Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 3 Exploring the Relationship Between Constructivist Learning Environments, Attitudes, Academic Delay of Gratification, and Teaching Efficacy Beliefs in a Social Studies Teaching Course Şahin Dündar Trakya University, Turkey Abstract: This study aimed to investigate relations between perceived constructivist learning environments in a social studies teaching course in consideration of attitudes toward the course, academic delay of gratification, and students’ social studies teaching self-efficacy beliefs. A total of 295 preservice elementary school teachers participated in the study. The data were collected over three academic years during a social studies teaching course in the Faculty of Education at a state university in Turkey. Results showed positive and significant correlations between the variables. The study found that perceived constructivist learning environments in a social studies teaching course positively and significantly predicted the preservice elementary school teachers’ attitudes toward the social studies teaching course, their academic delay of gratification in the course, and their social studies teaching efficacy beliefs. Attitudes toward the social studies teaching course positively and significantly predicted both the academic delay of gratification in the course and social studies teaching efficacy beliefs. However, the direct effect of academic delay of gratification on social studies teaching efficacy beliefs was not significant. Moreover, some indirect effects of perceived constructivist learning environments were found. Key words: social studies teaching course, constructivist learning environments, attitudes, academic delay of gratification, social studies teaching self-efficacy 1. Introduction Social studies is a course taught in elementary and middle schools in which children learn basic citizenship knowledge and develop a variety of skills such as research, critical thinking, empathy, mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 4 and problem solving. They also gain values such as a sense of justice, independence, honesty, freedom, and patriotism so they become responsible and effective citizens in society (Turkish Ministry of National Education [MoNE/MEB], 2018). In their elementary years, although all courses contribute to raising children with civic competence, it is a central aim that social studies educate students to become committed to democracy and its values (National Council for Social Studies [NCSS], 1994). However, the multi- and interdisciplinary nature of social studies, lack of knowledge by teachers about social sciences, and the content and aims of social studies prevent teachers from teaching it effectively (Gallavan, 2001/2002). This makes training qualified teachers in social studies education during their preservice education years critical, so that elementary school students reach the objectives aimed for in this course. Moreover, teaching self-efficacy beliefs built in methods courses is also of great importance during students’ pre- service and later in-service years (Giles, Byrd, & Bendolph, 2016). In Turkey, the social studies teaching course offered in faculties of education helps preservice elementary school teachers learn the social studies curriculum in depth and develop their knowledge and skills related to teaching social studies to elementary students (Turkish Council of Higher Education [CoHE/YÖK], 2007). However, some studies that have assessed elementary school teacher education programs have reported problems both with the overall program and the social studies teaching courses in particular. Studies showed that preservice elementary school teachers (Kılıç & Acat, 2007; Süral, 2015) and graduated elementary school teachers (Çoban, 2011) did not have positive perceptions about the necessity and/or usefulness of the social studies teaching course. In addition, some studies reported that lecture is the most-used method while problem-based and project-based instruction were the least-used methods in the social studies teaching course in elementary school teacher training programs (Erol Çalışır, 2008). Still others (Akdoğdu & Uşun, 2017; Baştürk, 2015) reported that preservice elementary school teachers did not have positive perceptions about the methods used by teacher trainers and the teaching-learning process in their programs. These reports support the arguments of Elkind (2004), who claimed that if teachers are not implementing or adopting constructivist principles in schools, the main reason is the teacher training, not the teachers themselves. Needless to say, in order for social studies education to be effective in elementary schools, the social studies teaching courses in education faculties need to be effective. Examining social studies teaching efficacy beliefs, attitudes, and academic delay of gratification of the preservice elementary school teachers in a social studies teaching course in relation to constructivist learning environments, and developing suggestions based on the findings, might accordingly lead teacher trainers to question and form their social studies mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 5 teaching courses. For this reason, the present study investigated the relations between perceived constructivist learning environments in a social studies teaching course, students’ attitudes toward this course, academic delay of gratification in this course, and social studies teaching self- efficacy beliefs. 1.1. Constructivist Learning Theory According to this theory, learning is an active process positing that when learners encounter a new situation, learning occurs by linking new information to information that they already know. During the learning process, learners form their own meaning by kneading new knowledge with information they have already acquired (Ellis & Fouts, 1996; Loyens & Gijbels, 2008). Although it is not a pedagogy or a specific teaching method, constructivist theory in education has led to the formation of particular classroom teaching practices (Boghossian, 2006; Harris & Alexander, 1998; Maypole & Davies, 2001). A constructivist learning environment, which is “a general term to describe teaching and learning situations which are explicitly based on constructivist epistemology and are designed to support learners’ knowledge construction processes” (Tynjälä, 1999, p. 365), differs in many aspects from traditional classrooms (Grennon Brooks & Brooks, 1993). In traditional classrooms, teachers usually use lecture-based instruction as a teaching method and textbooks as a source of information. Students memorize topics and are expected to repeat the topic content when asked. On the other hand, in constructivist learning environments, teachers mostly use teaching methods such as discovery learning, inquiry learning, problem-based learning, and cooperative learning that help students construct their own knowledge through active participation. Students develop their own understanding, usually working on primary sources under the guidance of the teacher, and gain a deeper understanding of the subject studied; in turn, this active involvement makes learning more meaningful and it becomes possible to transfer knowledge into daily life (Grennon Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Harris & Alexander, 1998; Kim, 2005; Krahenbuhl, 2016; Loyens & Gijbels, 2008; Loyens, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2008; Tynjälä, 1999). As constructivism has become a popular learning theory in the field of psychology in recent decades, research into the effects of constructivist learning environments on students has also gained momentum. As a result of such an effort, studies have suggested that students’ perceptions of constructivism in their classrooms have an impact on their affective and cognitive learning outcomes (Alt, 2015; Krahenbuhl, 2016), as well as psychological outcomes such as subjective well-being (Chen, Fan, & Jury, 2017). As variables in the current study, attitudes, mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 6 academic delay of gratification, and self-efficacy beliefs are defined and their importance and possible relations to constructivist learning environments discussed in the following sections. 