efficacy level of preservice teachers

1

EFFICACY LEVEL OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ OF UNIVERSIDAD

DE STA. ISABEL

Rochelle L. Lucilo

1

College of Arts, Sciences and Teacher Education

Universidad De Sta. Isabel

Naga City, Philippines

[email protected]

Abstract

Utilizing Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2001) modified Teacher Sense of Efficacy scale, this correlational-

descriptive study examined the change in preservice teachers’ self-rating of their teaching efficacy during on and

off-campus teaching, and the significant difference between their self-rating with that of their cooperating teachers.

Study revealed preservice teachers’ sustained high efficacy belief along the three dimensions- efficacy for

instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management. Discrepancy between self and cooperating

teachers’ mean ratings was found however both during on and off-campus teaching. Of the three conducted paired t-

test, efficacy for student engagement and instructional strategies revealed significant differences between preservice

and cooperating teachers’ efficacy ratings, while no significant difference on classroom management. Even so, the

test along these three dimensions showed, as a whole, significant difference between preservice and cooperating

teachers’ efficacy ratings during on and off-campus teaching.

Keywords: Efficacy Level, Preservice Teachers, Universidad de Sta. Isabel

INTRODUCTION

For many years educators and

researchers have debated over which of the many

variable influence student achievement. A

growing body of evidence suggests that schools

can make a great difference in terms of student

achievement, and substantial portion of that

difference is attributable to teacher’s

effectiveness. Students who are assigned to one

ineffective teacher after another have

significantly lower achievement and learning

than those who are assigned to a sequence of

several highly effective teachers (Sanders &

Rivers, 1996 as cited in Anderson, 2004).

During a recent meeting of the United Nations

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO) in Paris, educators

from around the globe gathered to discuss ways

to increase teacher effectiveness. Their

introductory statement outlined the complexity

of the problem (Anderson, 2004, p. 11-12):

“A great deal of money has been expended

in research trying to discover the

characteristics and activities of a ‘good’ or

‘effective’ teacher. Teachers, though, work

within schools with certain structures and

curricula. The teacher plans the environment

of the classroom, organizes and manages the

class, determines the detailed curriculum

that will be presented to the students, as well

as its sequencing and pacing, the overall

structure of the lesson, the homework which

is to be set, the feedback mechanisms to

know how each pupil is ‘getting on’ and the

correctives to be taken…Some teachers plan

and execute these elements more effectively

than others. But, what is it; in particular, that

makes an effective teacher?”

Common to all definitions of effective

teachers are teacher characteristics or traits related to

the way in which teachers practice their profession.

In other words, effective teachers all have the

knowledge, skill and dispositions to maximize the

2

learning of all students in the classroom.

In order to be effective, therefore,

teachers need more than content and

pedagogical knowledge (Knoblauch, 2004).

One consistent measure of a teacher’s future

success in the classroom is his or her self-

efficacy, or belief in his or her ability to do the

job. Research shows that “self-efficacy beliefs

are strong predictors of behavior” (Woolfolk

Hoy, 2004, p. 4). In other words, if a teacher

believes that he or she is capable of managing

his or her classroom and conducting meaningful

lessons, he or she will be more likely to do just

that.

Monitoring and reacting to the issue of

teachers’ efficacy seems to be one way in which

teacher programs could evaluate the structure of

programs. The issue of teachers’ efficacy is of

importance as teacher preparation program

attempts to address shortages for qualified,

competent and effective teachers (Çakiroglu,

2005), as countries throughout the world,

especially developing countries, would like to

ensure that all citizens will achieve a degree of

(scientific) literacy to enable them to participate

effectively as citizens in modern societies.

It is now understood that teachers’

efficacy beliefs have a profound effect on the

educational process. It has been found to be

linked to many positive teaching behaviors and

consistently correlated with student

achievement, and students’ own sense of

efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran,

Woolfolk Hoy, 1998; Henson; 2001 as cited by

Kurz, 2006). According to Matin (1989) as cited

in Kiviet (2006), a teacher with a high sense of

efficacy not only believes that a teacher can

make a difference in student learning but also

demonstrates these beliefs with certain

behavioral skills. Raudenbush et al. (1992) have

argued that high levels of efficacy produce a

generative capability that enables teachers to

adopt innovations, construct new teaching

strategies and increase their levels of effort in

the face of difficult circumstances.

