View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Association between Early Childhood Teachers' Metacognitive Awareness and Science Teaching Efficacy in Head Start Settings

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Association between Early Childhood Teachers' Metacognitive Awareness and Science Teaching Efficacy in Head Start Settings
Language: English
Authors: Shiyi Chen (ORCID 0000-0002-3794-6575), Rachel Louise Geesa, Hyuksoon S. Song, Burcu Izci
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2026 54(1):193-203.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Early Childhood Teachers, Metacognition, Science Instruction, Self Efficacy, Federal Programs, Teacher Qualifications, Self Evaluation (Individuals), Teacher Attitudes
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01808-4
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine which early childhood (EC) teachers' qualifications (i.e., degree, major, and teaching experience) are linked to teachers' Metacognitive Awareness (MA) and science teaching efficacy, and to investigate the relation among EC teachers' MA components and science teaching efficacy. A total of 153 Head Start teachers from eight U.S. states completed validated surveys that measured their science teaching efficacy and MA. Results from multilevel ANOVA and regression analysis showed that teachers with an early childhood education background were more positive about their ability to teach science, more mindful of their teaching strategies, and more likely to self-evaluate their teaching as compared to teachers without an EC education background. Also, teachers who were more aware of their teaching strategies and instructional goals, and monitored their teaching practices reported higher confidence in their ability to teach science. Our results revealed the role of MA in early science teaching efficacy and highlighted the importance of supporting EC teachers' professional development, particularly for those whose backgrounds are not in EC.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503805
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHRYXFQ7_QM3li3E51WFXRIAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGmZFmqz0k9drhRIGwIBEICBmre6_Sk4VFCS1QL2OJRuZ_zU-1ph9--8-_5bt0zyRiW0Fo6Ic8v05bnQWK-NonzPw8mzxGpVKetcpy0p0pm2qgnQ7GqGzggWun6H86c69k43nLq34JP0Y_kHpDAtRn7utB6fG2A2CNESwU0z6wnx_SgaI680Ak6DTWpH6glLZwzJc2P2gbSdBsH8ylqyKLc-mBQWiGCXOBUzPO8=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191072485;5mx01jan.26;2026Jan27.05:19;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191072485-1">The Association Between Early Childhood Teachers' Metacognitive Awareness and Science Teaching Efficacy in Head Start Settings </title> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine which early childhood (EC) teachers' qualifications (i.e., degree, major, and teaching experience) are linked to teachers' Metacognitive Awareness (MA) and science teaching efficacy, and to investigate the relation among EC teachers' MA components and science teaching efficacy. A total of 153 Head Start teachers from eight U.S. states completed validated surveys that measured their science teaching efficacy and MA. Results from multilevel ANOVA and regression analysis showed that teachers with an early childhood education background were more positive about their ability to teach science, more mindful of their teaching strategies, and more likely to self-evaluate their teaching as compared to teachers without an EC education background. Also, teachers who were more aware of their teaching strategies and instructional goals, and monitored their teaching practices reported higher confidence in their ability to teach science. Our results revealed the role of MA in early science teaching efficacy and highlighted the importance of supporting EC teachers' professional development, particularly for those whose backgrounds are not in EC.</p> <p>Keywords: Early childhood; Metacognition; Metacognitive awareness; Science education; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Self-regulated learners are motivated to initiate and sustain goal-oriented, problem-solving behaviors to gain knowledge and skills (Schunk & Greene, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref1">80</reflink>]). A crucial precursor to self-regulate learning is metacognition, which is the awareness and regulation of one's cognition (Dörr & Perels, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref2">27</reflink>]; Flavell, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref3">29</reflink>]). Teachers play a central role in supporting children's emerging metacognition by engaging their own metacognition to model learning approaches, ask reflective questions, and apply effective teaching strategies (De Boer et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref4">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teaching is metacognitive by nature, as teachers employ several metacognitive skills in their instruction, such as planning lessons and gauging children's understanding and interests during the instruction (Chatzipanteli et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref5">15</reflink>]). Metacognition is also linked to effective teaching (Rieser et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref6">73</reflink>]; Schraw & Gutierrez, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref7">79</reflink>]) and children's learning outcomes (Dignath & Veenman, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref8">24</reflink>]; Soodla et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref9">83</reflink>]). Teachers with better Metacognitive Awareness (MA) often are better at planning instructional time, allocating resources, and engaging appropriate teaching strategies for the right occasion (Perry et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref10">68</reflink>]; Zohar & Barzilai, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref11">90</reflink>]). However, early childhood (EC) teachers tend to inconsistently model metacognitive skills and engage in metacognitive strategies in the classroom (Nores et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref12">65</reflink>]; Temur et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref13">85</reflink>]), which may result in missed learning opportunities for students.</p> <p>Early science education at the preschool and kindergarten levels is uniquely suited for fostering children's metacognitive skills for several reasons. The trial-and-error nature of scientific exploration mirrors metacognition, such as comparing data with hypotheses to form conclusions (Bustamante et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]). Science activities, such as germinating seeds and sink or float, provide authentic learning contexts that promote profound learning and metacognitive skills transfer (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]; Stebner et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref16">84</reflink>]). Young children are innately curious and naturally drawn to hands-on scientific exploration (McClure et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref17">57</reflink>]). Additionally, EC teachers, unlike those in elementary and secondary education, are not required to undergo standardized testing (Larimore, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref18">51</reflink>]). Thus, EC teachers are more flexible in choosing the science topics and activities they want to implement in the classroom (Hansson et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref19">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given the relation among metacognition, instruction, and learning, we aimed to: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>) investigate the association between EC teachers' qualification and their MA and science teaching efficacy, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>) explore the link between EC teachers' MA and their science teaching efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191072485-4">Role of Early Science Education</hd> <p>Early science education plays a vital role in promoting children's curiosity, cognitive development, and future scientific literacy (Larimore, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref22">51</reflink>]). Young children possess a natural curiosity and interest in exploring their environment (Kloos et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref23">47</reflink>]). By engaging children in scientific inquiry, early science education nurtures their critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and understanding of the natural world (Saçkes et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref24">75</reflink>]). Early science experiences lay the foundation for future science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning, supporting children's academic success, and fostering a lifelong interest in science subjects (Clements & Sarama, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>An ideal EC science learning environment is hands-on, inquiry-based, and actively engages young children in scientific exploration (Larimore, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref26">51</reflink>]; Muimongkol et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref27">60</reflink>]). Science concepts should be integrated into daily activities, encouraging children to make observations, ask questions, and conduct simple experiments (Hamel et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref28">37</reflink>]; Singh, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref29">82</reflink>]). Collaborative learning is also encouraged in early science education, allowing children to share their ideas and co-create their scientific understanding (Gibbs & Reed, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref30">33</reflink>]; Hu et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref31">43</reflink>]). Moreover, EC teachers' confidence and capacity to teach science are foundational to creating an engaging science learning environment (Aldemir & Kermani, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>]; Holden, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref33">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are limitations in the current approach to early science education. For instance, EC teachers have limited access to developmentally appropriate science materials (Davis et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref34">21</reflink>]). Also, assessment practices often focus on rote memorization rather than children's scientific thinking and understanding (Greenfield, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref35">36</reflink>]). Additionally, There is a lack of emphasis on professional learning and training for EC teachers in science education, potentially leading to limited content knowledge and pedagogical skills (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref36">18</reflink>]). These limitations highlight the need for continued efforts to increase access to resources, improve assessment approaches, and enhance teacher training to maximize the potential of early science education.