Journal of Human Psychology

Journal of Human Psychology

Journal of Human Psychology

Current Issue Volume No: 1 Issue No: 1

Research Article Open Access Available online freely Peer Reviewed Citation

Causative Factors behind an Efficacious Teacher: Evaluating Teacher Efficacy

Sadia Batool 1,   Syed Mubarak Abbas Shah 2  

1Faculty of Education, Preston University Islamabad, Pakistan

2Applied Technologies and Services Institute, Bhara Kahu, Islamabad

Abstract

In the third world school dropout rates are the highest, which is largely attributable to a dearth of efficacious teachers. The present research is an analysis of the teacher efficacy based on the teaching milieu. The Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale was used for data collection. Probability sampling design was used to select 171 secondary school teachers. As per the results, subject specialization affects teacher efficacy the most whereas, institution type influences teacher efficacy the least. The less experienced teachers have a greater self-efficacy than the experienced teachers, teachers teaching uncrowded classes are more efficacious than those teaching crowded classes.

Author Contributions
Received 30 Jul 2018; Accepted 17 Aug 2018; Published 17 Oct 2018;

Academic Editor: Shuai Li, Department of Engineering University of Cambridge, UK.

Checked for plagiarism: Yes

Review by: Single-blind

Copyright ©  2018 Sadia Batool, et al.

License
Creative Commons License     This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Competing interests

Authors neither have any actual, perceived or potential current conflict of interest nor any disclosure to report.

Citation:

Sadia Batool, Syed Mubarak Abbas Shah (2018) Causative Factors behind an Efficacious Teacher: Evaluating Teacher Efficacy . Journal of Human Psychology - 1(1):18-26. https://doi.org/10.14302/issn.2644-1101.jhp-18-2261

Download as RIS, BibTeX, Text (Include abstract )

DOI 10.14302/issn.2644-1101.jhp-18-2261

Introduction

Life’s decisions are predominantly based on the beliefs that individuals hold and value. Teachers’ beliefs pertaining to their instructional capabilities determine how they comport, take decisions and manage their classroom environment on a daily basis (Pajares, 1992 and Hoy, & Perry, in press)26,39. These are the ideas, attitudes or notions that impact how teachers visualize teaching. This conception actually determines their efficacy in classroom teaching (Ng, Nicholas & Alan, 2010)24.

Teacher efficacy is a complex of beliefs that teachers hold about their own usefulness and efficiency based on their classroom management skills (Romi & Leyser, 2006)31. Teacher efficacy can also be viewed as a teacher’s assessment of his or her own capabilities in terms of engaging students (even those with learning difficulties and/or having a low motivation for learning) and gaining their cooperation towards learning (Ashton, (1984); Trust of Knowledge Generation (TKG), 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001)4,33,36 It also relates to teacher-student perceived relationships and students' emotional and behavioral complexities (Poulou, 2016)28. Teacher efficacy is a teacher’s belief or conviction in his or her personal or self-efficacy with regard to his or her teaching competence originating from a strong sense of self-adequacy and personal insight. These invariably impact the performance of a teacher as well as that of his or her students (Batool, Arif & Parveen, 2012).

Dibapile (2012)10 found that teachers who had a degree and Post-Graduate Diploma had a higher efficacy in student engagement than teachers with other degrees. Goddard, Hoy & Hoy (2000)13 Tschannen–Moran et al., (1998)34,35 and Bandura (2006)6 asserts that self-efficacious teachers are proactive and enterprising who are able to rejuvenate the classroom with new approaches to teaching and learning. According to Elliot (2000)11 and Hoy and Davis (2005)38 there are significant differences between teachers with high efficacy and those with low efficacy. Furthermore, several researchers (Cheung, 2008; Rich, Lev, & Fisher, 1996)9,30 reported that the ability to secure productive “interpersonal relationships” or affective connections with students was common among teachers having high personal teaching efficacy. Teachers with a strong sense of personal teaching efficacy are more apt at promoting positive results in their classrooms (Morris-Rothschild & Brassard, 2006)22 by connecting with their students on several different levels. Affective connections, thus, add a whole new dimension to teacher efficacy.