Compelling evidence indicates that the

beliefs that teachers hold regarding their

teaching capabilities have a powerful influence

on their teaching effectiveness and student

achievement. The positive effects of teacher

efficacy are tantalizing and have profound

practical implications. Whatever can be done to

improve the effectiveness and commitment of

the individual teacher, who is so central to the

educational process, will surely improve

education.

There are indications that the sense of

teaching efficacy beliefs is highest during the

training or preservice education years (Riggs &

Enochs, 1990). Bandura (1977, 1986 & 1997)

postulated that efficacy beliefs would be most

malleable (easily influenced / trained) in the

early stages of learning and training. Thus, it is

suggested that in the process of enhancing and

consolidating teachers’ sense of efficacy beliefs,

especially the personal teaching efficacy, teacher

training institutions have important and

significant role to play (Wan, 2005).

According to Swars, et al. (2006),

teacher preparation programs have a limited

amount of time to impact change in preservice

teacher beliefs. Therefore, if the program hope

to influence the development of sound

instructional practices, it is imperative that

preservice teacher development and program

effectiveness be assessed, at least in part, by

development of beliefs that are consistent with a

program’s philosophy of learning and teaching.

Apart from the dearth of studies

regarding the efficacy beliefs among Filipino

preservice teachers, this study was undertaken in

an attempt to generate some reliable descriptive

information with regards to the teaching efficacy

belief of our future Bicolano teachers. Along

with this purpose, this undertaking may serve as

feedback to the institution and mentors as regard

to the kind of training they have provided to

these would-be teachers as reflected in the

measure of their efficacy belief.

Prospective teachers must be prepared to

work not only in the schools of today but in

schools that will be significantly different in the

future (Lunderberg, Levin & Harrington, 1999

as cited in Bilbao & Castellano, 2001). Thus,

teacher educators must find out opportunities to

better prepare and increase the confidence of the

preservice teachers. Findings of the study would

likewise provide preservice teachers the

opportunity to confront and appraise their

perceptions of their ability to influence student

learning in different school settings and under

diverse situational constraints. In the quest for

3

teacher quality, this issue is of utmost

importance since the link between a teacher’s

perceived self-efficacy and his or her potential

effectiveness in the classroom has been

established by educational research.

In addition, in view of the high attrition

rate being experienced by Universidad de Sta.

Isabel’s Teacher Education department, a

program that strengthens self-efficacy and

commitment to the profession may be all that

more important for preservice teacher education

and should be investigated. Understanding the

self-efficacy of students in teacher preparation

programs can be the first step in improving the

pool of teacher candidates.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study was to

examine the change in preservice teachers’

efficacy beliefs following the student teaching

experience, with a particular focus on the three

correlated efficacy factors.

The objectives of the study were to: (1)

describe preservice teachers’ efficacy level as

rated by preservice teachers themselves and their

cooperating teachers during on-campus and off-

campus student teaching along student

engagement, instructional strategies and

classroom management; (2) compare efficacy

levels between preservice teachers’ and

cooperating teachers’ along the three factors of

the same teaching period; and (3) describe the

change in teaching efficacy from on-campus to

off-campus teaching.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This descriptive study made use of the

data collected from 30 baccalaureate degree-

seeking education students during the second

semester student teaching period of the

academic year 2007-2008. The population

included 7 males and 23 females from different

areas- general education, area of concentration

or major subject (e.g. Early Childhood, SPEd,

English, Math and PEHM), electives and

professional education.

Another group of respondents who

participated in this study consisted of the

cooperating teachers of the preservice teachers

during their on-campus and off-campus. Two

groups of cooperating teachers partook in this

research: the USI-BED (lower & higher)

teachers for the on-campus training and the

public school teachers (e.g. Camarines Sur

National High School, Naga Central School 1 &

2, and Naga City SPEd Center) for the off-

campus training. During the on-campus student

teaching however, two groups of cooperating

teachers participated in the study since the on-

campus student teaching had two shifts.

