingly, it is necessary for the teacher candidates to experience learner-centered processes (Boz & Cetin-Dindar, 2023) to be included in a program with clear performance and practical processes (S. Liu & Phelps, 2020), and to carry out collaborative work with other teacher candidates in an environment based on field experiences (Bruggeman et al., 2021; Starkey, 2020). In this context, the current study has sought to provide these principles for belief change. Predictions regarding the classroom practices of the candidates were revealed with their metaphorical reasoning.

Belief Systems

According to Phillips et al. (2021), each teacher education program should be evaluated based on the fundamental practices. Baildon and Ong (2022) have emphasized the need for a comprehensive examination of the beliefs of teacher candidates, educators, and instructors. Accordingly, Izadinia (2013) has addressed the professional identities and beliefs of teacher candidates. Lumpe et al. (2000) have argued that for sustainable change and classroom success, redesigned teaching programs should be tailored to teachers’ beliefs. In this context, Alkış Küçükaydın & Uluçınar Sağır (2018) have revealed studies that examine the beliefs of teacher candidates. All of these studies have been conducted within the frameworks of “teacher-centered” (focusing on teaching) and “student-centered” (learner-centered) systems, or “student-teacher-centered systems” (Markic et al., 2008) that consider both the student and the teacher. Consequently, belief systems have been discussed predominantly through a teacher-centered and student-centered lens.

A teacher-centered belief system is characterized by a system in which the teacher imparts nearly all of the knowledge to the student, rote learning is emphasized, student input in instruction is minimal, students’ questions receive minimal attention, and student interaction is minimal (Al-Balushi et al., 2020). In a student-centered belief system, the intensity of the students’ investigation into the lesson’s content stands out. The teacher’s role is to direct students’ research and discussions (Luft et al., 2022). In the classroom, the teacher assists students in developing their own comprehension and knowledge (Benabentos et al., 2021). Furthermore, the teacher considers the students’ interests, prerequisites, and previous knowledge (Alkış Küçükaydın & Uluçınar Sağır 2018). Therefore, a student-centered understanding of belief systems is anticipated to develop.

Beliefs and Practices

Teachers’ pedagogical belief systems largely determine their classroom practices (Cansiz & Cansiz, 2019; Vosniadou, 2020; Wang, 2019). Hence, the significance lies in the alignment between their ideas on the selection of subjects and the level of detail to be covered, and the subsequent implementation of these values in instructional strategies (Kim & Han, 2021; Pajares, 1992; Starkey, 2020). This finding demonstrates that human beliefs are manifested in their behaviors as well (Heaton & Quan, 2023). Nevertheless, the correlation between belief and practice remains ambiguous. The related literature has examined the correlation between belief and practice via the lens of the consistency and inconsistency thesis (Starkey, 2020). The consistency thesis posits that the teacher’s behavior in the classroom is contingent upon their underlying beliefs. According to Sengul et al. (2020), the inconsistency thesis posits that teachers often deviate from their educational ideas, notwithstanding their initial endorsement of these beliefs. In other words, the teacher may have a student-centered belief system but may display a teacher-centered teaching approach in the classroom. In this case, a belief-practice mismatch arises. According to Vosniadou, Lawson et al. (2020), the most important reason for this situation is the “instructional context.”

However, the fact that the teacher practices contrary to this belief does not indicate that this is teacher-centered; rather, it indicates that instructional barriers have necessitated a change in teaching strategy (Soysal & Radmard, 2017). For this reason, it is important to provide concrete and realistic information in order to reach solid findings in faith-practice studies.

According to Simsek (2020), the use of metaphor has been proposed as a potent instrument for predicting the classroom practices of teacher candidates. In the relevant literature, it is seen that the use of metaphors is frequently used to reveal the beliefs and attitudes toward classroom practices (Avidov-Ungar et al., 2022; Gomez, 2021; Mellado et al., 2021). This research employed metaphors to conceptualize teacher candidates’ conceptions of their own teaching.

The Relationship Between OSL, Pedagogical Belief Systems, and Classroom Practices

Numerous studies on OSL have demonstrated that innovative practices have a substantial effect on beliefs (Bruggeman et al., 2021; Shirrell et al., 2019; Starkey, 2020). It has been determined that the relationship between OSL practices and teacher beliefs merits investigation (Karnezou et al., 2021). This circumstance has also prompted an examination of classroom practices and shifts in belief systems. Vosniadou (2020) has noted that, in addition to comprehending the impact of out-of-school practices on beliefs, it is necessary to emphasize their efficacy in practice. In this regard, investigating how teacher candidates’ pedagogical beliefs are structured after OSL visits and their impact on classroom practices for professional development can aid in the design of effective methods for teacher education. Prior research on OSL has revealed a great deal about the cognitive and affective advantages of students (Kervinen, 2020; Nachtigall & Rummel, 2021). However, we know little about the beliefs and classroom practices of teacher candidates.

Nonetheless, the OSL literature indicates that the teacher’s function and belief structure are crucial for OSL’s contribution to the development of children (Aurélio et al., 2022). The belief that these practices are student-centered and the direction of these practices with this belief in the sociocultural context are factors that increase the efficacy of OSL (Fűz, 2018).

