Jep 9


Published on

The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) , International Journals Call for papaers:

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Jep 9

  1. 1. Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Assessment of Teacher Efficacy among Secondary School Teachers in Kigali City, Rwanda Y.N. Sridhar University of Mysore Department of Studies in Education Manasagangothri, Mysore-570006, India E-mail: Semana Javan University of Mysore Department of Studies in Education Manasagangothri, Mysore-570006,India E-mail: jsemanag@yahoo.frAbstractTeacher efficacy has proven to be an important variable in teacher’s effectiveness. It is consistentlyassociated with positive teaching behaviors and student outcomes. However, the measurement of thisconstruct is the subject of current debate, which includes critical examination of predominant instrumentsused to assess the teacher’s efficacy. In the present study, One hundred and fifty secondary teachers inKigali city completed a teaching efficacy scale which was developed by Anita & Hoy (1990). Descriptivestatistics was utilized to measure various components and secondary variables of teacher efficacy. In total,teachers’ efficacy among Rwanda secondary school teachers in Kigali city had only 54.08% less than theteaching efficacy of 65.35. In the end it was found that secondary variables like gender and subject studieddid not influence the teaching efficacy.Key words: Teacher efficacy, Personal Teacher efficacy, General Teacher efficacy, Total Teacher efficacyand Gender.1. IntroductionThe concept of teacher efficacy is usually described as ‘the extent to which the teacher believes he or shehas the capacity to affect student performance’ (Bergman et al., 1977). In a review of virtually all sourcesdated between 1974 and 1997 that used the term ‘teacher efficacy’ Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998)identified over 100 articles, conference papers and books that refer somehow to teacher efficacy. Downthrough the years, the concept of teacher efficacy has been connected with many important educationalvariables such as student achievement, student attitudes to school, student attitudes to the subject matterbeing taught, student attitudes to the teacher, teachers’ classroom behaviours, teachers’ attitudes toteaching, teacher stress and burn-out, and teachers’ willingness to implement innovation (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).Many measurement instruments have been developed to assess teacher efficacy, based on two areas ofresearch (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). The first one is grounded in Rotter’s social learning theory ofinternal versus external control (1966). According to this theory, teachers who believe that they arecompetent to teach difficult or unmotivated students are considered to have internal control, whereasteachers who believe that the environment has more influence on student learning than their own teachingability are considered to have external control. The Rand organization, the first to conduct research onteacher efficacy, developed two items to measure a teacher’s locus of control (Armor et al., 1976). Thestatement that indicates that environmental factors overwhelm a teacher’s power to influence studentlearning was labeled ‘general teaching efficacy’. The other, labeled ‘personal teaching efficacy’, indicatesThe International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE)
  2. 2. Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)the importance of a teacher’s ability to overcome factors that could make learning difficult for students. Inthe course of time several other instruments were developed to measure teacher efficacy in the Rottertradition, including Teacher Locus of Control (Rose and Medway, 1981), Responsibility for StudentAchievement (Guskey, 1981) and the Webb Efficacy Scale (Ashton et al., 1982).Reviewing the literature on the factorial validity of the Teacher Efficacy Scale revealed that the two-factorsolution of Gibson and Dembo (1984) is not the only one possible. Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) were the firstto propose a different factorial solution than Gibson and Dembo (1984) initially assumed. In theirvalidation study Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) first noticed a discrepancy between Bandura’s conceptualisationof self-efficacy and outcome expectations and Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) model of teacher efficacy.The second area of research on teacher efficacy is grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive theory and hisconstruct of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Bandura distinguishes between two kinds of expectation, self-efficacy and outcome expectation. A self-efficacy expectation is the individual’s conviction that he or shehas the ‘capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments’(Bandura, 