Two instruments were employed in the

study: (a) the Teacher Efficacy Scale

(Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001),

and (b) the perceived Teachers’ Efficacy Scale,

a modification of the Teacher Efficacy Scale

which was accomplished by the cooperating

teachers.

Teachers’ sense of efficacy was

measured using the long form of the Teacher

Sense of Efficacy scale (TSES) designed by

Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001).

Teacher Sense of Efficacy scale was designed to

focus solely on the aspect of personal teacher

efficacy. The three dimensions of the new scale,

efficacy for instructional strategies, student

engagement, and classroom management,

“represent the richness of teachers’ work lives

and the requirements of good teaching”

(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

This scale was accomplished by all the

preservice teachers participating in the study two

times, at the end and beginning of the student

teaching experience. The modified Teachers’

Efficacy Scale was likewise accomplished by

their respective cooperating teachers.

TSES consist of the 24 questions,

including eight items for each of the three

subscales: efficacy for instructional strategies,

efficacy for student engagement and efficacy for

classroom management. Response to each item

is a 4-point Likert scale, with 1 corresponding to

“nothing” and 4 corresponding to “a great deal”.

For a more substantial discussion of the data

response, values for mean scores were modified

with 1 interpreted as “not efficacious” to 4 as

“very efficacious”. An example of an

instructional strategies item is “To what extent

4

can you craft good questions for your students?”

An example of a student engagement item is

“How much can you do to help your students’

value learning?” An example of a classroom

management item is “How much can you do to

get children to follow classroom rules?” TSES

has a reliability coefficients of .92 (Cronbach’s

alpha) which is consistent with reliability

coefficients in similar studies; while the

construct validity for this measure was reported

as r = 0.64, p < 0.01 to the PTE factor of the

Gibson and Dembo scale, and r = 0.16, p < 0.01

to the GTE factor of the Gibson and Dembo

scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,

2001).

Descriptive statistics such as mean

rating and mean difference was utilized to

describe preservice teachers’ teaching efficacy.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Preservice teachers’ efficacy

Teacher efficacy has been one of the

few variables consistently related to positive

teaching behavior and student outcomes. Studies

show a strong link between a beginning

teacher’s sense of self-efficacy and their resolve

to remain in the classroom (Darling-Hammond,

Chung & Frelow, 2002; Flores, Desjean-Perrotta

& Steinmetz, 2004 as cited in Crim & Desjean-

Perrotta, 2008). Self-efficacy is influenced to a

great extent during the preservice or student

experience. It is obvious that at this point in their

program, preservice teachers begin to form

strong opinions about themselves as teachers,

about their ability to promote students’ learning

through the use of varied instructional strategies

meeting the diverse needs of students, and

maintaining classroom management.

The subsequent discussion focuses on

the preservice teachers’ self-rating and their

respective cooperating teacher’s rating of their

efficacy along the three moderately correlated

factors: student engagement, instructional

strategies, and classroom management, during

their on- and off-campus preservice teaching.

Efficacy along student engagement. Shown in table 1 is the preservice teachers’

sense of efficacy along student engagement.

Evidently, data reveals that both during the on-

and off-campus teaching, these preservice

teachers have already some degree of belief that

they are “quite efficacious” over the eight

student engagement factors with a mean rating

of 3.13 (on-campus) and 3.28 (off-campus).

Similarly, their respective cooperating teachers

have seen them being “quite efficacious” over

student engagement as substantiated with the

ratings of 2.90 and 3.26.

A closer examination of the eight

determining factors on student engagement

during on-campus teaching shows that the

ability to get through to the most difficult

students (self, 2.97; cooperating teacher, 2.74)

were both rated the lowest though interpreted

“quite efficacious”. The result appears to support

Main’s, et al. (2008) statement that teachers with

a high sense of self-efficacy hold the belief that

difficult students are teachable. However, in

comparison to other determining factors, data

suggests the felt need to develop more the ability

to deal with difficult students. The confidence to

get students believe they can do well in school

work (self, 3.25) and ability to foster student

creativity as well as to get students work

together (cooperating teachers, 3.09) were rated

by the participants as the highest and interpreted

“quite efficacious”, too.