Research revealed that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs influence their teaching behaviors in terms of increased self-confidence as well as students’ attitude towards learning and their academic achievement (Graham, Harris, Fink, & McArthur, 2001; Cakiroglu, Cakiroglu, & Boone, 2005; Huang, Liu, & Shiomi, 2007; Mojavezi & Tamiz, 2012)14,8,16,20. Monks and Schmidt (2010)21 found that both class size and work load had a negative effect on student evaluations of courses and instructors in school. Aktus, Kurt, Aksu and Ekisi (2013)2 found that teacher efficacy and educational process varies with respect to teachers’ gender. The studies conducted by Ahmad and Rehman (2015)1 and Veisi, Azizifar and Gowhary (2015)37 suggested that female teachers have better self-efficacy than male teachers. Similarly a study conducted by Mackay and Parkinson(2008)19 found that male teacher have better theoretical understanding of circuitry than females as students themselves think the better suitability of males than females for technical careers. Myrberg and Rosen (2003)23 found that students in private schools in Sweden performed significantly better on the reading test than did students in public schools since their teachers are more efficacious. With regard to teachers' scholastic qualifications, no significant difference of efficacy was found between teachers with undergraduate and postgraduate academic degrees in mainstream education (Pas et al., 2012)27. Class size is another influential factor in the sense that teachers feel more efficacious while teaching larger groups of students (Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991; Raudenbush et al., 1992)18,29. However, care must be taken in making overgeneralizations since there seems to be an upper limit for the impact of class size on TSE, an issue that the studies have failed to demarcate to date. In view of the above, self-efficacy enables teachers to create both personal and professional presence to achieve diverse behavioural objectives in the three domains of learning through heightened self-awareness, inner strength, a self-assured stance, a positive outlook on life and an empathetic nature. Most importantly, self-efficacy promotes the development of affective connections with students, which is instrumental for learning to occur. The main objective of the research was to find out the effect of institution type, teaching experience, subject specialization, teacher gender and number of students in a classroom on teacher efficacy.

Participants

The population of the study included all secondary school teachers of the Islamabad district. Probability sampling design was used to randomly select 171 teachers from the secondary schools in the Islamabad district. The characteristics of the sample are given as under: Table 1

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample n=171
Characteristic n Percentage
  %
Teacher age (Years)    
31-35 46 26.9
36-39 43 25.1
41-45 42 24.5
46-59 40 23.4
Teacher gender    
Male 92 53.8
Female 79 46.2
Institution type    
Public 96 56.2
Private 75 43.8
Experience (years)    
1-5 62 36.3
6-10 34 19.9
11-15 14 8.2
16-20 17 9.9
21-25 17 9.9
Number of students in a class    
30-39 22 12.87
40-49 39 22.81
50-59 42 24.56
60-69 40 23.39
70-79 28 16.37

Research Instrument

Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (long form) developed by Moran & Woolfolk (2001)38 was used for data collection. The 9-point scale in the original version was however adapted to a five point Likert scale, i.e., 1 (Not at all), 2 (Very little), 3 (Some influence), 4 (Quite a bit) and 5 (A great deal). Higher scores on this scale equated with greater efficacy beliefs. The alpha (α) reliability coefficient of the test amounted to 0.85. The data was collected by personally visiting the schools.

Results

The data was analyzed through mean, F-test and t-test based on a 0.05 level of significance.

As shown in Table 2, all the means are not equal and for all the characteristics of the sample they are either lower than 3.20 or greater than 3.24. (Figure 1). Furthermore, Table 2 shows that all the characteristics of the sample affect teacher efficacy, as all the values of F calculated lie in the critical region. The more the distance of the independent variable from the value of Fcal (3.84), the more it affects the dependent variable, i.e., teacher efficacy. From the F values in Table 2, the independent variable, subject specialization, affects teacher efficacy the most (F = 291.73) followed by teacher gender (F = 152.27), number of students (F = 144.72) and teaching experience (F = 127.92). The independent variable, institution type, has the least effect on teacher efficacy (F = 19.88). Thus, there is a significant effect of the institution type, teaching experience, subject specialization, teacher gender and number of students in a classroom on teacher efficacy scores.