OSL-based instruction is primarily student-centered (Dunbar & Yadav, 2022). It is anticipated that the adoption of student-centered approaches will have multiple effects on teachers (Vosniadou, 2020). In this context, the study employed the Interconnected Model of Professional Growth (IMPG) (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002) to explain the outcomes of teacher candidates. This model is predicated on the notion that when teachers observe development in student outcomes, their beliefs and practices change significantly (Guskey, 2002). As a result, it is anticipated that the four components of the IMPG (personal, external, consequence, and practice) will alter for teacher candidates as a result of OSL-based instruction. The personal domain addresses instructors’ beliefs. The external domain focuses on external sources of knowledge and support. The consequence domain emphasizes the outcomes of success or the teacher’s interest. The practice domain consists of practicing educators (Dunbar & Yadav, 2022). In summary, the IMPG model can assist in identifying changes in the beliefs and practices of teacher candidates who are exposed to a student-centered approach such as OSL. On the basis of the IMPG, the study sought to elucidate the relationship between OSL and belief systems and practices.

Present Study

OSL experiences offer many opportunities to individuals in general and are effective not only for academic success but also for effective skills (Delaney & Moroney, 2018; Richmond et al., 2018). However, teacher candidates’ experiences were taken into account in the OSL literature (Henriksson, 2018; Oberle et al., 2021; Richmond et al., 2018; Shaby et al., 2019) and the barriers they perceived in front of OSL were mentioned (Barrable et al., 2022; Shume & Blatt, 2019). A limited number of studies have focused on the effect of OSL experiences on beliefs and attitudes (Maurer & Curtner-Smith, 2019). However, there can be differentiation in pedagogical beliefs and classroom practices through experiencing OSL environments. Teachers and teacher candidates who hold the belief that OSL helps to the learning process will be inclined to provide their pupils with similar experiential opportunities (Ratinen et al., 2023). As far as we know, there is no study that addresses teacher candidates’ attitudes toward classroom practices and pedagogical belief systems related to OSL experiences. The objective of this study is to address the beliefs and attitudes of the teacher candidates who had OSL experience and also to discuss this experience from an educational perspective. An attempt was accordingly made to seek an answer to the research question:

- Does experience with learner-centered processes in OSL environments have a significant impact on teacher candidates’ pedagogical beliefs and attitudes regarding classroom practices?

Method

In this study, an experimental design was used to evaluate the effect of experience gained in OSL environments on teacher candidates’ pedagogical belief systems and attitudes toward classroom practices. In this context, the findings obtained from teacher candidates who had experience in OSL environments for 14 weeks were compared with the control group.

Participants

The participants of the study were teacher candidates studying at the education faculty of a large university located in the Central Anatolia Region of Turkey. The average age of candidates was 20 (SD = 0.89). There were 26 female and 17 male candidates (n = 43) in the experimental group, and 20 female and 10 male candidates (n = 30) in the control group. All of the candidates attended the “OSL Environments” course, which is an elective course held for one 2-hr session a week. Candidates participating in the course were divided into groups. One of the groups was randomly assigned as the experimental group and the other as the control group. The average age of participants in the experimental group is 21 (SD = 0.73), while those in the control group are 19 (SD = 0.85). Participants in both the experimental and control groups are in their second year of undergraduate study. Due to the elective nature of the OSL Environments Course, participants from various departments were included in the study.

The experimental group included 12 candidates from the Elementary Mathematics Teaching program (8 female, 4 male), 15 candidates from the Guidance and Psychological Counseling program (9 female, 6 male), and 16 candidates from the Turkish Language Teaching program (9 female, 7 male). The control group consisted of 9 candidates from the Elementary Mathematics Teaching program (6 females and 3 males), 11 candidates from the Guidance and Psychological Counseling program (7 females and 4 males), and 10 students from the Turkish Language Teaching program (7 females and 3 males). Therefore, comparable quantities of participants from each program enrolled in the course. Both experimental and control group students had never taken the course before. None of the students in either group enrolled in the course to repeat it. In both groups, the course was taught by the same instructor.

Procedure

After the necessary ethical permissions were obtained, the study started with the inclusion of teacher candidates who attended the OSL environments course. In this context, the teacher candidates in the control group and experimental group were divided into groups within themselves and were asked to choose one of the OSL environments determined at the beginning of the semester. The teacher candidates who decided on the relevant OSL environment were asked to personally go to that location and make some preparations. The control group students went to the OSL environment at this stage and did this work only within the scope of a trip. On the other hand, the candidates in the experimental group (a) made pre-event preparation before going to the OSL environment. In this preparation, they were expected to make a plan regarding the determination of time and flow, cost calculation, preparation of permit documents, supply of auxiliary personnel, determination of materials to be used, and rules to be followed. In all this planning, they were asked to think about the needs of their future classrooms and imagine that they would take their students to the relevant OSL environment as part of their course. Thus, it was stated that they should make preparations to fulfill all the requirements that must be fulfilled on a real trip.

In the next stage (b), the content-method-media relationship was decided by taking into account the course outcomes. It was requested to clarify how the event would be implemented, and in this context, the candidates were sent to the relevant OSL environment. They were asked to examine the effectiveness of the environment in conveying the achievements and to prepare the worksheets to be presented to the children during the trip. In these worksheets, it was emphasized that the OSL environment should be associated with course achievements. Candidates prepared the post-event evaluation tools at the last stage (c). In this context, the candidates designed authentic assessment tools (concept map, mind map, text analysis, puzzle, newspaper preparation, photo exhibition, and letter writing exercises) to determine the effectiveness of the OSL environment. Briefly, both groups experienced the OSL environment, but the experimental group students transferred this experience to paper in a more prepared way. In both groups, pre-tests were made, the instructor informed, the OSL environment was visited and the post-tests were applied. The only difference in practice was that the experimental group thought of it not as an ordinary trip but as an educational trip and prepared plans for it. Both groups experienced the OSL environment. However, the candidates in the experimental group took this trip in terms of the contributions it would offer to their future students and made educational preparations for it.