1.2. Student Attitudes and Constructivist Learning Environments Attitude can be defined as “mind-sets toward certain persons, places, and things” (Moore, 2009, p. 336) or “an individual’s inclinations, prejudices, ideas, fears and convictions concerning any topic. It has an evaluative aspect, a disposition and tendency to react positively or negatively to something. It is, in short, the way someone thinks or behaves” (Ghazali, Setia, Muthusamy, & Jusoff, 2009, p. 51). A student having positive attitudes shows more interest and is more willing to participate in courses (Ghazali et al., 2009; Moore, 2009). Moreover, Singh, Granville, and Dika (2002) revealed that the attitude of students is a significant predictor of achievement and academic time. Celik and Yesilyurt (2013) also found significant and positive relations between attitude and self-efficacy. Since the characteristics of a learning environment have a pivotal role in the attitudes of students (Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003), the impact of constructivist learning environments on the attitudes of students has become an area of interest for researchers. For example, in a phenomenological qualitative study, Maypole and Davies (2001) found that constructivist learning in a community college caused students to develop positive attitudes toward the course. They also found that these courses were perceived as enjoyable and encouraged students to work harder. In an experimental research study, Tynjälä (1999) found that constructivist instruction promoted students’ attitudes more than traditional classes. Müller and Louw (2004) found positive correlations between constructivist learning environment perceptions and both student motivation to learn and student interest in a university psychology course. Fraser and Kahle (2007) found that constructivist learning environments contributed to student achievement and attitudes more than peer and home environments, suggesting that providing constructivist learning environments could neutralize the negative effects of peers and home environments (Fraser & Kahle, 2007). Altun and Yücel-Toy (2015) conducted an action research in a method course with preservice biology, physics, and chemistry teachers using the constructivist learning approach and found that the constructivist-based method course developed positive attitudes toward the course and increased interest in the topics. In their comprehensive meta-analysis study into the effect of constructivist applications on attitude, Toraman and Demir (2016) asserted that constructivist teaching had a significant and positive impact on student attitudes toward courses. It was also reported that constructivist learning environments changed preservice teachers’ attitudes toward teaching (Ochagavia, 2017). According to Moore (2009), stimulating student interest is another way to develop positive mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 7 attitudes. Research by Müller and Louw (2004) showed that the more constructivist the students perceived their learning environment to be, the higher their interest. 1.3. Academic Delay of Gratification and Constructivist Learning Environments Delay of gratification is defined as “individuals’ intentions to postpone immediate available rewards in order to obtain larger rewards temporally distant” (Bembenutty, 2004, p.3). Narrowing the delay of gratification to the academic context, Bembenutty and Karabenick (2003) defined academic delay of gratification as “students’ postponement of immediately available opportunities to satisfy impulses in favor of pursuing academic goals that are temporally remote but ostensibly more valuable” (p. 8). Studies have consistently showed a positive correlation between academic delay of gratification and motivation and learning strategies (Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1996, 1998a, 1998b; Zhang, Karabenick, Maruno, & Lauermann, 2011) and academic achievement (Avcı, 2008; Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1996, 1998a, 1998b). Research also reported positive relations between academic delay of gratification and an appreciation (liking, interest, etc.) of the value of academic work and expectancy of academic success (Bembenutty, 1999; Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1998b; Karabenick & Bembenutty, 1998). It was also found that liking and value were significant and positive predictors of academic delay of gratification (Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1998b; Karabenick & Bembenutty, 1998). Consistent with these studies, Abd-El-Fattah and Al-Nabhani (2012) found positive correlations between academic delay of gratification and students’ mastery-approach goal orientation. Teacher self-efficacy is another variable related to academic delay of gratification (Aydın, Ömür, & Argon, 2014; Bembenutty & Chen, 2005). For example, Bembenutty and Chen (2005) found positive correlations between academic delay of gratification and academic self-efficacy, intrinsic interest in the course, academic self-regulation, and teacher self-efficacy. Similarly, Aydın et al. (2014) found a positive correlation between academic delay of gratification and teacher self- efficacy beliefs, suggesting that the higher the academic delay of gratification among preservice teachers, the greater teacher self-efficacy beliefs they possess. Studies showed that constructivist learning environments promote student motivation (Kim, 2005; Müller & Louw, 2004; Tynjälä, 1999), self-regulation (Loyens et al., 2008), and interest (Müller & Louw, 2004), which are some of the determinants of academic delay of gratification (Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1998a, 2003). Students with higher interest and motivation focus more on their academic studies and delay their immediate gratification; therefore, increasing mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 8 these variables increases academic delay of gratification (Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1998a, 2003). 1.4. Self-Efficacy Belief and Constructivist Learning Environments Perceived self-efficacy (self-efficacy beliefs), theorized by Bandura (1977), is “one’s beliefs concerning what one is capable of doing” (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2005, p. 350) or “the specific beliefs people have in their ability to complete tasks or achieve goals (personal efficacy), and their expectations that certain behaviors will produce desirable outcomes (outcome expectancy)” (Wang, Tsai, & Wei, 2015, p. 2265). Based on self-efficacy definitions, teacher self- efficacy belief is defined as the teachers’ own beliefs in their capabilities or skills to achieve educational goals (Dellinger, Bobbett, Olivier, & Ellett, 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Since teacher self-efficacy beliefs are a teacher’s own evaluation of his/her capabilities or skills, they do not reflect actual capabilities or skills (Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic, 2002). Therefore, people with the same background may perform and get results differently depending on their self- efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1993). As argued by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001), teacher self-efficacy appears to be a simple idea; however, to what extent a teacher has teacher self-efficacy beliefs makes a great difference when its impacts on educational outcomes are considered. Compared to teachers with low teaching efficacy beliefs, teachers