Basic Education Teachers' Sense of Efficacy (TSE) In Inclusion Classes

  • 1,361 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,361
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. BASIC EDUCATION TEACHERS’ SENSE OF EFFICACY (TSE) IN INCLUSION CLASSES A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Health Science Management and Pedagogy Southwestern University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Teaching major in Special Education JUNHEL C. DALANON March 2010
  • 2. APPROVAL SHEET This thesis entitled TEACHERS’ SENSE OF EFFICACY (TSE) IN INCLUSION CLASSES prepared and submitted by JUNHEL C. DALANON in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS IN TEACHING major in SPECIAL EDUCATION has been examined and is recommended for acceptance and approval for ORAL EXAMINATION. THESIS COMMITTEE MARIO NARDO, Ed.D. Adviser CLEMENCIA V. GATPOLINTAN, Ed.D. ALICIA B. PLANTAR, Ed.D. Member Member ROUEL A. LONGINOS, Ed.D., Ph.D. Chairman PANEL OF EXAMINERS Approved by the Committee on Oral Examination with the grade of ____________. ROUEL A. LONGINOS, Ed.D., Ph.D. Chairman CLEMENCIA V. GATPOLINTAN, Ed.D. ALICIA B. PLANTAR, Ed.D. Member Member DR. MARIO NARDO, Ed.D. Adviser Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS IN TEACHING major in SPECIAL EDUCATION. Comprehensive Examination Passed : Date of Oral Examination : ROUEL A. LONGINOS, Ed.D., Ph.D. Dean
  • 3. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Foremost, the researcher would like to impart his sincerest thanks to the Almighty Father who bestowed noteworthy contributions, material and immaterial alike, to the completion of this study. Moreover, recognition goes to Dr. Yolanda Sayson, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Dr. Deletah Polinar, Dean of the College of Education; and Dr. Ramir Uytico, Professor; Mr. Richard Ruelan, Department Chairman of the SWU Graduate School for the encouragement to continue a graduate degree. Furthermore, credit is bequeathed to Dr. Gloria Lucero- Dinglasa, Graduate School Professor, for instilling the good features of the “Need for Achievement” (nAch) that paved way to the researcher’s eventual appreciation of the Self-Efficacy Theory. To Dr. Albert Bandura, author of the self-efficacy theory and professor of Emory University; and Dr. Anita Woolfolk Hoy, propagator of Teacher Sense of Efficacy and professor of the Ohio State University for giving the necessary resources to complete the literature and statistical aspect of the study. Next, appreciation is given to Dr. Rouel A. Longinos, Dean of the Graduate School and Panel Chairman; Dr. Alicia B. Plantar; Dr. Clemencia B. Gatpolintan; and Dr. Mario Nardo, Thesis Adviser for their priceless criticisms of this study. With equal gratitude, appreciation goes to Mr. Graeme Armecin, Mr. Jaime Ruelan, and Ms. Iris Vera Petralba for their inputs on the statistical aspect of the study. The facts, figures, and records used in the study are part of an investigative development scheme. A gargantuan debt of gratitude goes to the students, faculty, staff, and administration of SNSCLC for the assistance in the data gathering and concept construction of this study. JUNHEL C. DALANON
  • 4. ii ABSTRACT Title : TEACHERS’ SENSE OF EFFICACY (TSE) IN INCLUSION CLASSES Author : JUNHEL C. DALANON Degree : Master of Arts in Teaching major in Special Education School : SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Adviser : Dr. Mario Nardo Date : March 2010 Pages : 55 pages CONTENT ANALYSIS Objectives and Scope Using a sample of 30 Teachers in inclusion classes, the researcher used questionnaires to determine the teachers’ sense of efficacy with empirical and theoretical relation to the efficacy processes. Findings The respondents’ professional preparation is basic and with no relationship to the teachers’ sense of efficacy. Conclusion There is no sufficient data to prove a significant relationship between the teachers’ professional preparation and the teachers’ sense of efficacy. Recommendations An improvement in teacher efficacy is recommended through trainings and seminars. An ensuing in-depth study is also advisable.