In short, it tried to reveal the contribution of the OSL environment in terms of pedagogical beliefs and attitudes toward classroom practices for the candidates in the experimental group. To do this, this group prepared activities and lesson plans. Thus, the reflection of this situation on their pedagogical beliefs and attitudes toward classroom practices was tried to be measured. The flow of the process is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Application Process in Experimental and Control Groups.

Week	Subject	Experimental group	Control group
1–2	Pre-test	-	-
3	Museums	(a) Made pre-event preparation before going to the OSL environment.(b) The content-method-media relationship was decided by taking into account the course outcomes.(c) The post-event evaluation tools.	(a) No prior preparation was made regarding the OSL environment.(b) After the OSL trip, the trip was discussed. However, no planning was made regarding student outcomes.(c) The only reason for the visits was to travel.
4	Science Center
5	Planetariums
6	Zoos
7	Aquariums
8	National Parks
9	Botanical Gardens
10	Science Camp
11	Health Organizations
12	Industrial Institutions and Organizations
13	Sports Center
14	Art Galleries, Workshops and Craft Workshops Post-test

After OSL visits, experiences were shared in the classroom environment. Both groups shared their experiences in this process. In addition, candidates in the experimental group discussed the strengths and weaknesses of their work as they brought attention to the successful and unsuccessful aspects of the plans they prepared for their activities and the OSL environment they chose. They then discussed what better preparation for implementation might look like and whether all auxiliary resources were ready. Candidates were also informed about the OSL environments of other groups and the effectiveness of each environment was opened to discussion.

The university where the study was conducted is located in a fairly large city, so teacher candidates were able to access all OSL environments within the scope of the study within city limits. The furthest OSL environment was 4 hrs from campus. Support was received from the university administration for the transportation of teacher candidates. The OSL environments visited during 14 weeks are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

OSL Environments.

Week	OSL environments	Place
Week 1–2	Getting acquainted, introducing the course content, application procedures, deciding on the OSL environment	Classroom Environment
Week 3	Museums	Eregli Museum
Week 4	Science Center	Konya Science Center
Week 5	Planetariums	Konya Science Center Planetarium Building
Week 6	Zoos	Karatay Municipality Zoo
Week 7	Aquariums	Konya Aquarium
Week 8	National Parks	Beysehir Lake National Park
Week 9	Botanical Gardens	Tropical Butterfly Garden
Week 10	Science Camp	İvriz Nature Area
Week 11	Health Organizations	Eregli State Hospital
Week 12	Industrial Institutions and Organizations	Organized Industry
Week 13	Sports Center	Sports and Gymnasium in Eregli
Week 14	Art Galleries, Workshops and Craft Workshops	Family Art Center in Eregli

Data Collection Tools

In order to scale the pedagogical beliefs and in-class practices of teacher candidates, two measurement tools were implemented.

Pedagogical Belief Systems Scale (PBSS)

The scale was developed by Chan et al. (2007) and adapted into the Turkish context by Soysal et al. (2018). At the end of the adaptation studies, it was seen that the scale had a structure of 26 items and two factors. The lowest score that can be obtained from the five-point-Likert type (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5) scale is 26 and the highest score is 130. Higher total scores obtained from the scale indicate that the participant has a more student-centered belief system tendency, while low scores show that the pedagogical belief system tendencies are more teacher-centered. In addition, the classification range of “26 to 51 = fully teacher-centered,”“52 to 77 = teacher-centered,”“76 to 103 = student-centered,” and “104 to 130 points = fully student-centered” was determined. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale is .77. The calculated value for this study is 0.86. This is seen as a very good value for the scale (Hoekstra et al., 2019).

Metaphors

In the study, metaphorical reasoning was used to determine how teacher candidates’ pedagogical beliefs predict classroom practices. In this context, a list of 12 metaphors for learning-teaching was presented to the candidates. This list was previously developed by Saban (2003). Six metaphors in the list represented teacher-centered belief, while the other six metaphors represented student-centered belief. Metaphors are presented to candidates in three patterns (e.g., racehorse–hippodrome–jockey). The first item in the pattern represents the student, the second item represents the school, and the third item represents the teacher. In the study, the candidates were presented with this list and asked to choose a pattern and then write their reasons. Their choice was then evaluated to determine whether or not it matched their declared belief. This process was carried out both pre-test and post-test.

Analysis

In this study, in which experimental design was used, a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used in the analysis of the scale data, as long as it was determined to have met the necessary assumptions (Aberson, 2019). In this context, the pre-tests of the candidates were used as a covariate. Thus, the difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental and control groups was uncovered. It was observed that the groups showed normal distribution; there was a linear relationship between the pre-test and post-test scores (r = .25), and the homogeneity of the variances was achieved (F = 1.729; p > .05). In addition, the difference between the slopes of the regression lines between the groups was examined with the “Group × Pre-Test” joint effect test and it was concluded that the difference was not statistically significant (F = 1.195; p > .05). According to these results, the difference between the post-test scores of the groups could be examined with ANCOVA.