Figure 1.Characteristics of the sample affect teacher efficacy
Characteristics of the sample affect teacher efficacy

Table 2. Effect of independent variables on teacher efficacy
Variable Between groups Within groups  F 
Sum of squares Sum of means Sum of squares Sum of means
Institution type 33.92 3.81 107.79 0.190 19.68
Teaching experience 82.81 11.83 91.72 0.101 127.91
Subject specialization 121.73 16.24 73.91 0.131 291.73
Teacher gender 98.86 15.72 93.64 0.035 152.73
Number of students 99.74 14.31 91.63 0.121 144.73
  df=169 α=.05 Fcal= 3.84

As per Table 3, there is a significant difference between the mean score of public schools (M=54.45, SD=2.78) and the mean score of private schools (M=44.23, SD= 1.86), i.e., t (169) = 10.26, p = 0.001. This signifies that the calculated value of t (10.26) is statistically significant (p < 0.05), as it is greater than the table value of t (1.976) at 0.05 level. So, there is a significant difference between the efficacy of public and private school teachers.

Table 3. Comparison of teacher efficacy with study variables
Variable n Mean SD t p
Institution type          
Public Schools 96 54.45 2.78 10.26 0.001
Private Schools 75 44.23 1.86
Teacher experience          
Experienced teachers 62 11.24 2.93 -20.51 0.001
Less experienced teachers 72 31.75 1.61
Teacher gender          
Male 92 14.25 3.81 -25.92 0.001
Female 79 40.53 2.31
No. of students in a class          
Crowded classes 61 24.36 3.02 14.56 0.001
Uncrowded classes 111 39.45 3.16    

It also shows that there is a significant difference between the mean score of experienced teachers (M=11.24, SD=2.93) and the mean score of less experienced teachers (M=31.75, SD=1.61), i.e., t = -20.51, p = 0.001. This shows that the calculated value of t (-20.51) is statistically significant (p < 0.05), as it is greater than the table value of t (1.976) at 0.05 level. So, there is a significant difference between the efficacy of experienced and less experienced teachers.

According to Table 3, there is a significant difference between the mean score of male teachers (M=14.25, SD=3.81) and the mean score of female teachers (M=40.53, SD=2.31), i.e., t (169) = -25.92, p 0.001. This means that the calculated value of t (-25.92) is statistically significant (p < 0.05), as it is greater than the table value of t (1.976) at 0.05 level. So, there is a significant difference between the efficacy of male and female teachers.

Table 3 also shows that there is a significant difference between the mean score of teachers of crowded classes (M=39.45, SD=3.16) and the mean score of teachers of uncrowded classes (M=24.36, SD=3.02), i.e., t (169) = 14.56, p = 0.001. This signifies that the calculated value of t (14.56) is statistically significant (p < 0.05), as it is greater than the table value of t (1.976) at 0.05 level. So, there is a significant difference between the efficacy of teachers teaching crowded classes and those teaching uncrowded classes.

Discussion

The aforementioned results of the study are consistent with those of different studies using various statistics in terms of determining the effect of various independent variables on the different dimensions or subscales of teacher efficacy. For example, the linear regression analysis used in a study by Aktus, Kurt, Aksu and Ekisi (2013)2 reveals that both gender and experience variables positively and significantly contribute towards the educational process and self-efficacy. Also, a study by Cheung (2008)9 showed that teaching experience contributed towards teacher efficacy. Furthermore, results of a study by Odanga, Raburu and Aloka (2015)25 show no statistically significant influence of gender on teachers’ self-efficacy, but the qualitative results of the study revealed that gender had an influence on the self-efficacy of teachers in co-education and boys’ schools. Findings of the present study with regard to the independent variable, teacher gender are thus consistent with the qualitative and not the quantitative results.