  • 5. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE APPROVAL SHEET ACKNOWLEDGMENT i ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF TABLES v Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY 1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 3 THE PROBLEM 13 Statement of the Problem 13 Statement of the Hypothesis 14 Significance of the Study 15 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 17 Research Design 17 Research Environment 17 Research Respondents 17 Research Instruments 18 Research Procedures 19 Gathering of Data 19 Treatment of Data 20 DEFINITION OF TERMS 21 Chapter II PRESENTATION ANALYSIS AND 24 INTERPRETATION OF DATA Professional Preparation of the Teachers 24 Highest Educational Attainment 24 Seminars and Trainings Attended 25 Degree of Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy 26 Cognitive Processes 27 Motivational Processes 28 Affective Processes 29 Selection Processes 30
  • 6. iv Teachers’ Professional Preparation and Sense 32 of Efficacy Professional Development Plan 34 Chapter III SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND 36 RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of Findings 36 Conclusions 38 Recommendations 39 BIBLIOGRAPHY 40 APPENDICES 45 Appendix A – TRANSMITTAL LETTER 45 Appendix B – RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS 46 Appendix B-1 Professional 46 Accomplishment Questionnaire Appendix B-2 Self-Efficacy 47 Long Form Appendix C – PERMIT TO USE SCALE 54 CURRICULUM VITAE 55
  • 7. v LIST OF TABLES Table Page Professional Preparation of the Teachers 1 26 Degree of Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy of the 2 Teacher-Respondents 31 Level of Attainment of the Efficacy Activated 3 Process 32 Relationship of Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy to 4 33 Professional Preparation
  • 8. Chapter I THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE INTRODUCTION Rationale of the Study The movement toward inclusion has made emphasis on educating students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Data from the U.S. Department of Education (1996) have indicated that approximately 73% of students with disabilities receive their instructional program in general education classrooms and resource room settings, and that 95% of the students with disabilities are served in general education schools. The recent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (P.L. 105-17) also includes general provisions that encourage the placement of students with disabilities in inclusive settings. The inclusion schools provided for students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment, as mandated in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and further clarified through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), passed in 1990 and renewed in 1997 and 2004. In the past decade, the entire world witnessed a surge of improvement and heightened awareness in the field of Special Education. In contrast, presently there are a lot of students with
  • 9. 2 unidentified special needs that are mainstreamed in regular classes to cope with the shortage of qualified teachers and educational institutions (Inciong, Quijano, Capulong, Gregorio, & Gines, 2007). A 2004-2005 survey by the Department of Education showed that only 4.8% of the children with special needs have been enrolled. The remaining 95.2% have not been provided with appropriate educational services. According to the document on consolidated number of teachers per region, Region VII ranked only 8th with 293 special education teachers among the 16 regions in the country (Updates: Department of Education of the Philippines - DepEd, 2005). With the rising cost of education and exodus of qualified teachers out of the country, some special education center and most regular schools are left to cope with general education teachers trying to teach in the field of special education. In the absence of conventional methods and appropriate equipment, self-efficacy is of wide theoretical importance and practical applicability to the measurement of the capacity of a teacher’s competence (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993).
  • 10. 3 Theoretical Background The movement toward inclusion has created an emphasis on educating students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Data from the U.S. Department of Education (1996) have indicated that approximately 73%of students with disabilities receive their instructional program in general education classrooms and resource room settings, and that 95% of the students with disabilities are served in general education schools. The recent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (P.L. 105-17) also includes general provisions that encourage the placement of students with disabilities in inclusive settings Based on Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory, personal efficacy affects life choices, level of motivation, quality of functioning, resilience to adversity and vulnerability to stress and depression. Studies have shown that self-efficacy is a moderate predictor of performance across many different behaviors. These findings are particularly valuable because they speak to the broadness of the self-efficacy construct and its widespread usefulness in understanding human change.
  • 11. 4 Teacher efficacy is made up of two dimensions: teaching efficacy and personal efficacy. Teaching efficacy, which will be the focus of this investigation, is the belief that one’s teaching can affect certain educational outcomes. A teacher’s efficacy beliefs are related to their behavior in the classroom and the amount of effort they invest in teaching. There is a relationship between what a teacher believes and how they interact and work with students in the classroom. Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory states that “psychological procedures, whatever their form, serve as means of creating and strengthening expectation of personal efficacy”. An efficacy expectation is the “conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce outcomes” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). Efficacy expectations have three dimensions that have implications for individual performance. These dimensions in which efficacy expectations can differ are magnitude, generality, and strength. Magnitude refers to the level of difficulty of a task as the efficacy expectations of individuals may extend to simple tasks, some of moderately difficult ones, or include a very difficult task.
  • 12. 5 Generality refers to how far the efficacy expectation is extended to or generalized to different situations. Strength refers to the power the efficacy expectation has, as weak efficacy expectations can easily be dismissed by a person, while strong efficacy expectations may enable a person to continue with a difficult task despite the adversity being faced. Expectations of personal efficacy come from four sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. These sources of information mediate a person’s efficacy beliefs. The first and most powerful source is performance accomplishment which refers to personal mastery experiences. When an individual experiences success, efficacy expectations are raised while failures lower efficacy expectations. Once an individual has established a sense of self-efficacy, improvements in behavioral functioning generalize not only to similar situations but also to very different situations or tasks. The second source of information is vicarious experience which refers to the fact that efficacy expectations also are developed from observing others perform tasks without negative
  • 13. 6 consequences. A person may learn that they also can achieve at such a level if they are persistent in their efforts. The third source of information is verbal persuasion which refers to the use of verbal suggestion in order to convince an individual into believing that he or she successfully can handle a task that has overwhelmed him or her in the past. Again, this method of enhancing efficacy expectations is not as powerful as personal accomplishments. The fourth source of information which develops efficacy expectations is emotional arousal. This term refers to the fact that in the face of difficult situations a person becomes emotionally and physiologically aroused and this occurrence can provide information about personal skills and level of ability (Bandura, 1977). People use these four sources of information to judge their level of self- efficacy in any given situation. On the cognitive aspect, pressing situational demands will almost always test a person to remain task oriented. This requires a vigorous sense of self-efficacy. Without a doubt, when people are confronted with the tasks of taking care of difficult environmental pressures under demanding circumstances, those
  • 14. 7 who are beset by self-doubts about their efficacy become more and more unreliable in their logical thinking, lower their aspirations and the quality of their performance deteriorates. The inverse is true to those who maintain a high level of self-efficacy. Motivation is the internal condition that activates behavior and gives it direction; energizes and directs goal-oriented behavior. While this might seem an intersection on self-concept, motivation is affected by self-efficacy. By making self-satisfaction conditional on matching adopted goals, people give direction to their behavior and create incentives to persist in their efforts until they fulfill their goals. When people believe in themselves, this affects how much stress and depression they experience in threatening or difficult situations, as well as their level of motivation. Perceived self- efficacy to exercise control over stressors plays a central role in anxiety arousal. This is the effect of self-efficacy on the affective process. Lastly, beliefs of personal efficacy can change the path of the lives taken by manipulating the types of tasks and surroundings people choose. People avoid activities and situations they believe exceed their coping capabilities.