The change in classroom practices was evaluated by examining the frequency of the metaphors preferred by both groups in the pre-test and post-test. Metaphoric perception changes of the groups over time were analyzed with the McNemar test.

Findings

Changes in the Pedagogical Belief System

In this section, statistical analyses carried out to compare the effectiveness of OSL-based teaching offered to the teacher candidates on their pedagogical belief systems are included. Firstly, the change in the pre-test and post-test scores of the students in the experimental and control groups was discussed (Table 3). According to the analysis, the pre-test scores of the control group (M/k = 3.45, SD = 0.59) and the pre-test scores of the experimental group were quite similar (M/k = 3.34, SD = 0.45). The scores that the groups received from the PBSS scale are M = 86.84 for the experimental group and M = 89.7 for the control group. These scores indicate that teacher candidates initially believed in “student-centered” teaching. Based on this, it is possible to say that the initial pedagogical belief systems of the experimental and control groups were at similar levels.

Table 3.

Pre-test and Post-test Scores for Each Groups.

	Groups	M/k *	M	SD	P
Pre-test	Experimental	3.34	86.84	0.45	.59
Pre-test	Control	3.45	89.70	0.59
Post-test	Experimental	4.01	104.26	0.34	.00**
Post-test	Control	3.58	93.08	0.44

Note.*k=items of number, **p < .05.

After the analysis of the pre-test scores of the groups, the analysis of the post-test scores was conducted. The results of the post-test evaluations show that the average scores of the experimental and control groups are different (M/k = 4.01, SD = 0.34; M/k = 3.58, SD = 0.44). Accordingly, the experimental group scored an average of M = 104.26 on the PBSS scale and the control group scored an average of M = 93.08. This indicates a change in the scores of both groups. Whether the change is statistically significant with respect to the applied activity was tested using ANCOVA for statistical control of differences. The ANCOVA results are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4.

ANCOVA Results for PBSS.

Source	SS	df	MS	F	p	Partial η²
Pre-test	0.070	1	0.070	0.319	.57	0.005
Group	0.210	1	0.210	0.690	.00*	0.014
Error	15.069	69	0.218
Total	908.917	73

Note.*p < .05.

According to the ANCOVA result, there is a significant difference between the post-test scores corrected according to the PBSS pre-test scores (F = 0.690, p < .05). The effect size value for the difference (partial η² = .014) shows a low effect. However, it was seen that the difference was in favor of the experimental group, and according to the score obtained in the post-test (M/k = 4.01), it was concluded that the experimental group adopted the “fully student-centered” belief. Therefore, it can be said that both groups had a “student-centered” belief structure initially, but after the application, the experimental group experienced a change toward a “fully student-centered” belief structure.

Changes in Attitudes Toward Classroom Practices

In the second part of the study, the attitudes toward classroom practices of teacher candidates were uncovered through metaphorical reasoning. For this purpose, the metaphors that students in the experimental and control groups preferred in the pre-test and post-test were revealed. Before the intervention, both groups were provided with a selection of 12 metaphors reflecting learning-teaching metaphors. The candidates were instructed to select one metaphor from the list and provide an explanation for their selection. Half of the metaphors reflect an approach centered on the teacher, while the other half reflects an approach centered on the student. For the pre-test and post-test, the number of metaphors chosen by each group was calculated separately. Student-centered metaphors were coded as 1 and teacher-centered metaphors as 0. The number of metaphors was analyzed descriptively in this manner.

It was observed that the number of metaphors reflecting the teacher-centered belief in the experimental group preferred in the pre-test (f = 13) decreased in the post-test (f = 6). However, the opposite tendency was observed in the control group. The number of metaphors reflecting teacher-centered belief in the pre-test in the control group (f = 12) increased in the post-test (f = 14). This situation is also reflected in the preferred metaphors related to the student-centered belief system. It was observed that the number of metaphors that were preferred in the experimental group in the pre-test and reflect the student-centered approach (f = 30) increased (f = 37) in the post-test. In the control group, it was determined that the number of metaphors reflecting the student-centered belief in the pre-test (f = 18) decreased in the post-test (f = 16) (Table 5).

Table 5.

Distribution of Metaphors in Pre-test and Post-test.

Metaphors	Experimental group				Control group
	Pre-test		Post-test		Pre-test		Post-test
	f	%	f	%	f	%	F	%
Teacher-centered metaphors
passenger–bus–driver	3	23.07	1	16.6	2	16.6	3	21.42
race horse–hippodrome–jockey	3	23.07	4	66.6	0	0.00	3	21.42
raw material–factory–technician	6	46.15	1	16.6	7	58.33	8	57.14
patient–hospital–doctor	0	0.00	0	0.00	3	25.0	0	0.00
soldier–army–commander	1	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
criminal–prison–guard	0	7.69	0	0	0	0.00	0	0.00
Total	13	100	6	100	12	100	14	100
Student-centered metaphors
tourist–island–tour guide	12	40.0	13	35.13	4	22.22	2	12.50
flower–garden–gardener	12	40.0	17	45.94	8	44.44	8	50.00
child–family–parent	1	3.33	1	2.70	1	5.55	1	6.25
player–team–coach	5	16.66	5	13.51	4	22.22	3	18.75
audience–stage–comedian	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	00.00
customer–restaurant–chef	0	0.00	1	2.70	1	5.55	2	12.50
Total	30	100	37	100	18	100	16	100

The pre-and post-test paradigm shifts of the groups were then statistically analyzed. The McNemar test was administered using a 2 × 2 table. McNemar test results performed separately for the experimental and control groups showed that there was no significant change in the metaphorical perceptions of the experimental group and the control group (p > .05). This indicates that the teaching offered to the teacher candidates is not statistically significant in attitudes toward classroom practices.