Teachers teaching uncrowded classes had greater teacher efficacy than those teaching crowded classes. There could be several reasons for this result. In crowded classes, teachers are unable to develop appropriate affective connections with all their students. They are also unable to manage the class well in terms of personal management, time management, planning, organizing, communicating, leading and nurturing, housekeeping and record keeping, etc. In crowded classes, it is also an arduous task to effectively manage disruptive behaviours as well as keep students occupied in meaning learning activities. The results of the study are different than the studies of Lee, Dedrick, & Smith (1991)18 and Raudenbush et al. (1992)31 teachers feel more efficacious while teaching larger groups of students.

A research conducted by Ahmad and Rehman (2015)1 suggested that female teachers have better self-efficacy than male teachers. A study by Veisi, Azizifar and Gowhary (2015)37 also revealed the same for EFL teachers. Results of the present study match with these results.

A study by Brandon (2000)7 discovered that female pre-service teachers had lower self-efficacy in “specific teaching competences” than males prior to going into the field. These results are inconsistent with the results of the present study. Furthermore, Azar (2010)5 identified that there was no significant difference between the self-efficacy of: in-service and pre-service secondary science teachers; male and female teachers; and teaching experience. These results do not support the findings of the present study.

In addition, Monks and Schmidt (2010)21 found that crowded classes had a negative effect on student assessments of courses and instructors in a business school (studies on this aspect are limited at the tertiary level). Findings revealed that overcrowded classes made teachers to teach courses in ways detrimental to students implying that such conditions decrease teacher efficacy. These findings are consistent with those of the present study. With respect to institution type, no studies could be identified to support or contradict the results of the present study. Hence, this aspect adds to the existing body of knowledge.

Many other studies show the results of various independent variables on students’ academic achievement rather than on teacher efficacy. For instance, the use of ANOVA and t-tests in a study by Alufohai and Ibhafidon (2015)3 demonstrated that students’ academic achievement was significantly affected by teachers’ age, marital status, whereas, teachers’ gender had a significant effect on students’ academic achievement. Additionally, Tella (2008) Koc and Celik (2014)17,32 found that there was a moderate negative correlation between the student teacher ratio and achievement in cities with greater number of students per teacher, which suggests a low achievement on Turkey’s Transition to Higher Education Exam.

The results of the present study partially verify the results of study conducted by Myrberg and Rosen (2003)23 who found that teachers' gender, teaching experience, in-service training and co-operation with colleagues had no significant effect on third grade student’s reading achievement. The present study result contradict with the study by Zhang (2008)40 who indicated that appropriate teaching behaviors also promoted students’ science achievement in science directly. The study also showed that years of teaching experience in science did not directly influence students’ achievement in science and teacher efficacy. However, the results of a study by Budding and Zamarro (2009) contradict Zhang’s results, as they indicate that students’ academic achievement was attributable to teachers’ experience and not to whether the teachers had advanced degrees.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The teaching milieu has a wide-ranging influence on the independent variables affecting teacher efficacy. As per the results, subject specialization affects teacher efficacy more than the other variables of the study. Teacher gender is an important variable affecting teacher efficacy as revealed by the findings. Further-more, the variables, number of students in a class and teaching experience also affect teacher efficacy to some extent. However, institution type influences teacher efficacy the least according to the study. Furthermore, from the t-tests, it can be stated that the public school teachers have a greater efficacy than those teaching in the private schools, the less experienced teachers have a greater self-efficacy than the experienced teachers, the female teachers have a significantly higher teacher efficacy than the male teachers, and the teachers teaching uncrowded classes have a greater teacher efficacy than those teaching crowded classes. However, further research needs to be conducted in these areas for more conclusive results, especially in the context of Pakistan. In this regard, comparisons need to be made between each independent variable type through a pre-test posttest design to solidify results. The present study has not taken into consideration the urban-rural and cultural differences on teacher efficacy, which may also be studied.