  • 15. 8 Measurement of self-efficacy is possible. There is no all- purpose measure of perceived self-efficacy. Since, efficacy is domain specific and a task-oriented belief of a capability, generalizations can’t be made. Although separate from the premise that binds it, the values being measured to the domain are similar and quantifiable. The question now lies with what is being measured and the levels in the scale (Bandura, 2006). Efficacy must be tailored to the particular domain of functioning that is the object of interest. Initial research on efficacy as it relates to the field of psychology and education today was completed which was evaluating educational programs. Items were constructed for this evaluation project based on Rotter’s (1966) theory of social learning. Teacher’s level of efficacy was calculated based on their total score from two questions. These items were (a) “ When it comes right down to it, a teacher can’t really do much because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment, “ and (b) “If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students.” Results of both studies indicated that the higher a teacher’s sense
  • 16. 9 of efficacy, the more students learned and made academic gains in reading. In its greatest significance, teacher efficacy refers to teachers' beliefs about their ability to influence student outcome. For decades, researchers have identified teacher efficacy as a crucial factor for improving teacher education and promoting educational reform (Ashton, 1984). In studies done abroad, Teacher efficacy has been found to predict student achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986), student motivation (Pajares, 1997), and students' own sense of efficacy (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988). Further, teacher efficacy has been linked to teachers' enthusiasm for teaching (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), teachers' high confidence levels and positive attitudes (Guskey, 1984), their willingness to experiment with new methods (Guskey, 1988). In the Philippines, results of one study show that the personality characteristics of a teacher influences his teaching performance, effective teaching characteristics, and teaching efficacy (Magno & Sembrano, 2007). Another study showed that problems encountered in inclusion classes by teachers are linked to
  • 17. 10 emotional, educational preparation, and performance difficulty (De Guzman, 2009). These problems are associated with the sources of efficacy. Increasing the level of Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy (TSE) will decrease the likelihood of barriers in teaching and their subsequent effects. Self-efficacy is a well established theory with supporting case studies. It is the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner to attain certain goals. Based on this premise, a teacher’s efficacy beliefs are related to their behavior in the classroom and the amount of effort they invest in teaching. There is a relationship between what a teacher believes and how they interact and work with students in the classroom. Expectations of personal efficacy come from four sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Measurement of self-efficacy is possible and is a domain restricted scale. Turning to the school context, self-efficacy is a moderate predictor of academic achievement. Teachers with higher self- efficacy tend to achieve more. Furthermore, heightened levels of self-efficacy are associated with longer persistence on classroom
  • 18. 11 management tasks. The relationship between self-efficacy and performance is complex. Teacher’s efficacy can play a crucial role in setting learning conditions that can promote self-efficacy in their students. Because mastery experiences are a dominant source of students’ efficacy beliefs, teachers who carefully set mastery experiences in the classroom will produce students with a confident sense of their own capabilities. When teachers indicate to students that their successes are the result of their capabilities, teachers communicate a way of thinking to students that alerts them to take ownership of task mastery. Teachers can improve learning and motivation gleaned vicariously by using a number of strategies. For example, research indicates that teachers who use multiple models to demonstrate skills will increase the transmission of the demonstrated behavior and enhance self-efficacy. This shows the importance of putting motivational beliefs on the agenda of classroom teaching. Students learn a sense of their capabilities to tackle classroom work, and teachers play a crucial role in such learning. Teachers can build instructional experiences that produce students who are confident, persistent, and active in their engagement of classroom tasks.
  • 19. 12 Construct validity or the extent to which a test measures self- efficacy will not be the aim of this study, since the validity of self- efficacy as a ground for teacher competency has been proven by past studies. The imperfective nature of the local special education center delivery is a perfect research area for the application of self- efficacy measures. Being an abstract construct fortified its use as a measuring tool in a flawed setting. There are already a lot of studies done with conventional statistical measures and customary gauges. The examination with the theory of self-efficacy intersecting with underlying variables involved in the study is more practical, appropriate, and cost-efficient. Furthermore, this study further reinforced and augmented similar researches before this. Teacher efficacy has been discussed and measured for over 30 years (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The construct of teacher efficacy stems from the social cognitive theorist, Bandura (1997) who defined it as a teacher’s belief about his or her capabilities to facilitate desired effects on student learning especially among those who may be considered difficult to motivate. Teacher efficacy can be linked to several student outcomes as well as teacher behavior in the classroom.
  • 20. 13 THE PROBLEM Statement of the Problem This study aimed to determine the perceived teachers’ sense of efficacy (TSE) in inclusion classes of Sto. Niño Smart Child Learning Center, Minglanilla, Cebu during the school year 2009- 2010. The findings of this study will serve as bases for a proposed professional development plan. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions: 1. What is the professional preparation of the teachers in terms of: 1.1. highest educational attainment; and 1.2. seminars and trainings attended? 2. What is the degree of teachers’ sense of efficacy based on the following processes: 2.1. cognitive; 2.2. motivational; 2.3. affective; 2.4. selection? 3. Is there a significant relationship between the teachers’ professional preparation and sense of efficacy?
  • 21. 14 4. What professional development plan can be proposed based on the findings of this study? Hypothesis 1. There is no significant relationship between the teachers’ professional preparation and sense of efficacy.