Discussion

In this study, the effect of teaching based on OSL environments offered to teacher candidates on their pedagogical belief systems and attitudes toward classroom practical applications was examined. Firstly, the change in the pedagogical belief systems of the candidates was discussed. The analyses have shown that the candidates who have experienced a real OSL environment and who plan to work on associating this environment with course achievements in their teaching experience a change from the “student-centered” belief structure to the “full student-centered belief” structure. Khalid et al. (2020) associated the source of teacher candidates’ pedagogical beliefs with the education they received during their university education, their field experiences, their own student experiences, and the past experiences of their families. Similarly, Yang et al. (2020) associated beliefs with learning experiences, teacher education, field experiences, social expectations, and family values. In this study, beliefs were not correlated with other variables. However, the change in belief in the experimental group seems to be more related to OSL experiences because the candidates were able to gain personal experience with OSL environments and transfer this experience to their plans. Therefore, this situation seems to have led to a change in the beliefs of the candidates.

While teaching based on OSL environments led to a change in the pedagogical belief systems of teacher candidates, no difference was observed in their attitudes toward classroom practices. There is no unity in the literature on the relationship between belief and attitudes toward practices. For example, in Anders and Evans’s (2019) study, it was stated that teacher beliefs affect attitudes toward classroom practices, while Farjon et al. (2019) concluded that teacher beliefs and real classroom practices are not consistent. The incompatibility between belief and practice has drawn different conclusions in the literature. In Khochen-Bagshaw’s (2020) study, it was stated that the socioeconomic status of the school where the teachers work, the class size, or the level of the classroom where they teach affect classroom practices. In the study of Maeng et al. (2020), it was stated that the pressure on teachers triggers the incompatibility between belief and practice. The role these external sources play in the inconsistency between the beliefs and practices is briefly expressed as the instructional context in the literature (Anders & Evans, 2019; Cheung & Hennebry-Leung, 2023; Lam, 2019).

However, Anes Boubris and Haddam’s (2020) study examining the beliefs and practices of a teacher who is still at the beginning of this teaching concluded that in time practices also become compatible with belief. Having a strong pedagogical belief structure, a teacher is able to overcome the educational difficulties and start teaching in parallel with his or her belief. In the study of Hwang et al. (2022), it was stated that good content knowledge, solid practice, and personal interest increase the harmony between belief and practice. Therefore, these stated instructional barriers should not be considered justifications for classroom practices, but included in the discussion on whether they are really sufficient to explain the reason for incompatibility (Lam, 2019). In the current study, the fact that the beliefs of the teacher candidates who have not yet encountered instructional barriers are not reflected in practice shows that the situation is not only related to the barrier. On the contrary, all support was provided for the candidates to go to the OSL environments of their choice, and facilitating factors came into play in planning both with the support of the instructor and with group work. Therefore, there are different factors in the attitudes toward the practices of the candidates.

The fact that teacher candidates are not yet in a real classroom environment can be considered a disadvantage in terms of reflecting their practices. Because the literature shows that teachers with more experience reflect beliefs and practices more consistently than teachers with less experience (Feryok, 2020; Qaddumi et al., 2021). Therefore, the belief changes of the candidates may not have been reflected in their practices yet. Cheung and Hennebry-Leung (2023) found that there are serious differences between the stated beliefs and practices in their study with new teachers. Therefore, candidates may need more time for this. In order to better understand this phenomenon, conducting belief and practice determination studies at certain time intervals could provide some insight. Or, in-depth information can be collected through methodological variations in the relevant literature (e.g., reflective diary, observation, etc.). However, there may be mediating factors between the incompatibility between the candidates’ pedagogical belief systems and their attitudes toward practices. Sengul et al. (2020) stated that epistemological beliefs are closely related to pedagogical beliefs. The epistemological knowledge of the candidate may have had an impact on their belief in teaching.

This situation indicates that there are other factors other than contextual factors that can be effective between belief and attitudes toward practice. Therefore, the fact that the belief systems of the candidates are not reflected in their practices does not seem to be explained by the reasons obtained only from the studies conducted with the teachers. Within the scope of this study, the candidates may not have really adopted the OSL learning environment-based teaching and may have seen it as a troublesome approach due to the difficulties they experienced during the planning stage. Determination of this is possible with studies to be carried out with teacher candidates. In terms of beliefs and practices, the findings can be associated with the IMPG. However, we would like to emphasize that additional research is required to examine other model variables.

Limitations and Future Research

This experimental research, like many others, inevitably has some limitations. First of all, this study was carried out with a sample of teacher candidates from a single university. In addition, these candidates preferred the “OSL environments course” as an elective course. In the PBSS scale applied to the candidates in the pre-test, it was observed that the candidates in both the experimental and control groups had a “student-centered” belief system. In other words, the candidates who chose this course initially had a certain student-centered belief structure. Had this study been carried out as part of a compulsory course, the results from the post-tests might have been different. Therefore, in order to gain a wider perspective, studies can be conducted with teacher candidates with different backgrounds. This may enable candidates to negotiate their beliefs in different educational settings. Different results can be obtained from studies to be conducted with participants from different grade levels and different universities. This situation may be related to the support of the institution where teacher candidates receive education and the potential of teacher trainers.