Instructional design specialists who develop teacher training programs need to focus on developing teaching mastery before teachers actually commence their careers. Furthermore, the educational institutions may promote teacher efficacy through action research to identify pertinent areas of performance improvement. Teachers may also be encouraged to have their lessons reviewed or critiqued from senior colleagues.

The effective use of social persuasion and social modeling may also promote teacher efficacy. Participatory experiential training initiatives organized on a regular basis may prove to be helpful in this regard. Also, videotaping teachers’ performance for them to review it later with the help of a behaviour checklist may enhance teacher efficacy. If taken positively, students’ evaluation of teachers’ performance may be particularly useful as well.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical Approval

The research protocol was submitted for consideration, comment, guidance and approval to the University’s research ethics committee before the conduction of study. All procedures performed in the present study were found in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Each participant was adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail and post-study provisions. The subjects were informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study at any time without reprisal.

References

  1. 1.R N Ahmad, S A Khan, Rehman S. (2015) Comparative study to investigate the sense of teacher efficacy between male and female teachers. , Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education 4(2), 29-35.
  1. 2.Aktus M, Kurt H, Aksu O, Ekisi G. (2013) Gender and experience as predictor of biology teachers’ education process self-efficacy perception and perception of responsibility from student success. , International Journal on New Trends in Education and their Implications 4(3), 37-47.
  1. 3.P J Alufohai, H E Ibhafidon. (2015) Influence of teachers’ age, marital status and gender on students’ academic achievement. , Asian Journal of Educational Research 3(4), 60-66.
  1. 4.Ashton P. (1984) Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. , Journal of Teacher Education 35, 287-232.
  1. 5.Azar A. (2010) In-service and pre-service secondary science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about science teaching. , Educational Research and Reviews 5(4), 175-188.
  1. 6.Bandura A. (2006) Toward a Psychology of Human Agency. , Perspectives on Psychological Science,1(2),164-180.Author
  1. 7.D B Brandon. (2000) Self- efficacy: gender differences of prospective teachers in Botswana. , Research in Education 64, 36-42.
  1. 8.Cakiroglu J, Cakiroglu E, Boone W. (2005) Pre-service teacher self-efficacy beliefs regarding science teaching: A comparison of pre-service teachers in Turkey and the USA. , Science Educator 14(1), 31-40.
  1. 9.H Y Cheung. (2008) Teacher Efficacy: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghai primary in- service teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher,35,1 103-123.
  1. 10.Dibapile W T S. (2012) Teacher efficacy and classroom management among Botswana junior secondary school teachers. (Unpublished doctoral thesis).University of Tennessee.
  1. 11.Elliot S. (2000) The relationship between teacher efficacy and principal leadership behaviors and teach background variables in elementary schools. (Unpublished doctoral thesis).GreenwichUniversityofConnecticut.
  1. 12.Gibson S, Demdo M. (1984) Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. , Journal of Educational Psychology 76(4), 569-582.
  1. 13.R G Goddard, W K Hoy, A W Hoy. (2000) Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. , American Educational Research Journal 37, 479-508.
  1. 14.Graham S, K R Harris, Fink B, C A McArthur. (2001) Teacher efficacy in writing: A construct validation with primary grade teachers. , Scientific Studies of Reading 5(2), 177-203.
  1. 15.Guo Y, S B Piasta, L M Justice, J N Kaderavek. (2010) Relations among preschool teachers’ self-efficacy, classroom quality, and children’s language and literacy gains. , Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 1094-1103.
  1. 16.Huang X, Liu M, Shiomi K. (2007) An analysis of the relationships between teacher efficacy, teacher self-esteem and orientations to seeking help. Social Behavior and Personality. 35(5), 707-716.