</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-5">Early Childhood Education Workforce</hd> <p>The quality of early science education depends on EC teachers' preparedness (Aldemir & Kermani, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]). The qualification requirement of the EC workforce varies greatly in the United States among different types of childcare providers and different U.S. states (Manning et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref38">55</reflink>]). For instance, Head Start (i.e., a federally-funded early education program for children from lower-income backgrounds) requires at least 50% of its teachers to have an associate's or bachelor's degree in EC fields (National Center on Early Childhood Development, Learning, and Teaching, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref39">62</reflink>]). However, there are no universal qualification requirements for home-based EC teachers (Manning et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref40">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted EC teachers and childcare centers. For example, childcare centers struggled with keeping their centers open while K-12 schools were closed, maintaining the safety of the children and staff, and financially surviving lower enrollment during the COVID-19 pandemic (Schilder & Sandstrom, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref41">76</reflink>]). In 2022, thousands of EC teachers left the workforce for jobs with higher wages and better benefits (Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref42">34</reflink>]). As a result, some childcare providers have to hire less qualified teachers to meet job demands (Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref43">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-6">Theoretical Frameworks</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191072485-7">Science Teaching Efficacy</hd> <p>Science teaching efficacy, which is the first theoretical framework, is teachers' belief in their ability to effectively teach science subjects (Velthuis et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref44">87</reflink>]). The two domains of science teaching efficacy are teachers' sense of competency in their science knowledge and instructional ability (science teaching efficacy beliefs) and the extent to which teachers attribute children's science learning outcomes to their teaching (outcome expectancy).</p> <p>Teachers' science content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, hands-on teaching experience, and modeling of other advanced instructors contribute to science teaching efficacy (Menon & Sadler, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref45">59</reflink>]). Künsting et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref46">49</reflink>]) reported that teaching efficacy is a robust predictor of teachers' instructional quality and motivation over time. Teachers' science teaching efficacy hinges on the awareness of their ability, task difficulty, and other contextual factors, such as children's level and available resources (Hughes & Partida, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref47">44</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-8">Metacognition</hd> <p>Metacognition refers to the awareness and regulation of one's cognition (Flavell, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref48">29</reflink>]). It is also the second theoretical framework of this study. There are two crucial components of metacognition – metacognitive knowledge and regulation of cognition (Marulis et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref49">56</reflink>]; Schraw & Moshman, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref50">77</reflink>]). The three types of metacognitive knowledge include: knowing one's ability as a learner (i.e., declarative knowledge), knowing the skills and strategies to accomplish a relevant task (i.e., procedural knowledge), and knowing when and why to use certain strategies for a relevant task (i.e., conditional knowledge) (Schraw & Dennison, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref51">78</reflink>]). Regulation of cognition is the ability to engage strategies and skills to manage one's own learning. It generally includes three processes: planning, monitoring, and evaluation (Whitebread & Neale, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref52">89</reflink>]). A related concept, Metacognitive Awareness (MA), is the conscious understanding of one's own metacognition (Schraw & Dennison, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref53">78</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research linked teachers' MA to teaching and learning outcomes among learners of various ages, from elementary school students (Zohar & Peled, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref54">91</reflink>]) to college students (Özçakmak et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref55">66</reflink>]; Ward & Butler, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref56">88</reflink>]). As Schuster and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref57">81</reflink>]) explained, individuals with a higher level of MA were better at specifying learning goals, adapting effective strategies, staying on task, and reflecting on successful and unsuccessful experiences to improve future learning and teaching outcomes. Further, purposeful MA training has positively impacted pre-service teachers' MA and their ability to detect misconceptions (Pieschl et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref58">70</reflink>]). In comparison to the teachers in higher grade levels, EC teachers are often ignored in research examining teachers' MA and self-efficacy in teaching science (Whitebread & Neale, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref59">89</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-9">Empirical Gaps and Research Questions</hd> <p>Most literature on science teaching and teachers' MA focuses on elementary grades and above, such as Bowen and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref60">10</reflink>]), Divrik and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref61">25</reflink>]), and Hiver and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref62">40</reflink>]). Limited literature exists on a similar topic at the EC level and even fewer about Head Start (HS) teachers. Given that HS teachers work with young children from lower-income backgrounds who are at heightened risks for negative developmental and academic outcomes (Dolean et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref63">26</reflink>]), investigating HS teachers' MA in teaching could have important implications for children's success. Moreover, many studies about teachers' MA and teaching efficacy examined the overall MA rather than its components, namely, metacognitive knowledge and regulation (Schraw & Moshman, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref64">77</reflink>]).</p> <p>Metacognitive knowledge and regulation are two distinct domains of metacognition: the former focuses on knowledge about the task, strategies, and one's strengths and weaknesses, and the latter focuses on cognitive skills necessary to execute the task, such as the ability to monitor and evaluate one's task performance. Therefore, investigating the unique contribution of each component of MA in science teaching efficacy may shed new light on this topic. In this study, we sought to answer the following research questions (RQ):</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-10">RQ1</hd> <p>How does MA differ among teachers with various degrees, majors, and teaching experiences?</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-11">RQ2</hd> <p>How does science teaching efficacy differ among teachers with various degrees, majors, and teaching experiences?</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-12">RQ3</hd> <p>What is the role of teachers' MA in their science teaching efficacy (controlling for their college majors and years of teaching experiences)?</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-13">Methods</hd> <p>The present study adopts a cross-sectional survey research design (Nardi, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref65">61</reflink>]). Data were collected using an online survey software, Qualtrics, between June 2020 and December 2020. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the lead author's university.</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-14">Participants and Settings</hd> <p>Data were collected from 21 Head Start centers in eight different U.S. states: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Florida, Kansas, Montana, Washington, and Georgia. These states were selected based on prior research collaborations. Head Start (HS) is a U.S. federally-funded early education program that serves children from birth to age five and their families from impoverished backgrounds (National Center on Early Childhood Development, Learning, and Teaching, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref66">62</reflink>]). At least 50% of the teachers in the HS programs are required to have an associate or bachelor's degree (National Center on Early Childhood Development, Learning, and Teaching, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref67">62</reflink>]). We chose HS as the study setting because an early achievement gap exists among children from HS and their more fortunate peers, particularly in science readiness (Magnuson et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref68">53</reflink>]). Therefore, further examination of science teaching efficacy among HS teachers is needed (Bustamante et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref69">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>A total of 181 participants completed the survey, out of which, 16 participants were excluded because they only completed a few questions. We identified and removed 12 outliers because their scores were more than three standard deviations from the mean (Boukerche et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref70">9</reflink>]). The outliner cases were not statistically different from the final sample. The final sample included 153 participants (see Table 1). Participants' highest education levels ranged from General Educational Development (GED) to master's degree (MA/MS); the majority of the participants had a bachelor's degree (BA/BS). Participants' majors in their highest degree included early childhood education, education, and other majors, such as Arabic Language, History, and Secondary Education.