  • 22. 15 Significance of the Study Teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching or the perceptions about their own capabilities to foster students’ learning and engagement has proved to be an important teacher characteristic often correlated with positive student and teacher outcomes. This study is beneficial to the following: Students. In reference to students with special needs, they will show considerable improvement in association with an improved educational curriculum and awareness of level elevation. The presence and level of self-efficacy in teachers will radiate to the perceived efficacy of the students. Teachers. Having been acquainted with the general and specific parameters in the assessment, evaluation, and referral process of students with special needs will enable the teachers to limit a margin of error to minimum. Administrators. This will enable the administrators to effectively formulate an efficient schematic for hiring teachers. Furthermore, the study will stimulate the
  • 23. 16 administrators to improve the summer trainings before the start of classes. Parents. The overall satisfaction and confidence of the parents in the educational system will be attained. This will lead to a perception leading to attainment of self-reliance, which is the goal of all special education centers. Educational System. The instigation of awareness on the part of the legislators or personnel in management will facilitate the improvement of the quality of education and the system of teacher competence measurement. The Researcher. The importance of the research is critical to the researcher since it can help understand better how to create learning environments that support teachers in their work. This is an interest field that can commence multiple researches in the hopes of helping the teachers he administers. Future Researchers. The scope of the study will serve as a stimulus for the need to further the study. The study will augment the past studies in the field of self-efficacy and further fortify the theory of Albert Bandura.
  • 24. 17 Research Methodology Research Design This study utilized the descriptive correlation survey method to determine the teachers’ sense of efficacy in inclusion classes. Initially, teachers are made to answer the questionnaire to gather information pertaining to their educational attainment. Furthermore, teachers are made to answer the efficacy related long form to gauge the teachers’ level of efficacy. Research Environment The Sto. Niño Smart Child Learning Center in the municipality of Minglanilla, Cebu was the research locale of the study during the school year 2009-2010. The school is a general education school offering special education inclusion classes. The school has a pre- school, elementary, and high school department. There are one hundred fifty (150) students enrolled in the school and a total of thirty (30) teachers in this school year 2009-2010. Research Respondents Teachers in the Elementary and secondary general education, pre-school through high school were the respondents of the study
  • 25. 18 from the research environment. The total number of participants to be recruited are 30 (female = 30, male = 0). Research Instruments Professional Accomplishment Questionnaire for Respondents. The questionnaire is a simple tool that contained a set of professional qualifications. Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale – Long Form. The long form aims to gain a better understanding of the kinds of things that create difficulties for teachers in their school activities (Hoy, W. 2001). One numerical value will not be indicative of the perceived self-efficacy of a teacher since the scale is indicative of the range of perception a teacher identifies. This consists of 30 questions related to a teacher’s perceived efficacy in relation to the 4 efficacy activated processes. The options range from Nothing (1-2), Very Little (3-4), Some (5-6), Quite A Bit (7-8), and A Great Deal (9). Questions 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 18, and 29 pertain to the cognitive process; questions 4, 12, 13, 20, 22, 24, and 25 to the motivational process; questions 6, 9, 15, 19, and 21 to the affective process; and questions 1, 3, 5, 8, 16, 17, 23, 26, 27, 28, and 30 to the selection process.
  • 26. 19 Research Procedures Gathering of Data Permission was sought from the school director to conduct the study. This is subsequent to the explanation of the study’s rationale and processes involved to the school administration. In order to recruit teachers for participation in the study, the researcher held a faculty meeting on the afternoon of November 6, 2009. Overview of the study was introduced during the meeting. Teachers who are interested in participating was asked to fill-up the transmittal letter. Teachers who are interested in participating were contacted and individual interviews were scheduled. The process of collecting data from individual teachers took approximately 20-30 minutes in the format of an individual interview. The interview was piloted with two teachers. First, teachers were provided with a verbal overview of the study. The researcher stated that the purpose of the study is to investigate teachers’ knowledge of students with special needs in the classroom and whether or not they have the optimum level of perceived efficacy.
  • 27. 20 Second, teachers were asked to complete the professional accomplishment questionnaire independently. Third, the teachers completed the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy – Long Form measure related to teaching students with special needs independently. Directions are printed at the top of the measure. Treatment of Data To summarize the data on professional preparation, frequency with percentage distribution was used. The weighted mean of the degree of teachers’ sense of efficacy was obtained and interpreted as follows: Parameter of Limits Interpretation 1.00 - 2.60 Poor 2.61 - 4.20 Fair 4.21 - 5.80 Good 5.81 - 7.40 Very Good 7.41 - 9.00 Excellent To determine whether there is a significant relationship between the teachers’ professional preparation and sense of efficacy, Chi Square Test for Association was used. Data was processed using statistical software. An associated p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
  • 28. 21 DEFINITION OF TERMS For extensive comprehension of the terms of the study, the following are defined: Affective Process. There are three ways in which self-efficacy beliefs affect the nature and intensity of emotional experiences. Exercise of personal control over thought, action, and affect. Cognitive Process. These are thought processes that can enhance or undermine performance, and take various forms. Courses of action are initially shaped in thought, and then serve as guides for action. Inclusion Class. Inclusion in the context of education is a term that refers to the practice of educating students with special needs in regular classes for all or nearly all of the day instead of in special education classes. Motivational Process. The capability for self--motivation and purposive action is rooted in cognitive theory. Future states cannot be the cause of current motivation or action. By being cognitively
  • 29. 22 represented in the present, conceived future states are converted into current motivation and regulators of behavior (forethought). Perceived Teacher Efficacy. Teacher beliefs in instructional efficacy influence students’ academic development. Teachers with a high sense of efficacy operate on the beliefs that students are teachable through extra effort and appropriate techniques. They devote more class time to instructional activities; provide guidance more to students who need it, praise their academic accomplishments more. Low efficacy teachers feel there is little they can do if students are unmotivated or there is environmental opposition. Professional Development Plan. It is a short planning document that examines the current needs of the teaching force, looks at how these might be met and lists objectives for the future. It helps to structure and focus the training needs and should address the current status, objectives, and strategies of the faculty. Selection Process. People are partly the products of their environments. By selecting their environments, people can have a
  • 30. 23 hand in what they become. Any factor that influences choice of behavior can affect the direction of personal development. Self-efficacy. It is the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner to attain certain goals. It is a belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions required to manage prospective situations. Unlike efficacy, which is the power to produce an effect, self-efficacy is the belief that one has the power to produce that effect. Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy. Teacher efficacy has been discussed and measured for over 30 years (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The construct of teacher efficacy stems from the social cognitive theorist, Bandura (1997) who defined it as a teacher’s belief about his or her capabilities to facilitate desired effects on student learning especially among those who may be considered difficult to motivate. Teacher efficacy can be linked to several student outcomes as well as teacher behavior in the classroom.