  1. 17.Koc N, Celik B. (2014) The impact of number of students per teacher on student achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 177 65-70.
  1. 18.V E Lee, R F Dedrick, J B Smith. (1991) The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. , Sociology of Education 64(3), 190-208.
  1. 19.Mackay J, Parkinson J. (2010) Gender, self‐efficacy and achievement among South African Technology teacher trainees. , Gender and Education 22(1), 87-103.
  1. 20.Mojavezi A, M A Tamiz. (2012) The impact of teacher self-efficacy on the students’ motivation and achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2(3), 483-491.
  1. 21.Monks J, Schmidt R. (2010) The impact of class size and number of students on outcomes in higher education. RetrievedDecember3,2016,from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/ workingpapers/114/ .
  1. 22.B K Morris-Rothschild, M R Brassard. (2006) Teachers’ conflict management styles: The role of attachment styles and classroom management. , Journal of School Psychology 44, 105-121.
  1. 23.Myrberg E, Rosén M. (2003) Social selection into independent schools in Sweden. Results from PIRLS2001.Gothenburg:DepartmentofEducation.(unpublishedmanuscript). Retrieved December 3, 2016, from http://www.iea.nl/sites /default/files/irc /IRC2004_ Myrberg_Rosen.pdf .
  1. 24.Ng W, Nicholas H, Alan W. (2010) School experience influences on pre-service teachers‟ evolving beliefs about effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 278-289.
  1. 25.Odanga S J O, P A Raburu, Aloka P J O. (2015) . Influence of Gender on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Secondary Schools of Kisumu County , Kenya, Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 4(3), 189-197.
  1. 26.Pajares F. (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. , Review of Educational Research 62, 307-332.
  1. 27.E T Pas, C P Bradshaw, P A Hershfeldt. (2012) Teacher- and school-level predictors of teacher efficacy and burnout: Identifying potential areas for support. , Journal of School Psychology 50(1), 129-145.
  1. 28.M S Poulou. (2017) An Examination of the Relationship among Teachers’ Perceptions of Social-Emotional Learning, Teaching Efficacy, Teacher-Student Interactions, and Students’ Behavioral Difficulties. , International Journal of School and Educational Psychology 5(2), 126-136.
  1. 29.S W Raudenbush, Rowan B, Y F Cheong. (1992) Contextual effects on the self perceived efficacy of high school teachers. , Sociology of Education 65(2), 150-167.
  1. 30.Rich Y, Lev S, Fischer S. (1996) Extending the concept and assessment of teacher efficacy. Educational and Psychological Measurement 56(6), 1015-1025.
  1. 31.Romi S, Leyser Y. (2006) Exploring inclusion pre-service training needs: A study of variables associated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. , European Journal of Special Needs Education 21(1), 85-105.
  1. 32.Tella A. (2008) Teacher variables as predictors of academic achievement of primary school pupils mathematics. , International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 1(1), 16-33.
  1. 33. (2008) Trust of Knowledge Generation. , Teaching Competence Training Manual. Islamabad:PrestonUniversity
  1. 34.Tschannen–Moran M, Hoy Woolfolk, A, W K Hoy. (1998) Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. , Review of Educational Research 68(2), 202-248.
  1. 35.Tschannen-Moran M, A W Hoy. (2007) The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. , Teaching & Teacher Education 23(6), 944-956.
  1. 36.Tschannen-Moran M, Hoy Woolfolk, A. (2001) . Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive Construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 783-805.
  1. 37.Veisi S, Azizifar A, Gowhary H. (2015) The relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and gender. , International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences 9(1), 140-144.
  1. 38.Hoy Woolfolk, A, Davis H. (2005) Teachers’ sense of efficacy and adolescent achievement. In T Urdan, F Pajares (Eds.), Adolescenceandeducation:Self-efficacy beliefs during adolescence.Greenwich,CT:Information Age.Vol.5 .
  1. 39.Hoy Woolfolk.A E, Perry N (in press). Child development for teachers and learners. Columbus,OH:Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
  1. 40.Zhang D. (2008) The effects of teacher education level, teaching experience, and teaching behaviors on student science achievement. (Unpublished doctoral thesis).UtahStateUniversity.