</p> <p>Table 1 Participants' demographic information</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>N</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Minimum</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Maximum</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left" /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>Male</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>1</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Female</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>152</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Age</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>153</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>21</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>68</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>41.44</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>12.14</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>Ethnicity/</p><p>Race</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hispanic</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>18</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Black</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>15</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>White</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>110</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>American Indian</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>1</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Pacific Native</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>1</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Multi-racial</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>3</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>5</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>Degree</p></td><td align="left"><p>GED</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>3</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>High School</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>30</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Associate</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>54</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Bachelor's</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>52</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Master's</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>14</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Major</p></td><td align="left"><p>EC</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>76</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Elementary</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>9</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-education</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>40</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>CDA</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>109</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>No</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>44</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Teaching</p><p>Certification</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>41</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>No</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>112</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>PD in the past 12 months</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>61</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>No</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>92</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Teaching Experience (years)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>153</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>< 1</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>40</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>11.01</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>8.51</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Credit-earning course on teaching science</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>72</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>No</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>81</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> CDA = Child Development Associate; PD = PD</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-15">Procedures</hd> <p>To select potential participating HS centers, the lead author used the HS Agency Service Profile on the Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center website to randomly select five grantees in each of the eight participating states. The lead author contacted 227 regional HS directors to ask their permission to distribute the survey in June 2020. Participating directors then distributed the online survey link to their HS teachers via email.</p> <p>Given that not all directors confirmed their decisions to let the teachers participate and that we do not know how many HS directors forwarded the survey link, the exact response rate cannot be determined. Participants completed a quantitative online survey about early science education. Each teacher participant received a small digital gift card as an appreciation for their participation. Data collection was concluded in December 2020.</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-16">Instrument</hd> <p>HS teachers completed a 40-minute online survey that included a demographic questionnaire, a science teaching efficacy survey, and a teachers' MA survey. The demographic questionnaire was created by the lead author, including 10 questions, such as gender, race/ethnicity, and education level.</p> <p> <bold>Science Teaching Efficacy.</bold> Science teaching efficacy was measured by the Science Teaching Efficacy and Beliefs [<emph>STEB</emph>; <emph>α</emph><subs><emph>STEB</emph></subs> = 0.90; Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref71">30</reflink>]] and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy [<emph>STOE</emph>; <emph>α</emph><subs><emph>STOE</emph></subs> = 0.93] subscales in the Elementary Teacher Efficacy and Attitudes toward STEM Surveys (<emph>ET-STEM</emph>). We chose to use this well-validated scale to measure science teaching efficacy because it was created based on Bandura's original definition of self-efficacy (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>]) and has been used to measure pre-service and in-service elementary and early childhood teachers' STEM teaching efficacy in previous studies (e.g., Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref73">20</reflink>]; Hammack et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref74">38</reflink>]; Parker et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref75">67</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>STEB</emph> and <emph>STOE</emph> were five-point Likert scales, ranging from 1-Strongly Disagree to 5-Strongly Agree. <emph>STEB</emph> included 11 items, such as "I know what to do to increase student interest in science" and "I understand science concepts well enough to be effective in teaching science." <emph>STOE</emph> included nine items, such as "Students' learning in science is directly related to their teacher's effectiveness in science teaching" and "The inadequacy of a student's science background can be overcome by good teaching."</p> <p> <bold>Teachers' Metacognitive Awareness.</bold> Teachers' self-reported MA was measured by the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Teachers (MAIT; Balcikanli, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref76">5</reflink>]). This instrument has been used in studies conducted with secondary and elementary pre-service and in-service teachers, such as Kumar ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref77">48</reflink>]) and Luke and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref78">52</reflink>]), but very few studies used MAIT with EC teachers (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref79">19</reflink>]). To our knowledge, this scale was the only MA measure designed for teachers. The MAIT included 24 items on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1-Strongly Disagree to 5-Strongly Agree. MAIT includes metacognitive knowledge (i.e., knowledge of cognition); and metacognitive regulation (i.e., cognitive regulatory skills) (Schraw & Moshman, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref80">77</reflink>]). There were three subscales under each domain. Metacognitive knowledge contained declarative knowledge (<emph>α</emph> = 0.85, "I am aware of the strengths and weaknesses in my teaching."), procedural knowledge (<emph>α</emph> = 0.82, "I have a specific reason for choosing each teaching technique I use in class."), and conditional knowledge (<emph>α</emph> = 0.84, "I use different teaching techniques depending on the situation"). Metacognitive regulation consisted of planning (<emph>α</emph> = 0.81, "I organize my time to best accomplish my teaching goals."), monitoring (<emph>α</emph> = 0.80, "I find myself assessing how useful my teaching techniques are while I am teaching."), and evaluation (<emph>α</emph> = 0.79, "After teaching a point, I ask myself if I'd teach it more effectively next time").