In addition, more than one tool can be used to examine the practices of the candidates. This situation provides methodological diversity and can lead to more detailed information on how much the practices change. Especially in the examination of practical applications, a different examination other than metaphors may be preferred. The performance of the students in their final year internship and other practical courses may provide useful data in this regard.

Unlike faith-practice studies conducted with teachers, studies conducted with teacher candidates have different contexts. Because teacher candidates have not yet encountered the instructional barriers specified for teachers (e.g., crowded classrooms, unsupported by the school administration, etc.). For this reason, it is necessary to examine the mediating factors that may have an effect on the incompatibility between belief and attitudes toward practice. In this context, the mediating effect of attitudes and epistemological beliefs toward the use of OSL environments can be examined. The relationship between the beliefs and practices of the candidates can be established with the models in which the effects of different components will be tested.

Conclusion

In this study, the reflection of teacher candidates’ experiences in OSL environments on their pedagogical belief systems and attitudes toward practices are discussed. Therefore, the study brought a different perspective to both OSL environment studies and belief studies. One reason may be that this study tried to reveal the effect of adopting OSL-based teaching as an approach rather than the effectiveness of a single OSL environment. The results obtained showed that teaching based on OSL environments contributed to the student-centered teaching approach. However, the reflection of this understanding in practice is not easy. It is necessary to examine the mediating factors that may have an effect on this situation. The results obtained contribute to both the OSL literature and the belief-practice literature.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ersin Çopur

Metin Altunkaynak

Hakan Ulum

Ömer Gökhan Ulum

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

Aberson

C. L.

(2019). Applied power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

Al-Balushi

S. M.

Ambusaidi

A. K.

Al-Balushi

K. A.

Al-Hajri

F. H.

Al-Sinani

M. S.

(2020). Student-centred and teacher-centred science classrooms as visualized by science teachers and their supervisors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89, 1–11.

Alkış Küçükaydın

Uluçınar Sağır

. (2018). Mental images and method-technique approaches of teacher candidates of preschool teaching towards science educationı. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(4), 953–966.

Anders

P. L.

Evans

K. S.

(2019). Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional practice in reading. In Garner

Alexander

P. A.

(Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 137–153). Routledge.

Anes Boubris

Haddam

(2020). Reading assessment: A case study of teachers' beliefs and classroom evaluative practices. Arab World English Journal, 11(4), 236–253.

Ansari

Hofkens

T. L.

Pianta

R. C.

(2020). Teacher-student relationships across the first seven years of education and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 71, 1–10.

Aurélio

Sequeira

França

Amoroso

Boaventura

Cardoso

Amorim

Cabral

H. N.

(2022). Bridging the gap between formal and non-formal science education: Traditional fish markets as a tool to promote ocean literacy. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 21(3), 238–253.

Avidov-Ungar

Shamir-Inbal

Blau

(2022). Typology of digital leadership roles tasked with integrating new technologies into teaching: Insights from metaphor analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 92–107.

Baildon

M. C.

Ong

M. W. L.

(2022). Singapore teachers’ perceptions of research in practice: Contexts, constraints, and possibilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 119, 1–10.

10.

Ballantyne

Hughes

Lee

Packer

Sneddon

(2021). Facilitating zoo/aquarium visitors' adoption of environmentally sustainable behaviour: Developing a values-based interpretation matrix. Tourism Management, 84, 1–10.

11.

Barrable

Touloumakos

Lapere

(2022). Exploring student teachers’ motivations and sources of confidence: The case of outdoor learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 45(3), 356–372.

12.

Benabentos

Hazari

Stanford

J. S.

Potvin

Marsteller

Thompson

K. V.

Cassone

V. M.

Murasko

Kramer

(2021). Measuring the implementation of student-centered teaching strategies in lower- and upper-division STEM courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 69(4), 342–356.

13.

Berman

(2020). A critical examination of informal learning spaces. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(1), 127–140.

14.

Boz

Cetin-Dindar

(2023). Teaching concerns, self-efficacy beliefs and constructivist learning environment of pre-service science teachers: A modelling study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 274–292.

15.

Bravo

Costillo

Bravo

J. L.

Mellado

Conde

M. D. C.

(2022). Analysis of prospective early childhood education teachers' proposals of nature field trips: An educational experience to bring nature close during this stage. Science & Education, 106(1), 172–198.

16.

Bruggeman

Tondeur

Struyven

Pynoo

Garone

Vanslambrouck

(2021). Experts speaking: Crucial teacher attributes for implementing blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 48, 1–11.

17.

Cansiz

(2019). How do sources of self-efficacy predict preservice teachers’ beliefs related to constructivist and traditional approaches to teaching and learning? Sage Open, 9(4), 1–10.

18.

Chan

Tan

Khoo

(2007). Pre-service teachers' conceptions about teaching and learning: A closer look at Singapore cultural context. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 181–195.

19.

Cheng

K. H.

Tsai

C. C.

(2019). A case study of immersive virtual field trips in an elementary classroom: Students’ learning experience and teacher-student interaction behaviors. Computers & Education, 140, 1–11.