  • 31. 24 CHAPTER II Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data This chapter contains the discussion of the data collected to answer the problems posted in the study. The analyses and interpretation of data were presented in tables with their corresponding statistical indicators. Professional Preparation of the Teachers A. Highest Educational Attainment Table 1 shows the educational attainment of the teacher- respondents. It could be noted that the majority (66.7%) of the teacher-respondents do not have the necessary educational qualifications. Only a diminutive portion comprises those that have units in SPED (6.7%) and those that have M.A. in SPED (3.3%). These findings could probably mean that DECS order no. 108, series of 1999, which clearly states the qualification for a teaching item in a SPED center, requiring the teachers to have a minimum bachelor’s degree either in (B.E.Ed), (B.S.E.Ed), (B.S.Ed) major in any field of specialization and/or major in SPED plus 18 units of SPED in the graduate level or 16 units in a SPED master’s program but with 2 years of very satisfactory teaching experience in the
  • 32. 25 regular schools, had compelling among the teacher respondents to enroll in the graduate level in order to secure the required units and/or to gain the master’s degree in SPED for job security and promotions. B. Seminars and Trainings Attended Through the questionnaire, the data obtained and presented in table 1 shows that majority (46.7%) of the respondents have obtained the minimum number of days for seminars attended. A close percentage (30%) constitutes those that attended a 5 day seminar only. These results would mean that majority of the respondents are contented with having only the least amount of time allocated for seminars in SPED. It is also important to note that there is no existing requirement for seminars attended before and after hiring the teachers in SNSCLC. Although this is the case, the school administration makes the initiative of sending senior and deserving teachers to school sponsored seminars. In relation, the school also conducts their own seminars for their teachers.
  • 33. 26 Table 1. Professional Preparation of the Teachers of Sto. Niño Smart Child Learning Center, Minglanilla, Cebu During the School Year 2009- 2010 Valid Highest Educational Attainment Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Percent B.E.Ed./B.S.Ed 20 66.7 66.7 66.7 B.E.Ed./B.S.Ed with units in SPED 2 6.7 6.7 73.3 B.E.Ed./B.S.Ed with units in M.A. 5 16.7 16.7 90.0 M.A. in other subjects 2 6.7 6.7 96.7 M.A. in SPED 1 3.3 3.3 100.0 Total 30 100.0 100.0 Valid Seminars and Trainings Attended Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Percent 5 day seminar for 8 hrs. 9 30.0 30.0 30.0 10 day seminar for 8 hrs. 4 13.3 13.3 43.3 25 day seminar for 8 hrs. 3 10.0 10.0 53.3 1-4 day seminar for 1-5 hrs. 14 46.7 46.7 100.0 Total 30 100.0 100.0 Degree of Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy Table 2 shows the total degree of teacher’s sense of efficacy of the teacher-respondents (7.10). As far as education itself, inclusion has had a tremendous impact on scheduling, funding, legal challenges, testing accommodations, and teacher stress. Respondents report that with the pressures from inclusion and accountability, they feel as though they are being asked to do more and more work with less and less support—and given the difficulties with school funding, resources are fewer as well. But there are clear benefits as well as legal requirements for including everyone in the classrooms—the challenge is giving teachers and schools the education and support they need to do the job well, so
  • 34. 27 that both teachers and students share an authentic sense of efficacy for learning. A. Cognitive Processes The data shown in table 2 shows that cognitive processes performed by the respondents are very good. This would mean that the respondents have higher than average thinking processes involved in the acquisition, organization and use of information. Contradicting to the total mean is item 29 with only a mean of 6.23, this would conclude that the respondents are having testing times in modifying the academic content for a student with special needs. A major function of thought is to enable the teachers to predict events and to develop ways to control those that affect their performance. Such skills require effective cognitive processing of information that contains many ambiguities and uncertainties. In learning predictive and regulative rules the teachers must draw on their knowledge to construct options, to weight and integrate predictive factors, to test and revise their judgments against the immediate and distal results of their actions, and to remember which factors they had tested and how well they had worked.
  • 35. 28 B. Motivational Processes The activation to action level of motivation by the respondents is reflected in choice of courses of action, and in the intensity and persistence of effort. Self-efficacy beliefs operate in these cognitive motivations. Self-efficacy beliefs influence causal attributions. Teachers who regard themselves as highly efficacious attribute their failures to insufficient effort, those who regard themselves as inefficacious attribute their failures to low ability. Causal attributions affect motivation, performance and affective reactions mainly through beliefs of self-efficacy. They determine the goals people set for them; how much effort they expend; how long they persevere in the face of difficulties; and their resilience to failures. When faced with obstacles and failures teachers who harbor self-doubts about their capabilities slacken their efforts or give up quickly. Those who have a strong belief in their capabilities exert greater effort when they fail to master the challenge. Strong perseverance contributes to performance accomplishments. Overall, the motivational processes of the respondents are very good.