</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-17">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Given that teacher participants were clustered within their HS center level, standard regression would violate the independent observation assumption (Gelman & Hill, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref81">32</reflink>]). Therefore, a multilevel regression approach was used to account for common variance shared at the center level (Pornprasertmanit et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref82">71</reflink>]). In the multilevel regression model, teachers were at level 1 and centers were at level 2. The software, R, was used for data analysis (R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref83">72</reflink>]). R package "lme4" (Bates et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref84">7</reflink>]) was used to handle multilevel regression. A power analysis showed that, to achieve a power of 0.80, at least 30 clusters (i.e., centers) were needed for a multilevel model with a level-1 sample size of 153 and a small effect size. Although the cluster size in this study was smaller than the estimate (i.e., <emph>N</emph><subs><emph>center</emph></subs> = 21), a small cluster size was not likely to lead to increased Type-I errors and biased estimates (Clarke & Wheaton, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref85">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Data were centered within the cluster at the HS center level to reduce between-cluster variation, allowing for a better estimate of the regression coefficient <emph>β</emph> and enhancing the interpretability of the results. (Enders & Tofighi, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref86">28</reflink>]). Fully unconditional models were fitted first with <emph>STEB</emph>, <emph>STOE</emph> (Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref87">30</reflink>]), and MAIT (Balcikanli, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref88">5</reflink>]) as outcomes, respectively. Intraclass correlation was calculated for each outcome variable, ranging from 0.01 to 0.13. Although the intraclass correlation was relatively small (Garson, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref89">31</reflink>]), a multilevel approach was used to properly account for the common variance shared at the group level (Nezlek, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref90">64</reflink>]; Pornprasertmanit et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref91">71</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-18">Results and Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191072485-19">The Role of Teachers' Qualifications in Science Teaching Efficacy and MA</hd> <p>We conducted a series of multilevel analysis of variance (ANOVA) to answer RQ1, with each MA component, such as procedural knowledge and evaluation, as outcomes, respectively. Results suggested that HS teachers with EC majors tended to have better procedural knowledge, and evaluation skills as compared to teachers with non-EC majors (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref92">2</reflink>, 152) = 2.04; <emph>p</emph> <.05). However, other components of MA (i.e., declarative knowledge, conditional knowledge, plan, and monitor) did not vary among teachers with and without an EC background. Also contrary to our prediction, MA did not vary among teachers' other qualifications, such as degrees and years of teaching experience. Previous literature also indicates that a bachelor's degree with specialized training in EC is linked to better childcare environment quality and children's learning outcomes (Manning et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref93">55</reflink>]; McEntire, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref94">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>To answer RQ 2, multilevel ANOVA models were run with <emph>STEB</emph> and <emph>STOE</emph> as outcomes, respectively. Again, HS teachers with and without an EC background showed different levels of science teaching efficacy beliefs. Results indicated that HS teachers with EC majors tended to have better <emph>STEB</emph> (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>, 152) = 0.26; <emph>p</emph> <.05), as compared to teachers with non-EC majors. However, teachers' <emph>STEB</emph> did not vary among teachers with different degrees and years of teaching experience. In comparison, none of the teachers' qualifications (i.e., major, degree, and teaching experience) made a difference in their STOE. Our finding aligns with previous studies conducted with the non-Head Start population (Kumar, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref96">48</reflink>]; Parker et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref97">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>A plausible explanation of our findings about RQs 1 and 2 is that teachers with an EC degree have received systematic training on developmentally appropriate practices (DAP). Therefore, they may have a better understanding of children's learning, teaching strategies suited for children, and evaluating teaching effectiveness in EC settings (Bredekamp et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref98">11</reflink>]). DAP is at the core of early childhood education (Timmons, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref99">86</reflink>]), and is defined as "methods that promote each child's optimal development and learning through a strengths-based, play-based approach to joyful, engaged learning" (National Association for the Education of Young Children, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref100">63</reflink>], p. 5).</p> <p>Early childhood (0–8 years old) represents the most rapid developmental phase in the human lifespan (Röthlisberger et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref101">74</reflink>]). As a result, employing developmentally appropriate instructional approaches to address each child's individual needs is crucial (Alford et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>]). A typical EC teacher preparation program includes coursework related to child development, EC curriculum, child observation methods, and internship/practicum (Lange et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref103">50</reflink>]). The coursework enables graduates to learn developmental milestones and evidence-based instructional practices for young children, assess children's learning and development through observation and documentation, and apply the knowledge in practice (Lange et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref104">50</reflink>]). In contrast, teachers without an EC degree, regardless of their education level and years of teaching experience, may have difficulty applying DAP in teaching and evaluating the effectiveness of their own instructional practices.</p> <p>Early childhood education has long been suffering from teacher attrition and this issue was worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic (Schilder & Sandstrom, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref105">76</reflink>]). Consequently, many childcare providers struggle to find qualified teachers and have to hire more and more teachers whose educational backgrounds are not in EC (Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref106">34</reflink>]). Our findings indicate that teachers without an EC background could potentially have insufficient awareness of developmentally appropriate teaching strategies, limited ability to self-evaluate teaching effectiveness, and low expectations of the impactfulness of their science teaching. Given that HS children are more likely to experience poverty-related negative outcomes (Dolean et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref107">26</reflink>]), HS policymakers should uphold high standards for teacher recruitment. Federal and state legislatures should consider supporting a high-quality EC workforce by subsidizing and incentivizing pre-service EC teacher preparation and in-service EC teachers' PD training. Ultimately, federal and state legislatures need to consider improving EC teachers' working conditions and compensation to attract and retain a quality EC workforce (Grant et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref108">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-20">The Relation between Metacognitive Awareness and Science Teaching Efficacy</hd> <p>Multilevel regression analysis was conducted to answer RQ3. Two multilevel regression models were run with <emph>STEB</emph> and <emph>STOE</emph> as the outcome, respectively (Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref109">30</reflink>]). Multilevel regression results (see Table 2) indicated that, out of all six components of MA, HS teachers' procedural knowledge (<emph>β</emph> = 0.29, <emph>p</emph> <.05) and planning skills (<emph>β</emph> = 0.54, <emph>p</emph> <.001) were positively related to STEB. This result suggested that HS teachers who were mindful of their teaching strategies and had good planning skills tended to have better science teaching efficacy beliefs. This model showed a satisfactory explanatory power (<emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.40). Monitoring skills were the only component of MA that was positively associated with <emph>STOE</emph> (<emph>β</emph> = 0.32, <emph>p</emph> <.05), indicating that HS teachers who paid more attention to their teaching practices tended to have a better science teaching outcome expectancy. This model only explained 18% of the variance in STOE.</p> <p>Table 2 Multilevel regression modeling results</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Outcome Variables</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p></th><th align="left"><p>Metacognitive Awareness</p><p>(Predictors)</p></th><th align="left"><p>β</p></th><th align="left"><p>se</p></th><th align="left"><p>t</p></th><th align="left"><p>ρ</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="12"><p>Science Teaching Efficacy</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>STEB</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>0.