20.

Cheung

Hennebry-Leung

(2023). Exploring an ESL teachers’ beliefs and practices of teaching literary texts: A case study in Hong Kong. Language Teaching Research, 27(1), 181–206.

21.

Clarke

Hollingsworth

(2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.

22.

Dale

R. G.

Powell

R. B.

Stern

M. J.

Garst

B. A.

(2020). Influence of the natural setting on environmental education outcomes. Environmental Education Research, 26(5), 613–631.

23.

Delaney

Moroney

D. A.

(2018). Social and emotional learning in out-of-school time: Foundations and futures. Information Age Publishing.

24.

Dignath

Rimm-Kaufman

van Ewijk

Kunter

(2022). Teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education and insights on what contributes to those beliefs: A meta-analytical study. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 2609–2660.

25.

Domenici

(2022). STEAM project-based learning activities at the science museum as an effective training for future chemistry teachers. Education Sciences, 12(1), 30–62.

26.

Dunbar

Yadav

(2022). Shifting to student-centered learning: Influences of teaching a summer service learning program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 110, 1–10.

27.

Farjon

Smits

Voogt

(2019). Technology integration of pre-service teachers explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience. Computers & Education, 130, 81–93.

28.

Feryok

(2020). Perezhivanie and experiencing in language teacher development. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 25–43.

29.

Fűz

(2018). Out-of-school learning in Hungarian primary education: Practice and barriers. Journal of Experiential Education, 41(3), 277–294.

30.

Gomez

C. N.

(2021). The use of metaphor to explore prospective mathematics teachers’ projective identity. School Science and Mathematics, 121(3), 143–153.

31.

Gramatakos

A. L.

Lavau

(2019). Informal learning for sustainability in higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(2), 378–392.

32.

Guskey

T. R.

(2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391.

33.

Heaton

Quan

S. C. L.

(2023). Managing cognitive dissonance in art teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 53, 473–494.

34.

Henriksson

A. C.

(2018). Primary school teachers' perceptions of out of school learning within science education. International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 6(2), 9–26.

35.

Hoekstra

Vugteveen

Warrens

M. J.

Kruyen

P. M.

(2019). An empirical analysis of alleged misunderstandings of coefficient alpha. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(4), 351–364.

36.

Hwang

Cabell

S. Q.

Joyner

R. E.

(2022). Effects of integrated literacy and content-area instruction on vocabulary and comprehension in the elementary years: A meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26(3), 223–249.

37.

Izadinia

(2013). A review of research on student teachers' professional identity. British Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 694–713.

38.

Karnezou

Pnevmatikos

Avgitidou

Kariotoglou

(2021). The structure of teachers’ beliefs when they plan to visit a museum with their class. Teaching and Teacher Education, 99, 1–11.

39.

Kervinen

(2020). Out of earshot and out of sight of the science teacher: An investigation of learning opportunities in outdoor settings [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Helsinki.

40.

Khalid

Iqbal

Hashmi

(2020). Content and sources of prospective teachers’ personal practical theories (PPTS) at university of Punjab. Journal of Elementary Education, 29(2), 139–150.

41.

Khochen-Bagshaw

(2020). Inclusive education development and challenges: Insights into the Middle East and North Africa region. Prospects, 49(3–4), 153–167.

42.

Kim

H. K.

Han

(2021). South Korean and US early childhood teachers’ beliefs and practices supporting children’s social competence. Current Psychology, 40, 4983–4996.

43.

Kinchin

G. D.

(2019). Entering secondary physical education student- teachers’ expectations of their program of initial teacher education. International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports, 8(1), 85–94.

44.

Lam

(2019). Teacher assessment literacy: Surveying knowledge, conceptions and practices of classroom-based writing assessment in Hong Kong. System, 81, 78–89.

45.

Lawson

M. J.

Vosniadou

Van Deur

Wyra

Jeffries

(2019). Teachers’ and students’ belief systems about the self-regulation of learning. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 223–251.

46.

Huang

J. L.

(2023). Exploring preservice teachers’ belief changes during early childhood education teaching practicum in China: A case study. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1–15.

47.

Liu

Ball

A. F.

(2019). Critical reflection and generativity: Toward a framework of transformative teacher education for diverse learners. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 68–105.

48.

Liu

Phelps

(2020). Does teacher learning last? Understanding how much teachers retain their knowledge after professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(5), 537–550.

49.

Luft

J. A.

Navy

S. L.

Wong

S. S.

Hill

K. M.

(2022). The first 5 years of teaching science: The beliefs, knowledge, practices, and opportunities to learn of secondary science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(9), 1692–1725.

50.

Lumpe

A. T.

Haney

J. J.

Czerniak

C. M.

(2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275–292.

51.

Maeng

J. L.

Whitworth

B. A.

Bell

R. L.

Sterling

D. R.

(2020). The effect of professional development on elementary science teachers’ understanding, confidence, and classroom implementation of reform-based science instruction. Science & Education, 104(2), 326–353.

52.

Markic

Eilks

Valanides

(2008). Developing a tool to evaluate differences in beliefs about science teaching and learning among freshman science student teachers from different science teaching domains: A case study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 4(2), 109–120.

53.

Maurer

M. M.

Curtner-Smith

M. D.

(2019). The acculturation of preservice adventure educators: Development of perspectives and beliefs. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 19(3), 216–226.