1997), while an outcome expectation is the individual’s estimate of the likely consequences ofhis or her actions.2. Review of Related literatureArmor, et al., (1976) combined teacher responses to these two questions into one measure of efficacy,which they defined as "the extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to produce aneffect on the learning of students. The researchers reported that students with teachers who had a strongsense of efficacy showed more advancement in schools. Smylie, Conley, and Marks (2002) furtherdocumented this importance of teacher efficacy in supporting educational change efforts stating, " . . .lessons learned from recent school improvement efforts have shown that improvement depends less onstructural changes than on the development of teachers knowledge, abilities, and commitment, which aremore likely to change the social organization and culture of schools"Building upon the Rand study of teacher efficacy, Ashton, Olejnik, Croker and McAuliffe (1982)developed the Webb Efficacy measure which was a forced-choice scale. The Efficacy Vignettes (Ashton,Buhr, & Crocker, 1984) were also developed as means to measure teacher efficacy. Ashton and Webb(1986) reported the Rand measure of teacher efficacy had a significant correlation with the Webb Efficacyscale but not the Efficacy Vignettes. The researchers concluded these results supported the existence of twoindependent dimensions in the construct of teachers sense of efficacy. However, the researchers alsoreported that the Webb Efficacy scale had inadequate internal consistency and the Efficacy Vignettes,although strong in internal consistency, did not correlate with student achievement (Ashton & Webb,1986).Ashton (1984) established the following dimensions that differentiated high from low efficacy teachers.High efficacy teachers have: (a) a sense of personal accomplishment, (b) positive expectations for studentbehavior and achievement, (c) personal responsibility for student learning, d) strategies for achievingobjectives, (e) positive affect, (f) sense of control, (g) sense of common teacher-student goals, and (h)democratic decision-making.Brown (1999) determined that when individuals have low self-efficacy about what they can accomplish,they limit their participation in an endeavor and are more likely to give up at an initial sign of difficulty.Their limited efficacy beliefs created barriers to their professional development. This is supported byTschannen-Moran, Hoy and Hoy (1998) who reported, "Teacher efficacy will be determined, in part, by theindividuals comparative judgment of whether his or her current abilities and strategies are adequate for theteaching task in question".Based upon the results of their Teacher Efficacy Study, Ashton and Webb (1986) suggested thatteachers differed in their efficacy attitudes, and these differences were reflected the teacher’sbehaviors and students performance. They determined that the construct of teacher efficacy wasva1uab1e in understanding teachers definitions of their role, work attitudes and interactions withstudents. This concept was confirmed by Brownell and Pajares (1996) who studied teachersThe International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE)
  3. 3. Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)judgments of their ability to successfully educate students who had diverse learning and behaviordifficulties. The researchers determined that teachers efficacy beliefs were a context-specificjudgment of capability in a particular instructional endeavor. They found that the quality of preservice preparation and collegiality with other special education teachers had a strong direct effecton teachers efficacy beliefs.Gibson and Dembo (1984) determined two dimensions of teacher efficacy related to Banduras(1977) concepts of efficacy expectation and outcome expectation. Personal teacher efficacy (PTE)was related to efficacy expectation and reflected a teachers "belief that one has the skill and abilitiesto bring about student learning". Further, general teaching efficacy (GTE) was related to "theteachers belief about the general relationship between teaching and learning" and corresponded tooutcome expectations.Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998) defined teacher efficacy as "the teachers belief in his orher capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish aspecific teaching task in a particular context" (p. 232). The researchers proposed an integratedmodel of teacher efficacy. This model reflected Banduras (1977, 1994) four sources of self-efficacyinformation: (a) mastery experiences, (b) physiological and emotional arousal, (c) vicariousexperience, and (d) social persuasion. Further, Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy suggested thatcognitive processing, or interpretation of this information, influenced teachers analysis of teachingtasks and their assessment of their personal teaching competence for the tasks. The authors indicatedthat the analysis of teaching task was related to a general teaching efficacy and the assessment ofpersonal teaching competence for a task was related to personal teaching efficacy.Goddard, Hoy, and Woolfolk (2004) argued "teachers sense of efficacy is a significant predictor ofproductive teaching" (p. 4). Moreover, when considering teachers sense of efficacy and its impacton student learning, Milner and Hoy (2002) determined the importance of context and its impact onteachers experiences and teacher efficacy. Teachers sense of efficacy related to the context ofavailable support was investigated by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2002). The researchers conducteda study involving a group of 155 in-service teachers including novice and experienced teachers.Their findings indicated no significant differences in teacher efficacy beliefs between groups relatedto age, gender, and race or teaching context. However, teaching level and number of years ofexperience did seem to influence efficacy with elementary teachers exhibiting significantly higheroverall efficacy than either middle or high school teachers.Teachers with five or more years of experience showed a higher overall sense of efficacy thannovice teachers. Further, perceived support was correlated to efficacy for novice teachers rather thanexperienced teachers, which according to the researchers, seemed to emphasize the importance ofthe beginning years of teaching in developing teacher efficacy. Additionally, Tschannen-Moran andHoy (2002) suggested that structural changes in the schools and more opportunities for professionaldevelopment could help increase the efficacy of teachers of older children.One of the structural changes in schools working toward school improvement includes the increasein collaboration and collegiality among staff members. Spillane and Louis (2002) confirmed theimportance of collegiality in the development of teachers, indicating that teachers who develop anetwork of colleagues with whom they discuss teaching practices are more likely to improve theirinstructional practice in a way that improves student achievement. More specifically, Hoy (2004)suggested schools that provide opportunities for teachers to learn, reflect and share enhance teacherssense of efficacy.Hoy (2004) summarized the importance of teacher efficacy stating, "Beliefs matter, self-efficacy is apowerful belief, and teachers can make a difference for their students and themselves through self-efficacy”. Teachers can make this difference on a collective level as well as a persona11evel.According to Ross, Hogaboam-Gray and Gray (2003) "Collective teacher efficacy refers to teacherperceptions that they constitute an effective instructional team, capable of bringing about learning instudents". Goddard, Hoy and Woolfolk (2004) determined "a strong sense of collective efficacyenhances teachers self-efficacy beliefs while weak collective efficacy beliefs undermine teachersThe International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE)
  4. 4. Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)sense of efficacy, and vice versa".Ross, Hogaboam-Gray and Gray (2003) surveyed 2,170 teachers in 141 elementary schools in alarge school district in Ontario, Canada to examine the antecedents of collective teacher efficacy.The results of the study indicated that there is a reciprocal relationship between a schools collectiveteacher efficacy and the achievement of its students. They further determined that teacher ownershipof school processes was a significant predictor of collective teacher efficacy. Additionally, priorstudent achievement, although significant, was a weaker predictor of collective teacher efficacy.Research has shown that teachers considered their principals to have a significant impact on theschool and thus on their teaching experience (Joffres & Haughey, 2001).Elliott (2000) reported findings on the importance of the principal within the school settingsuggesting three critical results: 1. The principal is the most important reason why teachers grow - or are stifled on the job. 2. The principal is the most potent factor in determining school climate. 3. The principal is the key to a good school. The quality of the educational program depends on the school principal. 4. Effective principals promote the certainty that teachers can and do impact student achievement. (Hipp, 1997). Further, principals promote the structures and dynamics in the day to day life of schools that develop and nurture teacher efficacy as well as collective efficacy of the schools teaching staff (Hoy, 2004).Moreover, Teachers as pivot of the progress of education through the effort furnished by them inperforming successfully their duties, here researcher in the present study interested to examineability of secondary school teachers in fulfillment the expected outcome of their students.3. Objectives of the studyThe present study aims to study: 1. Teaching efficacy of Kigali city secondary teachers 2. General and personal teaching efficacy of Kigali secondary school teachers 3. Influence of secondary school teachers’ variables like gender and subjected studied on teacher’s efficacy.4. Research questions 1. Is there any significant difference in Kigali secondary school teachers’ efficacy belief? 