  • 36. 29 C. Affective Processes As shown in table 2, processes regulating emotional states and elicitation of emotional reactions of the teacher-respondents are interpreted as very good according to the recorded data although items 27, 28, and 30 were reflected as good. Item 27 suggests the ability of teachers to share information to the parents who have questions about special needs. This could mean that due to the lack or total absence of professional training in special education, the teachers are unable to partake in this process. Item 28 talks of the confidence in behavior management of a child diagnosed with special needs. With a mean of 5.97 and indicating a level shy of being very good, this could mean that the teachers are having difficulties in the use of empirically demonstrated behavior change techniques to improve behavior, such as altering an individual's behaviors and reactions to stimuli through positive and negative reinforcement of adaptive behavior and/or the reduction of maladaptive behavior through punishment and/or therapy. Confidence in teaching a child with special needs is also a waterloo of the teachers. In reference to item 30 with the least mean garnered at 5.87, the ability to effectively teach a child with special needs is arduous to them. Without actual forehand experience in
  • 37. 30 teaching children with special needs, it is rather difficult to perform in actual settings. D. Selection Processes The respondents are partly the product of their environment. This is shown in table 2. Therefore, beliefs of personal efficacy can shape the course lives take by influencing the types of activities and environments people choose. Teachers avoid activities and situations they believe exceed their coping capabilities. But they readily undertake challenging activities and select situations they judge themselves capable of handling. By the choices they make, they cultivate different competencies, interests and social networks that determine life courses. Any factor that influences choice behavior can profoundly affect the direction of personal development. This is because the social influences operating in selected environments continue to promote certain competencies, values, and interests long after the efficacy decisional determinant has rendered its inaugurating effect.
  • 38. 31 Table 2. Degree of Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy of the Teacher-Respondents Std. Efficacy Activated Processes Mean Interpretation Deviation ITEM2C 7.07 .944 Very Good ITEM7C 7.33 .758 Very Good ITEM10C 7.30 1.055 Very Good ITEM11C 7.40 .894 Very Good ITEM14C 6.97 1.159 Very Good ITEM18C 7.33 1.184 Very Good ITEM29C 6.23 1.675 Good COGNITIVE 7.09 .609 Very Good ITEM4M 7.40 .932 Very Good ITEM12M 7.33 1.213 Very Good ITEM13M 7.37 1.691 Very Good ITEM20M 7.53 1.008 Very Good ITEM22M 6.43 1.851 Very Good ITEM24M 7.23 1.431 Very Good ITEM25M 7.13 1.456 Very Good MOTIVATION 7.20 .785 Very Good ITEM6A 7.77 1.431 Very Good ITEM9A 7.67 1.422 Very Good ITEM15A 7.37 1.066 Very Good ITEM19A 7.10 1.213 Very Good ITEM21A 7.00 1.231 Very Good AFFECTIVE 7.38 .823 Very Good ITEM1S 7.03 1.098 Very Good ITEM3S 7.37 1.129 Very Good ITEM5S 7.10 1.155 Very Good ITEM8S 7.43 .898 Very Good ITEM16S 7.40 .932 Very Good ITEM17S 7.30 1.208 Very Good ITEM23S 7.20 1.095 Very Good ITEM26S 6.97 1.847 Very Good ITEM27S 6.30 2.136 Good ITEM28S 5.97 1.921 Good ITEM30S 5.87 1.852 Good SELECTION 6.90 .817 Very Good OVERALL SENSE OF EFFICACY 7.10 .633 Very Good
  • 39. 32 Table 3. Level of Attainment of the Efficacy Activated Process Parameter of Limits Interpretation 1.00-1.88 Poor 1.89-2.77 2.78-3.66 Fair 3.67-4.55 4.56-5.44 Good 5.45-6.33 6.34-7.22 Very Good 7.23-8.11 8.12-9.00 Excellent Teachers’ Professional Preparation and Sense of Efficacy At 12 df, 0.05 level of significance is 0.258. Hence the chi- square of 14.704 is not significant at 0.05. Table 4 shows that the trend of reaction is toward the notion that no direct relationship was found between the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy (TSE) and the highest educational attainment of the teachers. The result of the previous studies being instigated by the Ohio State University yielded otherwise. The findings of this study may not corroborate with their results which could mean that some factors that equally affect the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy (TSE) and cultural differences should be taken into account. For instance, the academic performance of the students directly under the supervision of the respondents
  • 40. 33 should be taken into account. Second, the differences in the nature of the graduate school education between research locales should be given weight. Moreover, culture biases should be pointed out and analyzed to put more importance to controlled variables that may yield a logical result. Table 4. Relationship of Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy to Professional Preparation Computed Variables chi-square df p-value Decision Interpretation EFFICACICY * No significant 14.704 12 0.258 Accept Ho EDUCATION relationship EFFICACY * No significant SEMINAR 11.338 9 0.253 Accept Ho relationship ATTENDED
  • 41. 34 Professional Development Plan Rationale: This section provides a proposed Professional Development Plan (PDP) based on the findings of this study. General Objectives: • To build confidence for teachers to impart information to parents. • To develop the ability for behavior management. • To increase the confidence to modify presentations corresponding to the needs of a student with special needs. • To foster the ability to teach a child with special needs.