54.

Mavropoulou

Barkoukis

Douka

Alexandris

Hatzimanouil

(2019). The role of autonomy supportive activities on students’ motivation and beliefs toward out-of-school activities. Journal of Education and Research, 112(2), 223–233.

55.

Mellado

Parte

Sánchez-Herrera

Bermejo

M. L.

(2021). Evolution of prospective secondary education economics teachers’ personal and emotional metaphors. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–11.

56.

Nachtigall

Rummel

(2021). Investigating students’ perceived authenticity of learning activities in an out-of-school lab for social sciences: A replication study. Instructional Science, 49(6), 779–810.

57.

Oberle

Zeni

Munday

Brussoni

(2021). Support factors and barriers for outdoor learning in elementary schools: A systemic perspective. American Journal of Health Education, 52(5), 251–265.

58.

Pajares

M. F.

(1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

59.

Phillips

Siebert-Evenstone

Kessler

Gasevic

Shaffer

D. W.

(2021). Professional decision making: Reframing teachers' work using epistemic frame theory. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1312, 265–276.

60.

Qaddumi

Bartram

Qashmar

A. L.

(2021). Evaluating the impact of ICT on teaching and learning: A study of Palestinian students’ and teachers’ perceptions. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1865–1876.

61.

Ratinen

Sarivaara

Kuukkanen

(2023). Finnish student teachers’ ideas of outdoor learning. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 23, 146–157.

62.

Rennie

L. J.

(2021). Controversy and critical exhibitions: Envisioning a fourth generation of science museums. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 21, 213–218.

63.

Richmond

Sibthorp

Gookin

Annarella

Ferri

(2018). Complementing classroom learning through outdoor adventure education: Out-of-school-time experiences that make a difference. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 18(1), 36–52.

64.

Rokeach

(1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. Jossey-Bass.

65.

Saban

(2003). A Turkish profile of prospective elementary school teachers and their views of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 829–846.

66.

Schmäing

Grotjohann

(2022). Out-of-school learning in the Wadden Sea: The influence of a mudflat hiking tour on the environmental attitudes and environmental knowledge of secondary school students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1), 403.

67.

Sengul

Enderle

P. J.

Schwartz

R. S.

(2020). Science teachers’ use of argumentation instructional model: Linking PCK of argumentation, epistemological beliefs, and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1068–1086.

68.

Shaby

Ben-Zvi Assaraf

Tal

(2019). An examination of the interactions between museum educators and students on a school visit to science museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(2), 211–239.

69.

Shirrell

Hopkins

Spillane

J. P.

(2019). Educational infrastructure, professional learning, and changes in teachers’ instructional practices and beliefs. Professional Development in Education, 45(4), 599–613.

70.

Shume

T. J.

Blatt

(2019). A sociocultural investigation of pre-service teachers’ outdoor experiences and perceived obstacles to outdoor learning. Environmental Education Research, 25(9), 1347–1367.

71.

Simsek

M. R.

(2020). The impact of service-learning on EFL teacher candidates' academic and personal development. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 1–17.

72.

Soysal

Radmard

(2017). An exploration of Turkish teachers’ attributions to barriers faced within learner-centred teaching. Educational Studies, 43(2), 186–209.

73.

Soysal

Radmard

Kutluca

A. Y.

(2018). The practical adaptation, validity and reliability studies of the pedagogical belief systems scale. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 8(3), 626–642.

74.

Starkey

(2020). A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(1), 37–56.

75.

Torsney

B. M.

Lombardi

Ponnock

(2019). The role of values in pre-service teachers’ intentions for professional engagement. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 19–37.

76.

Ulusoy

(2022). A metaphorical journey from pre-service to in-service years: A longitudinal study of the concepts of the student and the teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 115, 1–11.

77.

Villarreal Ballesteros

A. C.

Olave Moreno

Flores Delgado

L. D.

(2020). Teaching is not always easy: Mexican pre-service English teachers’ beliefs on teaching and learning. Journal of Language and Education, 6(3), 36–51.

78.

Vosniadou

(2020). Bridging secondary and higher education. The importance of self-regulated learning. European Review, 28(S1), S94–S103.

79.

Vosniadou

Lawson

M. J.

Wyra

Van Deur

Jeffries

I Gusti Ngurah

(2020). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching and about the self-regulation of learning: A conceptual change perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 1–10.

80.

Wang

(2019). The role of online teacher beliefs in a supplementary English e-learning class in rural China: An ethnographic case study. In Damerow

Bailey

(Eds.), Chinese-speaking learners of English (pp. 135–145). Routledge.

81.

Yang

Kaiser

König

Blömeke

(2020). Relationship between pre-service mathematics teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and instructional practices in China. ZDM, 52, 281–294.

An Investigation of the Effects of Out-of-School Learning Environments-Based Teaching on Pedagogical Belief Systems and Practices

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background

Pedagogical Beliefs

Belief Systems

Beliefs and Practices

The Relationship Between OSL, Pedagogical Belief Systems, and Classroom Practices

Present Study

Method

Participants

Procedure

Data Collection Tools

Pedagogical Belief Systems Scale (PBSS)

Metaphors

Analysis

Findings

Changes in the Pedagogical Belief System

Changes in Attitudes Toward Classroom Practices

Discussion

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Data Availability Statement

References