2. Is there any significant difference in Kigali/Rwanda secondary schools teachers’ general efficacy? 3. Is there any significant difference in Kigali/Rwanda secondary schools teachers’ personal efficacy? 4. Does secondary variables like gender and subject studied influence Kigali/Rwanda secondary schools teachers’ efficacy?5. Hypotheses of the Study 1. There is no significant difference in Kigali (Rwanda) secondary school teachers’ efficacy. 2. There is no significant difference in Kigali (Rwanda) secondary school teachers’ general efficacy. 3. There is no significant difference in Kigali (Rwanda) secondary school teachers’ personal efficacy.The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE)
  5. 5. Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) 4. There is no significant influence of secondary variables like gender and subject studied on teacher efficacy of Kigali (Rwanda) secondary schools.5. Methods5.1. ParticipantsParticipants in the present study were 150 secondary teachers working in Kigali city of Rwanda. Onehundred and twenty one of the participants were male teachers (80.6 percent) and 29 were female teachers(19 .4 per cent).5.2. Instrumentation and MeasurementTeacher Efficacy Scale. Teachers’ sense of efficacy was measured through the Woolfolk and Hoy (1990)standard teacher-efficacy scale whereby participants responded to 22 six-point agree/disagree statements.Ten statements (items: 2,3,4,9,10,13,15,17,20,21) dealt with general teaching efficacy and the remainingitems (1,5,6,7,7,8,11,12,14,16,18,19,22) to obtain a score. That score was then divided by the number ofitems on the subscale to obtain a mean score that reflected the original unit of measurement. This procedureallowed the researcher to make comparisons between the subscales using the same scale. According to theprotocols of the instrument’ authors, possible scores for both the subscales could range from 1.00 to 6.00,with higher scores indicating more efficacious in each subscale. The validity and reliability of theinstrument was initially established by the authors, which makes these unnecessary in the Rwandancontext.5.3. Procedure of data collectionThe stratified random sampling in selection of schools of Kigali city and teachers in each school was used.5.3. Sample and populationOne hundred fifty secondary teachers/educators were selected as sample among 847 comprised totalnumber of all teachers of Kigali city referred to the report of Kigali city council in charge of education(2010). The sample of 21 schools was used from 67 secondary schools of Kigali city.6. Analysis and Interpretation of resultsIn the present study, descriptive statistics were used to measure components of teacher efficacy namelyGeneral and Personal efficacy and some background variables are tested to identify its influence on teacherefficacy.General teaching efficacy: One sample t-test revealed a significant difference between the obtained andexpected teaching efficacy scores as the obtained t-value of 34.65 was found to be significant at .000 level.The obtained mean score was 39.21 against the expected score of 60, which constituted only 65.35%.Personal teaching efficacy: In this component also, one sample t-test revealed a significant differencebetween the obtained and expected teaching efficacy scores as the obtained t-value of 50.19 was found tobe significant at .000 level. The obtained mean score was 32.17 against the expected score of 72, whichconstituted only 44.68%.Total teaching efficacy scores: It was observed that Rwandan teachers in Kigali City as surveyed hadsignificantly lesser teaching efficacy (mean 71.38 out of 132). This constituted only 54.08% of the total.Further, one sample t-test revealed a highly significant difference (t=89.83; P=.000), further confirming thatThe International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE)