  • 42. 35
  • 43. 36 CHAPTER III SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of Findings Self-efficacy beliefs produce their effects through cognitive, motivational, affective, and selective processes. These processes usually operate in concert rather than on their own. The findings of the study show: 1. The respondents’ professional preparation in terms of highest education attainment is basic. It shows that most of the teachers are contented with obtaining a bachelor’s degree regardless of a degree/unit in SPED. 2. Seminars and trainings attended remain below average, which shows the satisfaction of the respondents at limiting the time spent for seminars. 3. Very good Cognitive Process, although academic content modification is good. Courses of action are initially shaped in thought, and then serve as guides for action. 4. Very good Motivational Process. The capability for self- motivation and purposive action is above average. This is
  • 44. 37 interpreted that reasons for past performances can affect beliefs of personal efficacy. 5. Very good Affective Process of the respondents will tell that teachers who believe that they can exercise control over events do not conjure up calamities and frighten themselves. 6. Very good Selective Process, although parent relationship in terms of information dissemination, behavior management, and special needs instruction are good. 7. There is no significant difference between the respondents’ professional preparation and their sense of efficacy.
  • 45. 38 CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing findings, the following conclusions are drawn: 1. The professional preparation of the respondents is basic in terms of highest education attainment and/or seminars attended. 2. The degree of teachers’ sense of efficacy (TSE) of the respondents is above average. This has been interpreted as high performance in cognitive, motivational, affective, and selective processes. 3. There is no sufficient data to prove a significant relationship between the teachers’ professional preparation and the teachers’ sense of efficacy. This could be due to the intricacy of various variables affecting the teacher’s sense of efficacy (TSE). Limiting factors such as students’ actual performance, culture, and sample size could influence the outcome.
  • 46. 39 RECOMMENDATIONS From the aforementioned conclusions, the following are hereby recommended: 1. Encourage the teachers to reach for their potential by pursuing advanced degrees and seminars in special education. 2. Improve teacher-parent relationship through PTA Seminars and meetings. 3. Provide teachers with comparative information that focuses on behavior management and modification. 4. Create daily routines so that teachers have a sense of expectation and control over their environment. Provide a wide range of opportunities in the form of diverse tasks related to children with special needs. 5. Practice learner-centered lesson planning. 6. An in-depth follow-up study is recommended involving variables such as students’ actual performance, culture, and sample size.
  • 47. 40 Bibliography Books Ashton, P. T. & Webb, R. B. (1986). Teachers' sense of efficacy, classroom behavior, and student achievement. In P. T. Ashton and R. B. Webb (Eds.), Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement (pp. 125-144). New York & London: Longman. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. In A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 307-337). Scottsdale: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Barkley, R., & Murphy, K. (1998). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A clinical workbook (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Gregorio, H. (1976). Principles and Methods of Teaching. Quezon: Garotech Publishing. Jacob-Timm, S., & Hartshorne, T. (1998). Ethics and law for school psychologists (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Kamphaus, R., & Frick, P. (2002). Clinical assessment of child and adolescent personality and behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self efficacy research. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • 48. 41 Palma, J. (2008). Curriculum Development System (A Handbook for School Practitioners in Basic Education). Mandaluyong: National Book Store, Inc. Recto, A. (2005). Foundations of Education Vol. I. Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc. Recto, A. (2005). Foundations of Education Vol. II. Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc. Salkind, N. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of Education. California: Sage Publications Inc. Tria, G., Limpingco, D., & Jao, L. (1998). Psychology of Learning. Quezon: Ken Inc. Tulio, D. (2005). Foundations of Education II. Mandaluyong: National Book Store. Tulio, D. (2005). Foundations of Education: Book One. Mandaluyong: National Book Store. Zulueta, F., & Maglaya, E. (2007). Foundations of Education. Mandaluyong: National Book Store. Periodicals Anderson, R. N., Greene, M. L., & Loewen, P. S. (1988). Relationships among teachers' and students' thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XXXIV(2), 148-165. Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education , 35(5), 28-32.
  • 49. 42 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review , 84, 191- 215. Batsche, G., & Knoff, H. (1994). Children with ADHD: A research review with assessment and intervention implications for families. Special Service in the Schools , 9, 69-95. De Guzman, L. (2009). The Inclusion Program of West City Elementary School SPED Center. Southwestern University Graduate School Journal , Vol. 10, No. 1, 38- 43. Frankenberger, W., Farmer, C., Parker, L., & Cermak, J. (2001). The use of stimulant medication for treatment of ADHD: A survey of school psychologists' knowledge, attitudes, and experience. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin , 29, 132-151. Gottlieb, J., Gottlieb, J., & Trongone, S. (1991). Teacher and parent referrals for a psychoeducationl evaluation. The Journal of Special Education , 155-167. Guskey, T.R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245-259. Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63- 69. Hoy, W., & Woolfolk, A. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal , 93, 356-372.
  • 50. 43 Magno, C., & Sembrano, J. (2007). The Role of Teacher Efficacy and Characteristics on Teaching Effectiveness, Performance, and Use of Learner-Centered Practices. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, Vol.16(1), 73- 90. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs , 80, 1-28. Rowland, A., Umbach, D., Stallone, L., Naftel, J., & Bohleg, M. (2002). Prevalence of medication treatment for ADHD among elementary school children in Johnston County, North Carolina. American Journal of Public Health , 92, 231-234. Schwean, V., Parkinson, M., Francis, G., & Lee, F. (1993). Educating the ADHD child: Debunking the myths. Canadian Journal of School Psychology , 9, 37-52. Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problems as factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education , 27, 66-81. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68,202-248. Ward, R. A. (2005). Impact of mentoring on teacher efficacy. Academic Exchange Quarterly . Whalen, C. (1991). Therapies for hyperactive children: Comparisons, combinations, and compromises. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 59, 126-137.
  • 51. 44 Internet Sources 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. (1998, July 19). Retrieved July 27, 2009, from Chan Robles Virtual Law Library: http://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htm Gonzalez, A. (1999, October). DO No. 108, s. 1999.pdf. Retrieved December 30, 2009, from Department of Education: http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg /DO%20No.%20108,%20s.%201999.pdf REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9442. (1998, July 19). Retrieved January 27, 2009, from Chan Robles Virtual Law Library: http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno9442.htm Updates: Department of Education - DepEd. (2005). Retrieved July 27, 2009, from Department of Education - DepEd: http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg /ENROLMENT.pdf Updates: Department of Education of the Philippines - DepEd. (2005). Retrieved July 27, 2009, from Department of Education of the Philippines - DepEd: http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg /Philpopulation.pdf Updates: Department of Education of the Philippines - DepEd. (2005). Retrieved July 27, 2009, from Department of Education of the Philippines - DepEd: http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg /PercentCSN04.pdf
  • 52. 45 APPENDIX A CONSENT TO SERVE AS A RESPONDENT IN RESEARCH Upon request of the researcher, I consent to serve as a subject in the research entitled: PERCEIVED TEACHER EFFICACY The nature and general purpose of the research procedure and the known risks involved have been explained to me by Junhel Dalanon. The researcher is authorized to proceed on the understanding that I may terminate my service as a respondent in this research at anytime I so desire. I understand the known risks are: Time constraints Alteration of self-concept Confidentiality I understand also that it is not possible to identify all potential risks in an experimental procedure, and I believe that reasonable safeguards have been taken. Witness___________________ Signed____________________ (respondent) Date_____________________ To be retained by the principal investigator.
  • 53. 46 APPENDIX B-1 Professional Accomplishment Questionnaire ID #__________ Please check the space next to your response. Professional Preparation Degrees held _____ A. B.E.Ed./B.S.Ed _____ B. B.E.Ed./B.S.Ed with units in SPED _____ C. B.E.Ed./B.S.Ed with units in M.A. _____ D. M.A. in other subjects _____ E. M.A. in SPED _____ F. M.A. with Ed.D. units _____ G. Ed.D. Seminar & Workshop Attended _____ A. 5 day seminar for 8 hrs. _____ B. 10 day seminar for 8 hrs. _____ C. 25 day seminar for 8 hrs. _____ D. 1-4 day seminar for 1-5 hrs.
  • 54. 47 APPENDIX B-2 TEACHER SENSE OF SELF-EFFICACY SCALE – LONG FORM (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) Directions: This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the kinds of things that create difficulties for teachers in their school activities. Please indicate your opinion about each of the statements below. Your answers are confidential. 1. How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 2. How much can you do to help your students think critically? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 3. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal
  • 55. 48 4. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 5. To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 6. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 7. How well can you respond to difficult questions from your students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 8. How well can you establish routines to keep activities running smoothly? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal
  • 56. 49 9. How much can you do to help your students value learning? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 10. How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 11. To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 12. How much can you do to foster student creativity? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 13. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 14. How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is failing? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal
  • 57. 50 15. How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 16. How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 17. How much can you do to adjust your lessons to the proper level for individual students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 18. How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 19. How well can you keep a few problem students form ruining an entire lesson? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal
  • 58. 51 20. To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 21. How well can you respond to defiant students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 22. How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 23. How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 24. How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal
  • 59. 52 25. How confident are you that you can re-direct a student who is having difficulty paying attention to a lesson? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 26. How confident are you that you can re-direct a student who is having difficulty staying in his seat and is talking frequently? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 27. How confident are you that you can share information with parents who have questions about special needs? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 28. How confident are you that you can manage the behavior of a child diagnosed with special needs? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 29. How confident are you that you can modify the presentation of academic content for a student with special needs so that the student will benefit from the instruction? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal
  • 60. 53 30. How confident are you that you can effectively teach a child with special needs? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal
  • 61. 54 APPENDIX C Permit to Use Scale Professor Anita Woolfolk Hoy, Ph.D. Psychological Studies in Education Dear Junhel Dalanon, You have my permission to use the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale in your research. A copy of both the long and short forms of the instrument as well as scoring instructions is provided. Best wishes in your work, Anita Woolfolk Hoy, Ph.D. Professor College of Education www.coe.ohio-state.edu/ahoy Phone 614-292-3774 614 29 West Woodruff Avenue FAX 614-292-7900 614 Columbus, Ohio 43210 43210-1177 Hoy.17@osu.edu
  • 62. 55 APPENDIX D Curriculum Vitae PERSONAL DATA Junhel C. Dalanon junheldalanon@yahoo.com Minglanilla, Cebu http://junheldalanon.webs.com EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 2009 Southwestern University Diploma in Special Education 2008 UCTC – Zaniviv Certificate in Health Care Services Southwestern University Certificate in Professional Education 2007 Center for Advance Dental Studies Preceptor in Orthodontics 2005 Southwestern University Doctor of Medical Dentistry 2000 Southwestern University Associate in Health Science Education Secondary Cebu City National Science High School Intermediate University of San Carlos Boys Primary Sacred Heart School for Boys WORKING EXPERIENCES Principal : Sto. Niño Smart Child Learning Center Teacher : Sto. Niño Smart Child Learning Center Dentist : Dalanon Dental Care Clinic