with high teaching self-efficacy beliefs have a more positive attitude toward the implementation of instructional innovation (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997), tend to use a greater variety of teaching methods and student- centered/active learning methods (Bray-Clark & Bates, 2003; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Giles et al., 2016), are more likely to transfer what they have learned to their instruction and to participate in teacher development programs (Bray-Clark & Bates, 2003), and are more likely to have positive attitudes toward teaching (Van Aalderen-Smeets & Walma van der Molen, 2013). They also tend to show more organizational citizenship behavior, namely, altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship (Dussault, 2006), to empathize with students (Goroshit & Hen, 2016), to persist in student failure situations (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), to have greater job satisfaction (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010, 2014), and higher work engagement (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014, 2016). Furthermore, they are less likely to suffer from teacher burnout (Evers et al., 2002; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010, 2014, 2016), stress (Helms-Lorenz & Maulana, 2016; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2016), motivation to quit the teaching profession (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2016), anxiety in teaching (Van Aalderen-Smeets & Walma van der Molen, 2013), and the use of criticism (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 9 Teacher self-efficacy beliefs were also found to be related to attitude. For example, Tunkler, Ercan, Beskirli, and Sahin (2016) found a positive and significant correlation between preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their attitude toward an Instructional Technologies and Material Development course. Similarly, Wang et al. (2015) found positive and significant correlations between attitudes toward Internet-based instruction and science teaching efficacy beliefs. They also found attitudes to be a positive and significant predictor of science teaching efficacy beliefs. It was well-established that how the learning environment is perceived by students affects their self-efficacy beliefs (Alt, 2015). For instance, Alt (2014) conducted a study with college students and examined the relationship between constructivist learning environment perceptions and academic self-efficacy. It was found that constructivist learning environment perceptions were a significant and positive predictor of academic self-efficacy, suggesting that the more constructivist they perceived their classrooms to be, the higher academic self-efficacy they had. Similarly, Dorman and Adams (2004) found positive correlations between constructivist learning environment perceptions and academic efficacy beliefs. In their study, Altun and Yücel-Toy (2015) found that the constructivist-based method course helped preservice teachers improve skills such as thinking, research, problem solving, discussion, and self-regulation. Moreover, the constructivist approach provided active and meaningful learning and supported self-efficacy development. In a post-test experimental research study examining the impact of a constructivist-based elementary mathematics methods course on elementary preservice teachers’ mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs, Giles et al. (2016) found that the constructivist- based methods course positively affected their mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs. In a quasi- experimental study with preservice elementary teachers, Deehan, Danaia, and McKinnon (2017) found that practices aligned with constructivism in two science courses increased preservice teachers’ science teaching efficacy beliefs. They also revealed that preservice teachers’ gains in science teaching efficacy beliefs continued for two years without any science courses. Bleicher and Lindgren (2005) examined how a constructivist-oriented methods class affected preservice teachers’ conceptual understanding and science teaching efficacy beliefs. They found that such a constructivist-oriented class where preservice teachers engaged in hands-on, minds-on activities and discussion improved their conceptual understanding and efficacy beliefs in science teaching. 1.5. Research Questions The research questions of the study were determined as follows: mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 10 1. Do perceived constructivist learning environments in a social studies teaching course significantly and positively predict preservice elementary school teachers’ attitudes toward this course, their academic delay of gratification in this course, and their efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching? 2. Do preservice elementary school teachers’ attitudes toward a social studies teaching course significantly and positively predict their academic delay of gratification in this course and their efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching? 3. Does preservice elementary school teachers’ academic delay of gratification in a social studies teaching course significantly and positively predict their efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching? 2. Method 2.1. Research Design Since the aim of the study was to examine how perceived constructivist learning environments in a social studies teaching course, attitudes toward this course, academic delay of gratification in this course, and self-efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching were related to and how they affected each other, this study used a correlational design (Creswell, 2008). 2.2. Participants and Procedure A total of 295 preservice elementary school teachers participated in the study with a mean age of 21.40 (SD = 1.13). Of the participants, 233 (79%) were female and 62 (21%) were male. The data were collected over three academic years (2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017) in a social studies teaching course in the Faculty of Education at a state university in Turkey. The social studies teaching course is a three-credit compulsory course for elementary school teacher majors and is offered in the sixth semester of the program, which lasts four years with two semesters each year (CoHE/YÖK, 2007). Up to the sixth semester, preservice elementary school teachers receive basic pedagogical courses such as Introduction to Educational Sciences, Psychology of Education, Teaching Principles and Methods, Teaching Technologies and Material Design, Measurement and Evaluation, Classroom Management, and other methods courses such as Physical Education and Play Teaching, Science and Technology Teaching, Primary Reading and Writing Teaching, and Mathematics Teaching. In the sixth semester, the preservice elementary school teachers also take a school experience course (CoHE/YÖK, 2007). mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 11 2.3. Instruments In the study, four scales were used to collect the data. To measure to what extent social studies teaching courses were perceived as constructivist, the Scale on Assessing Constructivist Learning Environments (SACLE) developed by Arkün and Aşkar (2010) was used. The SACLE consists of 28 items and six factors, namely, student-centered, thought provoking, collaborative, life relevant, concurrent learning and assessing, and different viewpoints. Participants indicate their opinions on a 7-point Likert scale (7 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree), and higher scores mean that learning environments are more constructivist (Arkün & Aşkar, 2010). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were found to range from .62 (Student-Centered subscale) to .84 (Life Relevant subscale). To measure the participants’ attitudes toward the social studies teaching course, the Attitude Scale about the Lesson of the Teaching of Primary Reading and Writing developed by Arslan and Aytaç (2010) was used with modifications. To make this scale appropriate for social studies, the term teaching of primary reading and writing course in the original scale (Arslan & Aytaç, 2010) was replaced with the term of social studies teaching course. For example, the item I find the teaching of primary reading and writing course fun (Arslan & Aytaç, 2010, p. 850) was changed to I find the social studies teaching course fun. This scale consists of three factors: willingness (12 items), interest (5 items), and necessity (2 items). Participants respond to the items on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree), and higher scores mean more positive attitudes toward the course (Arslan & Aytaç, 2010). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the subscales were found to be .91 for willingness, .74 for interest, and .58 for necessity. To measure academic delay of gratification in the social studies teaching course, the Academic Delay of Gratification Scale developed by Bembenutty and Karabenick (1996) and adapted into Turkish by Avcı (2008) was used. This scale consists of 10 items and uses a four-category response scale (1 = definitely choose A, 2 = probably choose A, 3 = probably choose B, and 4 = definitely choose B). Higher scores on this scale indicate that students prefer academic work/success more than immediate gratification (Avcı, 2008; Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1996). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was.79. To measure efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching, the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument Form-B (STEBI-B) developed by Enochs and Riggs (1990) and adapted into Turkish by Bıkmaz (2002) was used with modifications in accordance with the study of Wingfield, Nath, mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 12 Freeman, and Cohen (2000) as reported by Dündar (2015). STEBI-B includes two subscales: personal science teaching efficacy belief (13 items) and science teaching outcome expectancy (10 items). Although STEBI-B was developed for the science domain, it has been utilized for different fields in many studies with various modifications (Bleicher, 2004; Deehan, 2017). Modifications in the current study included replacement of the term science with social studies and two science- specific items in STEBI-B (Bıkmaz, 2002; Enochs & Riggs, 1990) with new items from Wingfield et al. (2000) (see Dündar, 2015 for details). The Turkish version of STEBI-B contains 21 items (13 items in the personal science teaching efficacy belief subscale and 8 items in the science teaching outcome expectancy subscale) (Bıkmaz, 2002). Participants respond to the items on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree); higher scores indicate higher levels of self- efficacy beliefs (Bıkmaz, 2002; Enochs & Riggs, 1990). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were found to be .74 for personal social studies teaching efficacy belief and .60 for social studies teaching outcome expectancy subscales. 2.4. Data Analysis In this study, descriptive statistics, correlations, and path analysis were used. While Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, descriptive statistics and correlations were performed using SPSS 11.5, path analysis was conducted with AMOS 16.0. To evaluate the goodness-of-fit of the path model, chi- square (x2) test, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), incremental fit index (IFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were used. To assess whether the model fits the data well, a ratio of x2 to df less than 2 or 3; GFI, IFI, TLI, CFI values greater than .95; RMSEA less than .06; and SRMR less than .08 were used as the cutoff criteria (Byrne, 2001; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schreiber, Nora, Stage, Barlow, & King, 2006). 3. Findings 3. 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Study Variables Results in terms of the means, standard deviations, and correlation matrix for the variables (perceived constructivist learning environments in the social studies teaching course, attitudes toward the course, academic delay of gratification in the course, and efficacy belief in social studies teaching) researched in the social studies teaching course are shown in Table 1. mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 13 Table 1 Zero-Order Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 1. Constructivism in Social Studies Teaching Course 5.26 .79 – 2. Attitudes Toward Social Studies Teaching Course 3.91 .58 .52 – 3. Academic Delay of Gratification in Social Studies Teaching Course 2.81 .66 .29 .31 – 4. Social Studies Teaching Efficacy Belief 3.76 .37 .39 .48 .20 – Note. All correlations are significant at p < .01. As observed in Table 1, perceived constructivist learning environments in the course were positively and significantly correlated with attitudes (r = .52, p < .01), academic delay of gratification (r = .29, p < .01), and efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching (r = .39, p < .01). In addition, attitudes toward the course were positively and significantly correlated with academic delay of gratification (r = .31, p < .01) and efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching (r = .48, p < .01). Academic delay of gratification in the course was also positively and significantly correlated with efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching (r = .20, p < .01). 3.2. Path Model of Relations Between Study Variables The path model, constructed based on the literature presented in the Introduction, is given in Figure 1. It reflects relations between perceived constructivist learning environments in the social studies teaching course, attitudes toward this course, academic delay of gratification in this course, and social studies teaching efficacy beliefs. Detailed information, including unstandardized regression weights and significance levels, is presented in Table 2. mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 14 Figure 1. Path Model The path model presented in Figure 1 resulted in a x2(49) value of 107.26 and x2 / df = 2.19. It also yielded GFI = .95, IFI = .96, TLI = .95, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .06, and SRMR = .04, which indicated that the model fitted the data well (Byrne, 2001; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schreiber et al., 2006). Constructivsim in Social Studies Teaching Course .13 Academic Delay of Gratification in Social Studies Teaching Course .66 Different Viewpointse6 .81 .51 Concurrent Learning and Assessment e5 .71 .62 Life Relevante4 .79 .24 Collaborativee3 .49 .73 Thought Provokinge2 .86 .50 Student-Centerede1 .71 .35 Attitudes Toward Social Studies Teaching Course .93 Willingness e7 .51 Interest e8 .46 Necessity e9 .96 .68 .42 Social Studies Teaching Efficacy Belief .77 Personal Social Studies Teaching Efficacy e10 .16 Social Studies Teaching Outcome Expectancy e11 .88 .39 e13 .19 .03 e12 e14 .21 .72 .21 .59 .49 mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 15 Table 2 Standardized and unstandardized regression weights of exogenous and endogenous variables in path model Exogenous Variables Endogenous Variables β B SE C.R. p Constructivism in Social Studies Teaching Course → Attitudes Toward Social Studies Teaching Course .59 .478 .048 9.993 < .001 Constructivism in Social Studies Teaching Course → Academic Delay of Gratification in Social Studies Teaching Course .19 .171 .066 2.583 .010 Attitudes Toward Social Studies Teaching Course → Academic Delay of Gratification in Social Studies Teaching Course .21 .225 .080 2.804 .005 Academic Delay of Gratification in Social Studies Teaching Course → Social Studies Teaching Efficacy Belief .03 .018 .034 .515 .607 Constructivism in Social Studies Teaching Course → Social Studies Teaching Efficacy Belief .21 .107 .039 2.727 .006 Attitudes Toward Social Studies Teaching Course → Social Studies Teaching Efficacy Belief .49 .304 .050 6.119 < .001 As seen in Figure 1 and Table 2, perceived constructivist learning environments in the social studies teaching course positively and significantly predicted preservice elementary school teachers’ attitudes toward the course (β = .59, p < .001), their academic delay of gratification in this course (β = .19, p < .05) and their efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching (β = .21, p < .01). Attitudes toward the social studies teaching course positively and significantly predicted mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 16 academic delay of gratification in this course (β = .21, p < .01) and efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching (β = .49, p < .001). However, the direct effect of academic delay of gratification on efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching was not significant (β = .03, p > .05). Regarding indirect effects, there seems to be a mediating effect on attitudes toward the course between perceived constructivist learning environments and social studies teaching efficacy beliefs, and also between perceived constructivist learning environments and academic delay of gratification according to guidelines suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). These possible indirect effects were tested by means of the Sobel test (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Sobel, 1982) using an interactive calculation tool for mediation tests developed by Preacher and Leonardelli (2010- 2018). The Sobel test for determining the influence of perceived constructivist learning environments on academic delay of gratification through attitudes toward the course yielded a value of 2.71 (p < .01), which indicates that the perceived constructivist learning environments were also positively and indirectly related to academic delay of gratification through attitudes toward the course. The Sobel test for determining influence of perceived constructivist learning environments on teaching efficacy beliefs through attitudes toward the course yielded a value of 5.19 (p < .001), which indicates that the perceived constructivist learning environments were also positively and indirectly related to teaching efficacy beliefs through attitudes toward the course. 4. Discussion The purpose of this study was to determine the relations between perceived constructivist learning environments in a social studies teaching course, attitudes toward this course, academic delay of gratification in this course, and social studies teaching efficacy beliefs of preservice elementary school teachers. The results of the current study highlight the importance of perceived constructivist learning environments in social studies teaching courses. Findings indicated that perceived constructivist learning environments in a social studies teaching course have a direct effect on attitudes toward this course, academic delay of gratification in this course, and social studies teaching efficacy beliefs. In addition, perceived constructivist learning environments in a social studies teaching course also have an indirect and positive effect on academic delay of gratification in this course and on social studies teaching efficacy beliefs through attitudes toward this course, which indicates that perceived constructivist learning environments positively increase preservice elementary school teachers’ attitudes toward the course. In return, it results in higher academic delay of gratification and efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching. mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 17 It has been well established that characteristics of learning environments such as instructional methods used, support, etc. have significant effects on the cognitive and affective outcomes of students (Dorman & Adams, 2004; Osborne et al., 2003). The findings of the current study are not surprising when previous studies are taken into consideration. A study by Önal (2008) found that preservice teachers exposed to constructivist teaching preferred constructivist-based courses more. Similarly, a study by Sander, Stevenson, King, and Coates (2000) with undergraduate students found that the students preferred more group-based learning activities. It was also found that undergraduate students preferred constructivist learning environments where personal relevance, collaboration, negotiation, and autonomy are encouraged (Mensah, 2015). More importantly and related to attitudes, undergraduate students prefer to learn in constructivist learning environments (Önal, 2008; Sander et al., 2000). Therefore, when these environments are provided to students, they develop positive attitudes toward the course and they delay immediate gratification for academic study on the course and develop a higher level of social studies teaching efficacy beliefs. Supporting this finding, an experimental research by Tynjälä (1999) found that constructivist learning environments promoted critical thinking, cooperation, deep learning, meaningful learning, learning by having fun, and intrinsic motivation. A study by Dündar (2015) found that deep learning in social studies teaching courses promote preservice teachers’ social studies teaching efficacy beliefs. Therefore, constructivist learning environments, by providing deep learning (Loyens et al., 2008; Tynjälä, 1999), could increase preservice elementary school teachers’ efficacy beliefs in social studies teaching. Based on constructivist principles (Arkün & Aşkar, 2010; Grennon Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Tenenbaum, Naidu, Jegede, & Austin, 2001; Woolley, Benjamin, & Woolley, 2004), in constructivist social studies teaching courses, preservice teachers would have the opportunity to observe other preservice teachers’ teaching, to see other preservice teachers’ lesson plans and discuss their lesson plans and real-life examples of social studies teaching, and to see different perspectives on the topics covered, which could all contribute to self-efficacy development (Alt, 2014, 2015; Bandura, 1977; Bray-Clark & Bates, 2003). The current study showed that attitudes toward social studies teaching course have positive and direct effects on academic delay of gratification in this course and social studies teaching efficacy beliefs. Since students with positive attitudes show more interest and become more willing to participate in courses (Ghazali et al., 2009; Moore, 2009), this finding is not surprising. Because students who are more willing show more interest in the social studies teaching course and consider this course more necessary, it is expected that they are more likely to delay immediate gratification, study and focus on the course, fulfill their responsibilities on time (Bembenutty & mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 18 Karabenick, 1998a), and have a higher level of self-efficacy beliefs (Celik and Yesilyurt, 2013; Tunkler et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2015). In line with the findings of Bembenutty and Chen (2005), the study also found that academic delay of gratification in a social studies teaching course was positively correlated with social studies teaching efficacy beliefs; however, it was not a significant predictor of social studies teaching efficacy beliefs, indicating that preservice elementary school teachers’ procrastination of immediate gratification in the interests of their social studies teaching course related-work does not necessarily result in a higher level of social studies teaching beliefs. To sum up, the findings of the current study illustrate that if teacher trainers want preservice elementary school teachers to develop positive