  6. 6. Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)the Rwandan surveyed teachers in Kigali City had just crossed 50% of the teaching efficiency as against thebest 100%.Gender, Subject and general teaching efficacyThe of secondary variables on teaching efficacy was observed, it was found that in general efficacy, gender( F=.308; P=.580), the subject (F=.840; P=.361) which did not reflect a significant influence, as well as theinteraction effect between gender and subject was also found to be non-significant (F=.060; P=.807),indicating that pattern of teacher efficacy was the same for teachers with arts and science subjectsirrespective of their gender.Gender, Subject and personal teaching efficacyIn personal teaching efficacy male and female teachers had statistically equal mean scores (F=.809;P=.370). Subject-wise comparison also revealed a non-significant difference (F=.146; P=.703), indicatingthat teachers with arts and science background have statistically similar scores and the interaction betweengender and subject was also found to be non-significant (F=.001; P=.971).Gender, Subject and Total teaching efficacyThe influence of the secondary variables on total teaching efficacy was observed, it was found that in totalefficacy, neither gender (F=.2.451; P=.120) nor the subject (F=.134; P=.715) had a significant influence, aswell as the interaction effect between gender and subject was also found to be non-significant (F=.069;P=.794), indicating that pattern of teacher efficacy was same for teachers with arts and science subjectsirrespective of their gender.7. Main findingsThe main findings of the present study are: 1. In total teaching efficacy, Rwandan secondary teachers had only 54.08% efficacy. 2. Personal teaching efficacy (44.68%) was significantly lesser than general teaching efficacy (65.35%) 3. Secondary variables like gender and subject studied studied did not influence the teacher’s efficacy.8. DiscussionThis study examined the secondary school teacher’s efficacy in Rwanda especially in Kigali city. In orderto confirm or reject the hypotheses formulated, we have tried to compare our results with further studiesdone in the same area.Gibson & Dembo in their study of teachers efficacy revealed that personal teacher efficacy (PTE) wasrelated to efficacy expected which is significantly different to the results of the present study where it wasfound a less score of 32.17 comparatively to the expected score. Here it found that the hypothesis, there isno significant difference in Personal teaching efficacy in Kigali (Rwanda) secondary school teachers isrejected.In the same study, the general efficacy (GTE) was related to the teachers’ belief about general relationshipbetween teaching and learning and corresponded to the outcome, where it seems that in the present studythe general teaching efficacy is related to the expected score at moderately level of 65%. This result alsoin confirm out hypotheses formulated in the present study, said that there is no significant difference inKigali (Rwanda) secondary schools teacher in general teaching efficacy.Payne, 1994; Soodak and Podell, (1997) in their study teacher efficacy indicated that veteran teachersexpress more confidence in their overall teaching abilities than novice teachers and that African Americanteachers working in urban schools express higher levels of efficacy than other teachers. My findingsrevealed difference that some background information selected in the present study such gender andsubjects studied by secondary schools teachers didn’t influenced the teaching efficacy. This result alsoconfirmed by Tschannen-Moran&Hoy (2002) where in their studies some selected variables such age,gender and race or teaching context did not influenced the efficacy of teachers. Here, the results confirmour hypothesis formulated, where it has seen that there is no influence of background information ofteachers efficacy with reference to the selected variables like age and subject studied during their pre-service formation in arts or science.The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE)
  7. 7. Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)9. ConclusionThere is strong evidence to support the notion that it is necessary to take into consideration the efficacybeliefs element in secondary school teachers, as evident through the review of various related literature,findings, and suggestions that promote fostering a stronger sense of teaching efficacy beliefs amongsecondary school teachers. In the present study:150 secondary school teachers selected in Kigali city assample, it was found that in total teaching efficacy, Rwandan secondary teachers had only 54.08%efficacy, personal teaching efficacy(44.68%) was significantly lesser than general teaching efficacy(65.35%) and secondary variables like gender and subject studied did not influence the teacher’s efficacy.Refer to these results, it found that the Kigali secondary school teachers should improve their officious inteaching in order to have a sound expectation or outcome from their students.Furthermore, some suggestions may be addressed to the concerned educators in order to enhance theefficacy of teacher. The government has to invest in the pre-service training of elementary and secondaryschool teachers in order to have a sufficient package of knowledge can lead to expected outcomes of thestudent. Secondly , government has to motivate the teachers in taking care of their life by providing themwith a salary can afford the updated market in order to avoid instability of number of teachers movingfrom one school to another and abandon their teaching profession in order to search the affordableemployment can satisfy their needs. The organization of some training, seminars and workshops ofsecondary school teachers have to be organized in order to learn some updated methodology of teachingand improving their experience. The school headmasters have to create a good environment to facilitate thesecondary school teachers to fulfill their duties as possible as they can, such as good communication,regular meeting, incentives, etc.ReferencesAshton, P. (1984), Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education, Journal ofTeacher Education, 35, 5, 28-32.Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986), Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement,New York: Longman.Ashton, P. T., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L., and McAuliffe, M. (1982), Measurement Problems in the Study ofTeachers’ Sense of Efficacy, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New York.Ashton, P. T., Webb R. B., & Doda, N. (1983), A study of teachers sense of efficacy, Final report Number 1.National Institute of Education Contract No. 400-79 0075. University of Florida.Ashton, P., Buhr, D., and Crocker, L. (1984), Teachers’ sense of efficacy: A self- or norm- referencedconstruct’, Florida Journal of Educational Research 26, 1, 29–41.Ashton, P., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L., & McAuliffe, M. (1982, March), Measurement problems in the study ofteachers sense of efficacy, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New York.Ashton, P., & Webb, RB. (1986), Making a differences: Teachers sense of efficacy and student achievement:New York: Longman.Bandura, A (1993), Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning, EducationalPsychologist, 28, 117-148.Bandura (1990), Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Academic Efficacy, Stanford CA: Stanford University.The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE)
  8. 8. Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)Bandura (1997), Self-efficacy: the exercise of control, New York: Freeman.Bandura, A. (1977), Self-efficacy: toward an unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychological Review84, 191–215.Bandura, A. (1994), Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Vol. 4, p.71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of Mental Health. San Diego:Academic Press, 1998).Bergman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, M., Pauly, E., and Zellman, G. (1977), Federal Programs supportingEducational Change VII, Factors affecting Implementation and Continuation, Santa Monica CA: Rand(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 140 432).Brown, B. L. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs and career development. ERIC Digest No. 205 (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED429187), Viewed 7 June ,2010, < http://ericacv.orgldigests.asp>Brown, T., Lemus, N., & Dollbaum, S. (2001), The three secrets of effective school leaders: Team building,school climate, and school vision, Viewed, 25 April 2011, <http://hdcs.fullerton.edulfaculty/orozco/stlec-3secrets.htm1>Brownell, M., & Pajares, F. (1996). The influence of teachers efficacy beliefs on perceived success inmainstreaming students with learning and behavior problems: A path analysis. Florida Educational ResearchCouncil, Sanibel, FL.Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984), Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 76, 569-582.Goddard, R. D., A. W. Hoy, et a!. (2004), Collective Efficacy Beliefs: Theoretical Developments, EmpiricalEvidence, and Future Directions." Educational Researcher 33, 3, p. 11.Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee. A. (2002), Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotionalintelligence, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.Goodlad, J. 1. (1975), The dynamics of educational change: Toward responsive schools. New York: McGraw- Hill, Inc.Guskey, T. R., and Passaro, P. D. (1994), Teacher efficacy: a study of construct dimensions’, AmericanEducational Research Journal 31, 627–43.Guskey, T.R. (1982), Differences in teachers’ perceptions of personal control of positive versus negative studentlearning outcomes, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 70-80.Guskey, T.R. (1987), Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy, Journal of EducationalResearch, 81, 41-47.Hipp, K. & Bredeson, P. (1995). Exploring connections between teacher efficacy and principals leadership behaviors. Journal of School Leadership, 5, 136-150.Hipp, K. (1996, April), Teacher efficacy: Influence of principal leadership behavior, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Hipp, K. (1997, March), Documenting the effects of transformational leadership behavior on teacher efficacy,Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Hoy, A. W. (2004), What do teachers need to know about self-efficacy?, Paper presented at the annual meetingof the American Educational Research Association, April 2004, San Diego, CA, Viewed 25, June,2011,<http://www.emory.eduiEDUCATION/mfp/effpage.html>The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE)
