Examination of preservice teachers' sense of efficacy by gender and grade level difference

Author(s):

Aysegul TarkinEsen Uzuntiryaki

Conference:

ECER 2009

Network:

21. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

SES G1, Pre Conf Parallel Session

Time:

2009-09-26

11:00-12:30

Room:

HG, HS 23

Chair:

Maria Felberbauer

Contribution

Teachers’ sense of efficacy has been proved to have an important role in teaching and learning. Teacher efficacy beliefs have been related to student achievement (Ross, 1992), student motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), teachers’ persistense (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), enthusiasm (Allinder, 1994 cited in Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005), classroom management strategies (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990), and attitudes to new methods and ideas (Stein & Wang, 1988). Teacher efficacy has been defined as “the teacher’s beliefs in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (Tchannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy & Hoy, 1998, p.233). Bandura (1997) stated that mastery experience is the most influential source of efficacy information about one’s ability to execute a task. Experiences during the pre-service teacher education and early years of teaching influence the development of teachers’ sense of efficacy (Mulholland, 2001). The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of gender and grade level differences on Turkish pre-service teachers’ efficacy beliefs.

Method

In this study data were collected from 757 pre-service teachers (436 females and 321 males) who were in the first, third, and last year of teacher education programs of three universities in Ankara, Turkey. The pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs were assessed by the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) and adapted into Turkish by Capa, Cakiroglu, and Sarıkaya (2005). The scale consisted of 24 items in nine-point scale. It consisted of three subscales as efficacy in Student Engagement (SE), efficacy in Instructional Strategies (IS), and efficacy in Classroom Management (CM). There were eight items in each subscale. In the current study, Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for the three subscales were found to be .84 for SE, .86 for IS, and .90 for CM.

Expected Outcomes

Multivariate analysis of variance results indicated that there was no interaction effect for the two independent variables (Wilks’ Λ = 0.99, F (6, 1498) = 1.40, p>.05). The effect of gender on the dependent variables was significant, Wilks’ Λ= .96, F (3,749)=9.45, p<.05. Moreover, significant differences were found among grade levels on the dependent variables, Wilks’ Λ=0.97, F (6,1498)=3.40, p<.05. Follow up analysis revealed that while grade levels had a significant effect on efficacy in student engagement (F =5.46, p < .017, h2=.014) and instructional strategies (F =8.59, p<.017, h2=.022), gender did not have a significant effect on three TSES scales. Post hoc analyses indicated that fourth and third grade pre-service teachers had significantly higher efficacy beliefs on instructional strategies (MD=6.98, MD=6.95) than first grade pre-service teachers (MD=6.68). Furthermore, third grade pre-service teachers had significantly high efficacy beliefs on student engagement (MD=6.79) than first grade pre-service teachers (MD=6.55).

References

Bandura, A (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M.H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. Capa, Y., Cakiroglu, J., & Sarıkaya, H. (2005). The development and validation of a Turkish version of the teachers’ sense of efficacy scale. Education and Science, 30(137), 74-81. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self and task related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 247-258. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243-261. Ross, J.A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17, 51-65. Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171-187. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202 - 248. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91. Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teacher and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356.

Author Information

Aysegul Tarkin

Yuzuncu Yil University

Secondary science and mathematical Education

Ankara

212

Esen Uzuntiryaki

Middle East Technical University, Turkey

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.