attitudes toward social studies teaching courses, to give priority to academic work, and to promote social studies teaching efficacy, they should design their social studies teaching courses in line with the constructivist approach. Designing social studies teaching courses based on constructivism may also provide other advantages in addition to these benefits. These advantages might include the following: (1) In teacher training programs, teacher candidates are encouraged to design courses that align with constructivism when they become teachers (Woolley et al., 2004); however, they have few opportunities to observe social studies teaching methods emphasized in their training (Owens, 1997). Therefore, if teacher trainers adopt constructivist principles in their methods courses, preservice teachers will have opportunity to observe methods/approaches that they are encouraged to implement. (2) As argued by Yilmaz (2011) “… professionalism in teacher education and development demands that teachers have not only a disciplinary knowledge base related to their subject but also a strong command of learning theories and their applications for instructional practices in the classroom” (p. 204). Research (Tynjälä, 1997, 1999) has showed that when students learn in constructivist learning environments, they develop constructivist perceptions about the nature of learning. Applying constructivist principles in social studies teaching courses may increase the possibility of preservice teachers adopting constructivist principles in their own classrooms through helping them internalize the theory and influencing their conceptions about learning (Tynjälä, 1997, 1999). (3) It increases the possibility of reaching the goals of social studies teaching courses for preservice teachers since constructivist learning environments in social studies teaching courses mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 19 cause preservice teachers to be occupied with course responsibilities rather than “many attractive non-academic sources of gratification” (Bembenutty & Chen, 2005, p. 80). Although the current study successfully revealed the relationship between perceived constructivist learning environments in a social studies teaching course, attitudes toward this course, academic delay of gratification in this course, and social studies teaching efficacy beliefs of preservice elementary school teachers, several limitations need to be considered. First, the study used convenience sampling and was carried out with data from only one faculty of education. Second, some of the scales in the current study had lower Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients. Thus, the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Third, although there were direct and indirect effects on dependent variables, relationships between variables could not be considered as cause-and-effect relations since this study used a correlational design. Therefore, experimental research designs are recommended for taking constructivist learning environments and traditional classrooms in social studies teaching courses as the independent variables (causes) and attitudes, academic delay of gratification, and teaching efficacy beliefs as the dependent variables in order to determine actual cause-and-effect relations (Chen et al., 2017; Creswell, 2008). mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 20 References: Abd-El-Fattah, S. M., & Al-Nabhani, H. Z. (2012). From self-theories of intelligence to academic delay of gratification: The mediating role of achievement goals. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 12, 93-107. Akdoğdu, E., & Uşun, S. (2017). Sınıf öğretmenliği lisans programının öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri doğrultusunda bağlam, girdi, süreç ve ürün (CIPP) modeli ile değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of Classroom Teaching Undergraduate Program in Accordance with the Pre- service Teachers’ Opinions Using Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) Model]. İlköğretim Online, 16(2), 826-847. doi: 10.17051/ilkonline.2017.304738 Alt, D. (2014). The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring features of constructivist learning environments in higher education. Frontline Learning Research, 5, 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i3.68 Alt, D. (2015). Assessing the contribution of a constructivist learning environment to academic self-efficacy in higher education. Learning Environments Research, 18(1), 47-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9174-5 Altun, S., & Yücel-Toy, B. (2015). The methods of teaching course based on constructivist learning approach: An Action Research. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 248-270. doi:10.11114/jets.v3i6.1047 Arkün, S., & Aşkar, P. (2010). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamlarını değerlendirme ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi [The development of a scale on assessing constructivist learning environments]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39, 32-43. Arslan, D., & Aytaç, A. (2010). İlkokuma yazma öğretimi dersine ilişkin tutum ölçeği geliştirilmesi [Development of Attitude Scale about the Lesson of the Teaching of Primary Reading and Writing]. İlköğretim Online, 9(3), 841-850. Retrieved from http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr Avcı, S. (2008).Öğretmen adaylarının, gelecek zaman algıları, akademık alandakı arzularını erteleme konusundaki isteklilikleri, algılanan araçsallıkları, sosyoekonomik düzeyleri ve akademik başarıları arasındakı açıklayıcı ve yordayıcı ilişkiler örüntüsü [The explanatory and predictive relationship of future time perspective, academic delay of gratification, perceived instrumentality, socio-economical status and academical achievement of student teachers] (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul. Aydın, R., Ömür, Y. E., & Argon, T. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının öz yeterlik algıları ile akademik alanda arzularını erteleme düzeylerine yönelik görüşleri [Pre-service teachers’ perception mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i3.68 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9174-5 http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 21 of self-efficacy and academic delay of gratification]. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 40, 1-12. doi: 10.15285/EBD.2014409739 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. Baştürk, S. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri bağlamında sınıf öğretmenliği programı [Primary school education program in the context of student teachers’ views]. INES Journal-Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 34-51 Bembenutty, H. (1999). Sustaining motivation and academic goals: The invaluable role of academic delay of gratification. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 19-23, 1999). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED432511) Bembenutty, H. (2004). Perception of self-efficacy, academic delay of gratification, and use of learning strategies among Korean college students. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. (April, 2004). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED492971) Bembenutty, H., & Chen, P. P. (2005). Self-efficacy and delay of gratification. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9, 78-86. Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. (1996). Academic delay of gratification scale: A new measurement for delay of gratification. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association (Philadelphia, PA, March 1996). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED412266) Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. A. (1998a). Academic delay of gratification. Learning and Individual Differences, 10(4), 329-346. Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. A. (1998b). Individual differences in academic delay of gratification. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association (Boston, MA, February 1998). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED422794) mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 22 Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. A. (2003). Academic delay of gratification, future goals, and self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, April 21-15, 2003). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED479131) Bıkmaz, F. H. (2002). Fen öğretiminde öz-yeterlik inancı ölçeği [Self-efficacy belief instrument in science teaching]. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 1(2), 197-210. Bleicher, R. E. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104(8), 383-391. doi:10.1111/j.1949- 8594.2004.tb18004.x Bleicher, R. E., & Lindgren, J. (2005). Success in science learning and preservice science teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 205-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10972-005-4861-1 Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, constructivism, and Socratic pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(6), 713-722. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00226.x Bray-Clark, N., & Bates, R. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs and teacher effectiveness: Implications for professional development. The Professional Educator, 26(1), 13-22. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Celik, V., & Yesilyurt, E. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers & Education, 60, 148-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.008 Chen, C., Fan, J., & Jury, M. (2017). Are perceived learning environments related to subjective well-being? A visit to university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 54, 226- 233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.001 Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Çoban, A. (2011). Sınıf öğretmenliği lisans programının değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of Classroom Teacher Undergraduate Program]. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16, 28-45. Deehan, J. (2017). The science teaching efficacy belief instruments (STEBI A and B): A comprehensive review of methods and findings from 25 years of science education research. Switzerland: SpringerBriefs in Education. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42465-1 mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ https://doi.org/10.1007/%20s10972-005-4861-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/%20s10972-005-4861-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.001 Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 23 Deehan, J., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2017). A longitudinal investigation of the science teaching efficacy beliefs and science experiences of a cohort of preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(18), 2548-2573. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2017.1393706 Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 751- 766. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.010 Dorman, J., & Adams, J. (2004). Associations between students' perceptions of classroom environment and academic efficacy in Australian and British secondary schools. Westminster Studies in Education, 27(1), 69-85. doi: 10.1080/0140672040270106 Dussault, M. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviors. Psychological Reports, 98, 427-432. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.98.2.427-432 Dündar, Ş. (2015). Are prospective elementary school teachers’ social studies teaching efficacy beliefs related to their learning approaches in a social studies teaching methods course? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v 40n7.6 Elkind, D. (2004). The problem with constructivism. The Educational Forum, 68(4), 306-312, doi: 10.1080/00131720408984646 Ellis, A. K., & Fouts,J. T. (1996). Handbook of educational terms and applications. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education. Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 694-706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb12048.x Erol Çalışır, S. (2008). Sınıf öğretmenliği programında kullanılan öğretim yöntemlerinin öğrenme stillerine uygunluğunun değerlendirilmesi (D. Kolb örneği) [Evaluation of appropriateness of teaching methods applied in elementary education program with learning styles (D. Kolb)] (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Manisa. Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A study on teachers’ beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 227-243. Fraser, B. J., & Kahle, J. B. (2007). Classroom, home and peer environment influences on student outcomes in science and mathematics: An analysis of systemic reform mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.98.2.427-432 http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v%2040n7.6 http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v%2040n7.6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb12048.x Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 24 data. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1891-1909. doi:10.1080/09500690601167178 Gallavan, N. P. (2001/2002). Applying the constructivist framework to elementary school social studies: Benefits for young learners and preservice teachers. Northwest Passage: Journal of Educational Practices, 2(1), 27-34. Retrieved from https://labs.wsu.edu/nw- passage/nw-passage-fall-2002-vol-2-no-1/ Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 451-458. Ghazali, S. N., Setia, R., Muthusamy, C., & Jusoff, K. (2009). ESL students’ attitude towards texts and teaching methods used in literature classes. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 51-56. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569 Giles, R. M., Byrd, K. O., & Bendolph, A. (2016). An investigation of elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics. Cogent Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1160523 Goroshit, M., & Hen, M. (2016). Teachers’ empathy: Can it be predicted by self-efficacy? Teachers and Teaching, 22(7), 805-818. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2016.1185818 Grennon Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Harris, K. R., & Alexander, P. A. (1998). Integrated, constructivist education: Challenge and reality. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 115-127. Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2016). Influencing the psychological well-being of beginning teachers across three years of teaching: Self-efficacy, stress causes, job tension and job discontent. Educational Psychology, 36(3), 569-594. doi:10.1080/01443410.2015. 1008403 Hergenhahn, B. R., & Olson, M. H. (2005). An introduction to theories of learning (7th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ https://labs.wsu.edu/nw-passage/nw-passage-fall-2002-vol-2-no-1/ https://labs.wsu.edu/nw-passage/nw-passage-fall-2002-vol-2-no-1/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1160523 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 25 Karabenick, S. A., & Bembenutty, H. (1998). Motivational determinants of academic delay of gratification. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Diego, CA, April, 1998). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED422792) Kılıç, A., & Acat, M. B. (2007). Öğretmen adaylarının algılarına göre öğretmen yetiştirme programlarındaki derslerin gereklilik ve işe vurukluk düzeyi [Essentiality and job-utility of the courses offered in elementary teacher education programs]. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(17), 21-37. Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(1), 7- 19. Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns, and clarity for teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(3), 97-105. doi: 10.1080/00098655.2016.1191311 Loyens, S. M. M. & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: Introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36, 351- 357. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9059-4 Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2008). Relationships between students’ conceptions of constructivist learning and their regulation and processing strategies. Instructional Science, 36, 445-462. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9065-6 Maypole, J., & Davies, T. G. (2001). Students’ perceptions of constructivist learning in a community college American History II survey course. Community College Review, 29(2), 54-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155210102900205 Mensah, E. (2015). Exploring constructivist perspectives in the college classroom. SAGE Open, 1- 14. doi: 10.1177/2158244015596208 Moore, K. D. (2009). Effective instructional strategies: From theory to practice (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Müller, F. H., & Louw, J. (2004). Learning environment, motivation and interest: Perspectives on self-determination theory. South African Journal of Psychology, 34(2), 169-190. National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies. mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ https://doi.org/10.1177/009155210102900205 Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 26 Ochagavia, B. T. (2017). The impact of a socio-constructivist approach on prospective primary teachers’ attitudes about teaching and learning in general and mathematics in particular. Revista Páginas de Educación, 10(1), 1-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.22235/pe.v10i1.1357 Osborne, J., Simon, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000032199 Owens, W. T. (1997). The challenges of teaching social studies methods to preservice elementary teachers. The Social Studies, 88(3), 113-120. doi: 10.1080/00377999709603757 Önal, İ. (2008). Effects of constructivist instruction on the achievement, attitude, science process skills and retention in science teaching methods II course (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Ankara. Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2010-2018). Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D. (2000). University students’ expectations of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 309-323. doi:10.1080/03075070050193433 Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-337. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338 Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323-332. doi: 10.1080/00220670209596607 Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059-1069. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports: Employment Psychology & Marketing, 114(1), 68-77. doi: 10.2466/14.02. PR0. 114k14w0 Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2016). Teacher stress and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of engagement, emotional exhaustion, and motivation to leave the teaching profession. Creative Education, 7, 1785-1799. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.713182 mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.22235/pe.v10i1.1357 https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.713182 Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 27 Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312. Süral, S. (2015). Sınıf öğretmenliği öğretmen adaylarının öğretmen yetiştirme programındaki derslerin gerekliliği ve işe vurukluk düzeyleri hakkındaki görüşleri [The opinions of primary candidate teachers’ requirements and job-utility of the courses offered in elementary teacher education programs]. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 34-43. Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11, 87-111. Toraman, C., & Demir, E. (2016). The effect of constructivism on attitudes towards lessons: A meta-analysis study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 62, 115-142, http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.62.8 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0742-051X(01)00036-1 Tunkler, V., Ercan, A.N., Beskirli, M., & Sahin, I. (2016). Relationship between preservice teachers’ course attitudes and professional self-efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 2(1), 212-222. Turkish Council of Higher Education. (2007). Eğitim fakültesi öğretmen yetiştirme lisans programları [Education faculty teacher training undergraduate programs]. Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr Turkish Ministry of National Education. (2018). Sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 4, 5, 6 ve 7. sınıflar) [The social studies curriculum (Elementary and middle schools grades 4, 5, 6, and 7)]. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=354 Tynjälä, P. (1997). Developing education students’ conceptions of the learning process in different learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 277-292. Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the University. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 357-442. Van Aalderen-Smeets, S., & Walma van der Molen, J. (2013). Measuring primary teachers’ attitudes toward teaching science: Development of the dimensions of attitude toward mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.62.8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/%20S0742-051X(01)00036-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/%20S0742-051X(01)00036-1 http://www.yok.gov.tr/ http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/%20ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=354 http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/%20ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=354 Journal of International Social Studies, v. 8, n. 2, 2018, pp. 3-28 Corresponding author: sahindundar@hotmail.com ©2012/2018 National Council for Social Studies International Assembly http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585 Page 28 science (DAS) instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 35(4), 577-600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.755576 Wang, Y.-L., Tsai, C.-C., & Wei, S.-H. (2015). The sources of science teaching self-efficacy among elementary school teachers: A mediational model approach. International Journal of Science Education, 37(14), 2264-2283. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1075077 Wingfield, M., Nath, J. L., Freeman, L., & Cohen, M. (2000). The effect of site-based preservice experiences on elementary social studies, language arts, and mathematics teaching self- efficacy beliefs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 24-28, 2000). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED441766) Woolley, S. L., Benjamin, W-J. J., & Woolley, A. W. (2004). Construct validity of a self-report measure of teacher beliefs related to constructivist and traditional approaches to teaching and learning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 319-331. doi: 10.1177/0013164403261189 Yilmaz, K. (2011). The cognitive perspective on learning: Its theoretical underpinnings and implications for classroom practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5), 204-212. doi: 10.1080/00098655.2011.568989 Zhang, L., Karabenick, S. A., Maruno, S., & Lauermann, F. (2011). Academic delay of gratification and children’s study time allocation as a function of proximity to consequential academic goals. Learning and I About the Authors: Dr. Şahin Dündar works in the Department of Turkish and Social Sciences Education at Trakya University, Faculty of Education, Edirne, Turkey. His research interests include social studies teaching and teacher education. mailto:sahindundar@hotmail.com http://www.iajiss.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.755576