  9. 9. Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)Hoy, A. W., W. K. Hoy, et al. (1998), Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure, Review of EducationResearch 68, 2, 202-248.Joffres, C., & Haughey, M. (2001), Elementary teachers commitment declines: Antecedents, processes, andoutcomes [99 paragraphs]. The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 6(1), Viewed 24 April, 2011<>Rose, J. S., and Medway, F. J. (1981), ‘Measurement of teachers’ belief in their control over studentoutcome’, Journal of Educational Research 74, 185–90.Ross, J. (1994), Belief that makes a difference: the origins and impact of teacher efficacy, Eric documentreproduction service no. Ed 379 316, pp.1-9.Ross, J. (1995), Strategies for enhancing teachers beliefs in their effectiveness: Research on a schoolimprovement hypothesis. Teachers College Record, 97 (2), 227-251.Ross, J. A (1992), Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement, Canadian Journal ofEducation, J 7, 51-65.Ross, J. A. (1994), ‘Beliefs that make a Difference: the origins and impacts of teacher efficacy’, paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Calgary, Alta, June(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 379 216).Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values:The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy, viewed 24 June 2011, <http://www.oise.utoronto.calfieldcentres/ ross/CTEleadership. Pdf>Ross, J.A. (1994), The impact of an in-service to promote cooperative learning on the stability of teacherefficacy. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 381-394.Ross, J.A. Hogaboam-Gray, A, & Gray, P. (2003, April). The contribution of prior student achievement andschool processes to collective teacher efficacy in elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED479719)Rotter, J. B. (1966), ‘Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement’,Psychological Monographs 80, 1–28.Smylie, M. A., Conley, S., & Marks, H.M. (2002), Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for schoolimprovement. The LSS Review, 1(2), 18-19. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED474262) viewedApril24, 2011,< http://www. /lssrev _leadershp/pdf>Soodak, L,&Podell, D.(1996), Teacher efficacy: toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct, Teachingand teacher education,12,401-411Tschannen-Moran, M, & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001),Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct, Teachingand Teacher Education, 17, 783 - 805.Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy. W., Hannum, J., (1998), Organizational climate and student achievement: Aparsimonious and longitudinal view, Journal of School Leadership, 8, 1-22Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, AW. (2002), The influence of resources and support on teachers efficacy beliefs,Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review ofEducational Research, 68(2), 202-248.The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE)
  10. 10. Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)Woolfolk, A. E., and Hoy, W. K. (1990), ‘Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs aboutcontrol’, Journal of Educational Research 82 (1), 81–91.Woolfolk, A.(2000), Changes in Teacher Efficacy during the early years of Teaching, Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Neworleans.pp.2 –8. Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.List of tables:Table 1. : Descriptive statistics for various components of teacher efficacy and results of one sample t tests Components Max Mean S.D Percent One sample P-value t value Possible obtained General teaching efficacy 60 39.21 7.34 65.35 34.65 .000 Personal teaching efficacy 72 32.17 9.72 44.68 50.19 .000 Total teaching efficacy 132 71.38 8.27 54.08 89.83 .000Table 2. Mean scores of male and female secondary teachers with different subject backgrounds ongeneral, personal and total teaching efficacy scores and results of MANOVA Components of Teaching efficacy Gender Subject General Personal Total Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Science 38.56 6.72 31.93 9.69 70.48 8.34 Male Arts 40.58 8.70 31.13 9.17 71.71 9.96 Total 38.96 7.16 31.77 9.56 70.73 8.66 Science 39.95 8.25 34.10 11.12 74.05 6.15 Female Arts 41.13 8.27 33.12 8.74 74.25 4.80 Total 40.28 8.12 33.83 10.38 74.10 5.73 Science 38.81 7.00 32.31 9.95 71.12 8.09 Total Arts 40.72 8.46 31.63 8.97 72.34 8.95 Total 39.21 7.35 32.17 9.72 71.38 8.27 F (Gender) F=.308; P=.580 F=.809; P=.370 F=2.451; P=.120 F (Subject) F=.840; P=.361 F=.146; P=.703 F=.134; P=.715 F (Interaction) F=.060; P=.807 F=.001; P=.971 F=.069; P=.794The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE)