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

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

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

____________.


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 :


Dean

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

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.

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

INTERPRETATION OF DATA

24

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

iv

Teachers’ Professional Preparation and Sense

of Efficacy

32

Professional Development Plan 34

Chapter III SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

36

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

Accomplishment

Questionnaire

46

Appendix B-2 Self-Efficacy

Long Form

47

Appendix C – PERMIT TO USE SCALE 54

CURRICULUM VITAE

55

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1 Professional Preparation of the Teachers

26

2

Degree of Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy of the

Teacher-Respondents

31

3 Level of Attainment of the Efficacy Activated Process

32

4 Relationship of Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy to

Professional Preparation 33

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

26

Table 1. Professional Preparation of the Teachers of Sto. Niño Smart Child Learning Center, Minglanilla, Cebu During the School Year 2009- 2010

Highest Educational Attainment Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative 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

Seminars and Trainings Attended Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative Percent

5 day seminar for 8 hrs. 9 30.0 30.0 30.0



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

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.

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.

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

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.

31

Table 2. Degree of Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy of the Teacher-Respondents

Efficacy Activated Processes Mean Std.

Deviation Interpretation

ITEM2C 7.07 .944 Very Good


ITEM10C 7.30 1.055 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






MOTIVATION 7.20 .785 Very Good

ITEM6A 7.77 1.431 Very Good





AFFECTIVE 7.38 .823 Very Good

ITEM1S 7.03 1.098 Very Good



ITEM8S 7.43 .898 Very Good

ITEM16S 7.40 .932 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

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

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

Variables Computed chi-square df p-value Decision Interpretation

EFFICACICY * EDUCATION

14.704 12 0.258 Accept Ho No significant relationship

EFFICACY * SEMINAR

ATTENDED 11.338 9 0.253 Accept Ho

No significant relationship

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.

35

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:


/ENROLMENT.pdf

Updates: Department of Education of the Philippines -

DepEd. (2005). Retrieved July 27, 2009, from

Department of Education of the Philippines - DepEd:


/Philpopulation.pdf

Updates: Department of Education of the Philippines -

DepEd. (2005). Retrieved July 27, 2009, from

Department of Education of the Philippines - DepEd:


/PercentCSN04.pdf

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.

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.

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)


3. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the

classroom?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


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)


5. To what extent can you make your expectations clear about

student behavior?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


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)


7. How well can you respond to difficult questions from your

students?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


8. How well can you establish routines to keep activities running

smoothly?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


49

9. How much can you do to help your students value learning?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


10. How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you

have taught?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


11. To what extent can you craft good questions for your students?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


12. How much can you do to foster student creativity?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


13. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


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)


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)


16. How well can you establish a classroom management system

with each group of students?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


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)


18. How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


19. How well can you keep a few problem students form ruining an

entire lesson?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


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)


21. How well can you respond to defiant students?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


22. How much can you assist families in helping their children do

well in school?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


23. How well can you implement alternative strategies in your

classroom?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


24. How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very

capable students?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


Anita Woolfolk Hoy, Ph.D. Dear Junhel Dalanon, You have my permission to use the 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 29 West Woodruff Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43210

APPENDIX C

Permit to Use Scale

Anita Woolfolk Hoy, Ph.D. Professor

Psychological Studies in Education

Dear Junhel Dalanon,

You have my permission to use the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale 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.

College of Education 29 West Woodruff Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43210-1177

www.coe.ohio-state.edu/ahoy Phone 614FAX [email protected]

54

Psychological Studies in Education

Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale in your research. A copy of both the long and short forms of the instrument as

Phone 614-292-3774 FAX 614-292-7900 [email protected]

55

APPENDIX D

Curriculum Vitae

PERSONAL DATA

Junhel C. Dalanon [email protected] 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

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

Education

efficacy processes

teacher efficacy

selfefficacy theory

graduate school professor

special education junhel

graduate degree

research respondents

degree master of arts