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>DK</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.55</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.59</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PK</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.29*</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.47</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.99</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.04</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>CK</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.38</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.39</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Planning</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.54***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.36</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Monitoring</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.39</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.53</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.59</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Evaluating</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.39</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.60</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>STOE</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>0.18</p></td><td align="left"><p>DK</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.15</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.98</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.33</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PK</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.37</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.30</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>CK</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.31</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.49</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.62</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Planning</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.18</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.29</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.23</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Monitoring</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.32*</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.31</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.04</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Evaluating</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.28</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.37</p></td><td align="left"><p>-1.59</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.11</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>+</sups> <emph>p</emph> <.10, *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01, ***<emph>p</emph> <.001 <emph>Note.</emph> Covariates (Major and years of teaching experience) were controlled in each model but are not listed in this table. STEB = Science Teaching Efficacy and Beliefs; STOE = Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy; DK = Declarative Knowledge; PK = Procedural Knowledge; CK = Conditional Knowledge</p> <p>Metacognition is the awareness (i.e., the awareness of personal strengths and weaknesses, task difficulty, and strategies) and regulation of one's mental activities (i.e., the ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate) (Flavell, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref110">29</reflink>]), which is a critical cognitive function that underpins self-reflective beliefs such as self-efficacy. Our results revealed the unique contributions of different components of MA to science teaching efficacy. Specifically, HS teachers who were more aware of procedural knowledge (i.e., knowing instructional strategies) and planning skills (i.e., setting goals, and selecting effective instructional strategies for a given scenario) tended to be confident in their ability to teach science (Hughes & Partida, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref111">44</reflink>]). Also, teachers who monitor their instructional practices (i.e., calibrating teaching strategies and other instructional approaches by gauging children's understanding) tend to perceive their science teaching as more impactful (Gutierrez de Blume, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref112">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>As researchers indicated, knowing appropriate teaching strategies to operationalize knowledge to instructional practices is key to effective teaching (Karlen et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref113">46</reflink>]). Setting realistic yet challenging goals based on individual children's levels is associated with successful instruction (Azevedo, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref114">4</reflink>]). Monitoring one's teaching via means such as self-check-in, gauging children's engagement and levels of understanding, allows teachers to adjust their instruction to achieve students' optimal learning results (Ward & Butler, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref115">88</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our findings suggest that enhancing teachers' MA could, in turn, improve their teaching efficacy. A critical issue is the fostering of metacognitive training in teacher preparation and PD programs, where teachers learn, model, and apply metacognition in their teaching practices (Callan & Shim, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref116">13</reflink>]). Several questions must be addressed to successfully integrate metacognition in teacher preparation: how to integrate metacognition in a meaningful context to be teachable? How long and often should the training be? How can the training regimen be designed so the metacognitive skills learned in a particular domain are transferable? (Azevedo, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref117">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several effective metacognition-based training programs shed light on the design of such teacher training programs. Hughes and Partida ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref118">44</reflink>]) created a five-week-long pre-service STEM PD program that focused on the explicit teaching of metacognitive teaching strategies, teaching metacognitively within and beyond STEM domains, hands-on teaching practices, and in-person coaching. The authors reported participating in-service teachers' increased metacognitive regulation skills. Relatedly, the Grow to Learn PD program adopted a progressive online training plus experiential learning model, using a semester-long, growing sweet pea activity as an authentic learning context to foster self-regulated learning and MA in preschool children and their teachers (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref119">19</reflink>]). Results showed an increase in children's learning motivation and cognitive skills and teachers' procedural knowledge (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref120">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>In sum, effective metacognition-based training programs seem to share features such as explicitly teaching metacognitive instructional strategies, personalized feedback, and immersive programming with hands-on activities that promote knowledge's transformation into practices. Future teacher preparation and PD programs should continue to strive to improve teachers' pedagogical knowledge and their ability to plan, monitor, and reflect on their teaching practices to enhance their science teaching efficacy (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref121">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-21">Limitations</hd> <p>First, this study has limited generalizability. Although we sampled from HS centers across eight states, our sample size is relatively small and may not be representative of the whole HS teacher population. Further, our results are not representative of the larger EC workforce in the United States. Other types of childcare providers may have different teacher qualification requirements (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref122">45</reflink>]). Thus, the relation among teacher qualifications and science teaching efficacy and MA may be different.</p> <p>This study was conducted in the summer and fall of 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, it is possible that teachers' self-reported MA and science teaching efficacy were negatively impacted by the pandemic.</p> <p>Teachers' MA and science teaching efficacy are self-reported rating scales, and teachers' responses may be subject to social desirability (Bertrand & Mullainathan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref123">8</reflink>]). Additionally, we used the survey instrument, <emph>ET-STEM</emph>, to measure teachers' science teaching efficacy without any adaptation. However, this instrument was originally designed for elementary teachers. Given that science education is different at the EC and elementary levels, data collected using <emph>ET-STEM</emph> may not accurately reflect HS teachers' science teaching efficacy. Future researchers could consider using comparable scales designed for EC teachers, such as the Preschool Teachers' Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Science (Maier et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref124">54</reflink>]). Relatedly, MAIT is not grade-specific but certain items may not reflect EC teachers' MA.</p> <p>We did not collect any qualitative data in this study. Individual or focus-group interviews would add valuable information to our topic. Data in this study were collected at one time point, therefore, our results do not indicate any causal relationships among variables. Furthermore, we did not fully account for potential confounding variables at the classroom and organization levels, such as number of children and PD support.</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-22">Implications for Further Research</hd> <p>Future researchers should consider surveying a more representative sample of EC workforce, including teachers in center-based and home-based programs. Further, it is worthwhile for future researchers to create direct assessments of teachers' science pedagogical content knowledge, and ask teachers to provide confidence judgments (e.g., not sure, sure, very sure for each answer). The gamma correlation between the response accuracy and the confidence judgment can be used as an indicator of their metacognition for teaching (Pieschl et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref125">70</reflink>]). Relatedly, instead of self-reported science teaching efficacy rating scales, future researchers could use in-class observation measures designed for EC settings, such as Classroom Assessment Scoring System (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref126">69</reflink>]) and Science Teaching Environment Rating Scales (Chalufour et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref127">14</reflink>]). Results from such measures are more representative of teachers' actual instructional practices than self-reported belief measures (Holzberger et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref128">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, our results suggested a correlation among teachers' procedural knowledge, planning and monitoring skills, and science teaching efficacy. Future researchers could design teacher preparation and training programs that target those components of MA, such as explicitly teaching instructional strategy, assisting teachers to gauge children's understanding via verbal and non-verbal cues, and calibrating their teaching based on that information, to improve EC teachers' science teaching efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-23">Conclusion</hd> <p>Metacognition is a driving force of self-regulated learning – a critical twenty-first-century skill closely related to learning outcomes (Schuster et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref129">81</reflink>]). Teachers should be competent in their own metacognitive skills to become agents of self-regulated learning and influence children's learning through their instruction (Whitebread & Neale, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref130">89</reflink>]). Teachers with a more advanced Metacognitive Awareness (MA) are better at specifying learning goals and adapting effective strategies, which may subsequently improve children's learning outcomes (Schuster et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref131">81</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this study, we found that teachers with an EC background were more positive about their ability to teach science, more mindful of their teaching strategies, and more likely to self-evaluate their teaching. Also, teachers who were more aware of their teaching strategies and instructional goals and monitored their teaching practices reported higher confidence in their ability to teach science.</p> <p>It would be worthwhile for future researchers to assess EC teachers' instructional quality using in-class observational data collected at different time points, while taking greater account of teachers' motivation, stress, and the quality of the learning environment. Future research on metacognition-based teachers' PD should continue to explore how to successfully instill elements of metacognition, such as metacognitive knowledge and regulations, into the program design. Our study also has important practical implications for teacher training and Head Start. Future PD and teachers' preparation programs should include components that target the procedural knowledge, planning, and monitoring aspect of MA, such as explicitly teaching instructional strategies and helping teachers calibrate their teaching based on children's learning, to improve EC teachers' science teaching efficacy. The current Head Start staff qualifications and competency requirements state that at least 50% of all Head Start teachers, nationwide, should have a baccalaureate degree in child development, early childhood education, or equivalent coursework (Administration for Children and Families, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref132">1</reflink>]). Given the relation between teachers' EC background and science teaching efficacy, Head Start policymakers may consider increasing the teacher qualification requirement regarding training related to child development education and incentivizing teachers' professional development, particularly for those teachers whose training backgrounds are not in EC.</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-24">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191072485-25">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors have no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0191072485-26">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0191072485-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref20" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Administration for Children and Families (2024). Head Start program performance standards: Staff qualifications and competency requirements. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/45-cfr-chap-xiii/1302-91-staff-qualifications-competency-requirements</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref21" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aldemir J, Kermani H. Integrated STEM curriculum: Improving educational outcomes for HS children. Early Child Development and Care. 2017; 187; 11: 1694-1706. 10.1080/03004430.2016.1185102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref102" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alford B, Rollins K, Padron Y, Waxman H. Using systematic classroom observation to explore student engagement as a function of teachers' developmentally appropriate instructional practices (DAIP) in ethnically diverse pre-kindergarten through second-grade classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2016; 44; 6: 623-635. 10.1007/s10643-015-0748-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref114" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Azevedo R. Reflections on the field of metacognition: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. Metacognition and Learning. 2020; 15; 1: 91-98. 10.1007/s11409-020-09231-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref76" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Balcikanli C. Metacognitive awareness inventory for teachers (MAIT). Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. 2011; 9; 3: 1309-1332</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref72" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref84" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bates, D, Kliegl, R, Vasishth, S, & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. R Package. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref123" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bertrand M, Mullainathan S. Do people mean what they say? Implications for subjective survey data. The American Economic Review. 2001; 91; 2: 67-72. 10.1257/aer.91.2.67</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref70" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Boukerche A, Zheng L, Alfandi O. Outlier detection: Methods, models, and classification. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 2020; 53; 3: 1-37. 10.1145/3381028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowen RS, Picard DR, Verberne-Sutton S, Brame CJ. Incorporating student design in an HPLC lab activity promotes student metacognition and argumentation. Journal of Chemical Education. 2018; 95; 1: 108-115. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bredekamp, S, Masterson, M. L, Willer, B. A, & Wright, B. L. (2022). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. National Association for the Education of Young Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bustamante AS, White LJ, Greenfield DB. Approaches to learning and science education in Head Start: Examining bidirectionality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2018; 44; 3: 34-42. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Callan G, Shim S. How teachers define and identify self-regulated learning. The Teacher Educator. 2019; 54; 3: 295-312. 10.1080/08878730.2019.1609640</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chalufour, I, Worth, K, & Clark-Chiarelli, N. (2003). Science teaching and environment rating scale. Education Development Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chatzipanteli A, Grammatikopoulos V, Gregoriadis A. Development and evaluation of metacognition in early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care. 2014; 184; 8: 1223-1232. 10.1080/03004430.2013.861456</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clarke P, Wheaton B. Addressing data sparseness in contextual population research: Using cluster analysis to create synthetic neighborhoods. Sociological Methods & Research. 2007; 35; 3: 311-351. 10.1177/0049124106292362</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clements DH, Sarama J. Math, science, and technology in the early grades. The Future of Children. 2016; 26; 2: 75-94. 10.1353/foc.2016.0013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, S, Geesa, R. L, Izci, B, & Song, H. (2022). Investigating preservice teachers' science and mathematics teaching efficacy, challenges, and support. The Teacher Educator, 57(3), 304–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2021.2007560</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, S, Guo, M, & Dousay, T. A. (2023). Grow to learn: a metacognitive approach to early childhood teachers' science professional development. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2279076</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, S, Sermeno, R, Hodge, K, Murphy, S, Agenbroad, A, Schweitzer, A, Tsao, L, & Roe, A. J. (2024). Young Children' s Self-Regulated Learning Benefited from a Metacognition-Driven Science Education Intervention for Early Childhood Teachers. Education Sciences, 14(6), 565. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060565</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis EA, Janssen FJJM, Van Driel JH. Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education. 2016; 52; 2: 127-160. 10.1080/03057267.2016.1161701</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Boer H, Donker AS, Kostons DD, Van der Werf GP. Long-term effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on student academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 2018; 24: 98-115. 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Gutierrez AP. Calibrating calibration: A meta-analysis of learning strategy instruction interventions to improve metacognitive monitoring accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2022; 114; 4: 681-700. 10.1037/edu0000674</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dignath C, Veenman MV. The role of direct strategy instruction and indirect activation of self-regulated learning- evidence from classroom observation studies. Educational Psychology Review. 2021; 33; 2: 489-533. 10.1007/s10648-020-09534-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Divrik R, Ta AM, Pilten P. Effect of inquiry-based learning method supported by metacognitive strategies on fourth-grade students' problem-solving and problem posing skills: A mixed methods research. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. 2021; 13; 2: 287-308. 10.26822/iejee.2021.191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dolean D, Melby-Lervåg M, Tincas I, Damsa C, Lervåg A. Achievement gap: Socioeconomic status affects reading development beyond language and cognition in children facing poverty. Learning and Instruction. 2019; 63: 101218. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dörr L, Perels F. Improving metacognitive abilities as an important prerequisite for self-regulated learning in preschool children. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. 2019; 11; 5: 449-459. 10.26822/iejee.2019553341</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enders CK, Tofighi D. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods. 2007; 12; 2: 121-137. 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flavell JH. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist. 1979; 34; 10: 906-911. 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friday Institute for Educational Innovation (2012). Teacher efficacy and attitudes toward STEM survey.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garson, G. D. (2013). Hierarchical linear modeling: Guide and applications. SAGE Publication. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384450</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gelman, A, & Hill, J. (2006). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs AS, Reed DK. Shared reading and science vocabulary for kindergarten students. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2023; 51: 127-138. 10.1007/s10643-021-01288-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein, D. (2022). October 13, Why you can't find child care: 100,000 workers are missing.https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/13/us/child-care-worker-shortage.html">www.nytimes.com/2022/10/13/us/child-care-worker-shortage.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant AA, Jeon L, Buettner CK. Relating early childhood teachers' working conditions and well-being to their turnover intentions. Educational Psychology. 2019; 39; 3: 294-312. 10.1080/01443410.2018.1543856</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenfield, D. B. (2015). Assessment in early childhood science education. In K, Trundle & M, Sackes (Eds.), Research in early childhood science education (pp.353–380). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9505-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamel E, Joo Y, Hong SY, Burton A. Teacher questioning practices in early childhood science activities. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2021; 49: 375-384. 10.1007/s10643-020-01075-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammack R, Yeter I, Pavlovich C, Boz T. Pre-service elementary teachers' science and engineering teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy: Exploring the impacts of efficacy source experiences through varying course modalities. International Journal of STEM Education. 2024; 11; 1: 1-19. 10.1186/s40594-024-00464-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hansson L, Leden L, Thulin S. Nature of science in early years science teaching. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2021; 29; 5: 795-807. 10.1080/1350293X.2021.1968463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiver P, Solarte ACS, Whiteside Z, Kim CJ, Whitehead GEK. The role of language teacher metacognition and executive function in exemplary classroom practice. The Modern Language Journal. 2021; 105; 2: 484-506. 10.1111/modl.12707</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holden C. Head Start enters adulthood: After 25 years we don't know much about how early childhood intervention programs work, but current research suggests they should be extended beyond early childhood. Science. 1990; 247; 4949: 1400-1402. 10.1126/science.247.4949.1400</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holzberger D, Philipp A, Kunter M. How teachers' self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013; 105; 3: 774-786. 10.1037/a0032198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu BY, Guan L, Li Y, Roberts SK, Zhang X. Feedback matters: Examining the use of feedback strategies by Chinese preschool teachers in science lessons. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2021; 50: 1355-1371. 10.1007/s10643-021-01265-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes AJ, Partida E. Promoting preservice stem education teachers' metacognitive awareness: PD designed to improve teacher metacognitive awareness. Journal of Technology Education. 2020; 32; 1: 5-20. 10.21061/jte.v32i1.a.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson AD, Martin A, Schochet ON. How do early care and education workforce and classroom characteristics differ between subsidized centers and available center-based alternatives for low-income children?. Children and Youth Services Review. 2019; 107: 104567. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104567</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karlen Y, Hirt C, Jud J, Rosenthal A, Eberli T. Teachers as learners and agents of self-regulated learning: The importance of different teachers' competence aspects for promoting metacognition. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2023; 125: 104055. 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kloos H, Waltzer T, Maltbie C, Brown RD, Carr V. Inconsistencies in early science education: Can nature help streamline state standards?. Ecopsychology. 2018; 10; 4: 243-258. 10.1089/eco.2018.0042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar V. Awareness of metacognitive skills among teachers as correlate of their teaching style and personality orientation. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research. 2015; 6; 4: 137-152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Künsting J, Neuber V, Lipowsky F. Teacher self-efficacy as a long-term predictor of instructional quality in the classroom. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2016; 31: 299-322. 10.1007/s10212-015-0272-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lange AA, Robertson L, Tian Q, Nivens R, Price J. The effects of an early childhood-elementary teacher preparation program in STEM on pre-service teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education. 2022; 18; 12: em2197. 10.29333/ejmste/12698</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larimore RA. Preschool science education: A vision for the future. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2020; 48; 6: 703-714. 10.1007/s10643-020-01033-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luke SE, Ford D, Vaughn M, Fulchini-Scruggs A. Using mixed reality simulation and roleplay to develop preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 2021; 29; 3: 389-413. 10.70725/164279zjkiny</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magnuson, K, Waldfogel, J, & Washbrook, E. V. (2012). SES gradients in skills during the school years. In J. Ermisch, M. Jantti, & T. Smeeding (Eds.), From parents to children: The intergenerational transmission of advantage (pp. 235–261). Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maier MF, Greenfield DB, Bulotsky-Shearer RJ. Development and validation of preschool teachers' attitudes and beliefs toward science teaching questionnaire. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2013; 28; 2: 366-378. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.09.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manning M, Garvis S, Fleming C, Wong GTW. The relationship between teacher qualification and the quality of the early childhood education and care environment. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2017; 13; 1: 1-82. 10.4073/csr.2017.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marulis LM, Baker ST, Whitebread D. Integrating metacognition and executive function to enhance young children's perception of and agency in their learning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2020; 50; 1: 46-54. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.12.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClure, E. R, Guernsey, L, Clements, D. H, Bales, S. N, Nichols, J, Kendall-Taylor, N, & Levine, M. H. (2017). STEM starts early: Grounding science, technology, engineering, and math education in EC. Joan Ganz Cooney. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED574402.pdf Center at Sesame Workshop.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McEntire N. The impact of teacher education on outcomes in center-based Early Childhood education programs: A meta-analysis. Childhood Education. 2011; 87; 5: 374-375. 10.13140/RG.2.1.3317.6566</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menon D, Sadler TD. Sources of science teaching self-efficacy for preservice elementary teachers in science content courses. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2018; 16; 5: 835-855. 10.1007/s10763-017-9813-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muimongkol SC, Subramaniam K, Wickstrom CD. Dimensions and orientations of pre-service early childhood teachers' conceptions of teaching science. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2022; 50: 145-156. 10.1007/s10643-020-01146-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nardi, P. M. (2018). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315172231</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center on Early Childhood Development, Learning, and Teaching (2018). Education requirements for center-based preschool teachers.https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/publication/education-requirements-center-based-preschool-teachers</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association for the Education of Young Children (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice.https://<ulink href="http://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/dap-statement%5f0.pdf">www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/dap-statement%5f0.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nezlek, J. B. (2011). Multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nores M, Friedman-Krauss A, Figueras-Daniel A. Activity settings, content, and pedagogical strategies in preschool classrooms: Do these influence the interactions we observe?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2022; 58; 1: 264-277. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.09.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Özçakmak H, Köroglu M, Korkmaz C, Bolat Y. The effect of metacognitive awareness on academic success. African Educational Research Journal. 2021; 9; 2: 434-448. 10.30918/AERJ.92.21.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker M, Ficklin K, Mishra M. Teacher self-efficacy in a rural K-5 setting: Quantitative research on the influence of engineering PD. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 2020; 20; 4: 704-729</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry J, Lundie D, Golder G. Metacognition in schools: What does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools?. Educational Review. 2019; 71; 4: 483-500. 10.1080/00131911.2018.1441127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C, Paro, L, K. M, & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS) manual, pre-K. Paul H. Brookes Publication Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pieschl S, Budd J, Thomm E, Archer J. Effects of raising student teachers' metacognitive awareness of their educational psychological misconceptions. Psychology Learning and Teaching. 2021; 20; 2: 214-235. 10.1177/1475725721996223</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pornprasertmanit S, Lee J, Preacher KJ. Ignoring clustering in confirmatory factor analysis: Some consequences for model fit and standardized parameter estimates. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2014; 49; 6: 518-543. 10.1080/00273171.2014.933762</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.3.0) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://<ulink href="http://www.R-project.org/">www.R-project.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rieser S, Naumann A, Decristan J, Fauth B, Klieme E, Büttner G. The connection between teaching and learning: Linking teaching quality and metacognitive strategy use in primary school. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2016; 86; 4: 526-545. 10.1111/bjep.12121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Röthlisberger M, Neuenschwander R, Cimeli P, Roebers CM. Executive functions in 5-to 8-year-olds: Developmental changes and relationship to academic achievement. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology. 2013; 3; 2: 153-167. 10.5539/jedp.v3n2p153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saçkes M, Trundle KC, Shaheen M. The effect of balanced learning® curriculum on young children's learning of science. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2020; 48: 305-312. 10.1007/s10643-019-00985-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schilder, D, & Sandstrom, H. (2021). Racial, economic, and social justice for the early care and education workforce: Pre-, during, and post-COVID-19. Urban Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED616068.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schraw G. Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review. 1995; 7; 4: 351-371. 10.1007/BF02212307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schraw G, Dennison RS. Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 1994; 19; 4: 460-475. 10.1006/ceps.1994.1033</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schraw, G, & Gutierrez, A. P. (2015). Metacognitive strategy instruction that highlights the role of monitoring and control processes. In A. Peña-Ayala (Eds.), Metacognition: Fundaments, applications, and trends (pp. 3–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11062-2_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk, D. H, & Greene, J. A. (2017). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schuster C, Stebner F, Leutner D, Wirth J. Transfer of metacognitive skills in self-regulated learning: An experimental training study. Metacognition and Learning. 2020; 15; 3: 455-477. 10.1007/s11409-020-09237-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh S. Engaging young children with science concepts in a community-based book distribution and animal-themed literacy intervention program. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2022; 51: 1079-1089. 10.1007/s10643-022-01335-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soodla P, Jõgi AL, Kikas E. Relationships between teachers' metacognitive knowledge and students' metacognitive knowledge and reading achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2017; 32: 201-218. 10.1007/s10212-016-0293-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stebner F, Schuster C, Weber XL, Greiff S, Leutner D, Wirth J. Transfer of metacognitive skills in self-regulated learning: Effects on strategy application and content knowledge acquisition. Metacognition and Learning. 2022; 17; 3: 715-744. 10.1007/s11409-022-09322-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Temur ÖD, Özsoy G, Turgut S. Metacognitive instructional behaviours of preschool teachers in mathematical activities. Zdm. 2019; 51: 655-666. 10.1007/s11858-019-01069-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Timmons, K. (2019). The great debate applied to developmentally appropriate practice (DAP): Moving beyond dichotomies in the early years. Canadian Scholars.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Velthuis C, Fisser P, Pieters J. Teacher training and preservice primary teachers' self-efficacy for science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2014; 25; 4: 445-464. 10.1007/s10972-013-9363-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward RT, Butler DL. An investigation of metacognitive awareness and academic performance in college freshman. Education. 2019; 139; 3: 120-126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitebread D, Neale D. Metacognition in early child development. Translational Issues in Psychological Science. 2020; 6; 1: 8-14. 10.1037/tps0000223</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zohar, A, & Barzilai, S. (2015). Metacognition and teaching higher order thinking (HOT) in science education: Students' learning, teachers' knowledge and instructional practices. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 253–266). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zohar A, Peled B. The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction. 2008; 18; 4: 337-353. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.001</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Shiyi Chen; Rachel Louise Geesa; Hyuksoon S. Song and Burcu Izci</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref128"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503805
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Association between Early Childhood Teachers' Metacognitive Awareness and Science Teaching Efficacy in Head Start Settings
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shiyi+Chen%22">Shiyi Chen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3794-6575">0000-0002-3794-6575</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rachel+Louise+Geesa%22">Rachel Louise Geesa</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hyuksoon+S%2E+Song%22">Hyuksoon S. Song</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burcu+Izci%22">Burcu Izci</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2026 54(1):193-203.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Teachers%22">Early Childhood Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Metacognition%22">Metacognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Programs%22">Federal Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Qualifications%22">Teacher Qualifications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Evaluation+%28Individuals%29%22">Self Evaluation (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01808-4
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this study was to examine which early childhood (EC) teachers' qualifications (i.e., degree, major, and teaching experience) are linked to teachers' Metacognitive Awareness (MA) and science teaching efficacy, and to investigate the relation among EC teachers' MA components and science teaching efficacy. A total of 153 Head Start teachers from eight U.S. states completed validated surveys that measured their science teaching efficacy and MA. Results from multilevel ANOVA and regression analysis showed that teachers with an early childhood education background were more positive about their ability to teach science, more mindful of their teaching strategies, and more likely to self-evaluate their teaching as compared to teachers without an EC education background. Also, teachers who were more aware of their teaching strategies and instructional goals, and monitored their teaching practices reported higher confidence in their ability to teach science. Our results revealed the role of MA in early science teaching efficacy and highlighted the importance of supporting EC teachers' professional development, particularly for those whose backgrounds are not in EC.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1503805
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503805
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01808-4
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 193
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Metacognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Qualifications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Evaluation (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Association between Early Childhood Teachers' Metacognitive Awareness and Science Teaching Efficacy in Head Start Settings
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shiyi Chen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rachel Louise Geesa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hyuksoon S. Song
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burcu Izci
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 54
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1