After the total 16-weeks student

teaching experience as shown in table above

however, shows that ability to motivate students

who show low interest in school work (3.06)

turned out to be the lowest; while ability to help

students’ value learning was the highest self-

rated factor (3.58). This may well have been the

result of the development of a greater

understanding of the teaching profession gained

through both their university studies and their

practical experiences in classrooms as teachers

(Pendergast, Garvis, & Keogh, 2011). On

cooperating teachers’ end, they’ve seen that

these preservice teachers are quite efficacious in

terms of getting the students believe they can do

well in school work (3.50), which is consistent

with the preservice teachers’’ held belief during

the on campus that they are quite efficacious

along this ability. This positive indicator of high

5

Table 1. On-and Off-Campus Preservice Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy

along Student Engagement

Efficacy in Student

Engagement

Mean ratings

On-campus Off-campus

Self Interpretation Cooperating

teachers’ Interpretation Self Interpretation

Cooperating

teachers’ Interpretation

Get through to the most

difficult students 2.97

Quite

efficacious 2.74

Quite

efficacious 3.10

Quite

efficacious 3.13

Quite

efficacious

Help your students think

critically 3.12

Quite

efficacious 2.76

Quite

efficacious 3.30

Quite

efficacious 3.24

Quite

efficacious

Motivate students who show

low interest in school work 3.05

Quite

efficacious 2.93

Quite

efficacious 3.06

Quite

efficacious 3.20

Quite

efficacious

Get students to believe they

can do well in school work 3.25

Quite

efficacious 2.85

Quite

efficacious 3.31

Quite

efficacious 3.50

Quite

efficacious

Help students’ value

learning 3.23

Quite

efficacious 2.94

Quite

efficacious 3.58

Quite

efficacious 3.35

Quite

efficacious

Foster student creativity 3.17

Quite

efficacious 3.09

Quite

efficacious 3.31

Quite

efficacious 3.30

Quite

efficacious

Improve the understanding

of a student who is not

performing well

3.05 Quite

efficacious 2.78

Quite

efficacious 3.20

Quite

efficacious 3.04

Quite

efficacious

Get students work together 3.19 Quite

efficacious 3.09

Quite

efficacious 3.34

Quite

efficacious 3.30

Quite

efficacious

Average 3.13

Quite

efficacious 2.90

Quite

efficacious 3.28

Quite

efficacious 3.26

Quite

efficacious

Note: Values for mean scores are as follows: 1= Not efficacious, 2 = Slightly efficacious, 3 = Quite efficacious, 4 = Very efficacious

6

efficacy means that preservice teachers have

consistently manifested the confidence to

influence students’ belief that they can perform

better in school by valuing learning since the

first phase of preservice teaching until the

second phase. Similar to Woolfolk and Hoy’s

(1990) findings, preservice teachers remained

optimistic about their personal ability to

motivate students to learn. On the contrary, it

was during this period that the cooperating

teachers’ observed the preservice teachers’ need

to develop the ability to improve the

understanding of a student who is not

performing well as indicated with a mean rating

of 3.04, compared to self-rating of 3.20. Data

indicates that to some extent as per observation

of their cooperating teacher, they were less

confident in helping a student who is not

performing well.

Nevertheless, the overall result is

suggesting that both the preservice teachers and

cooperating teachers are hopeful of the former’s

ability to create an engaging and cooperative

learning environment. The few quoted

comment(s) from cooperating teachers supports

the above-discussed results. One comment made

by the cooperating teacher for example says that:

“The teacher showed enthusiasm and

confidence, but must help his students think

critically.” Another teacher says that

“Enthusiasm, openness for improvement and

effort to relate with students is evident. Some

aspects of teaching must be improved, though

could be mastered along the way.” Other had

commented that “Can do well in this work

because she has diligence, commitment, and the

willingness to learn and improve herself”. These

particular comments are in consonance with

Housego’s (2002) study on preservice teachers’

feelings of readiness to teach saying that one of

the most important prerequisites of successful

teaching is confidence in one’s own abilities and

competence to teach. Housego equated the

preservice teachers’ acquisition of confidence to

teach as indication that the teacher has achieved

the readiness to teach and a high level of

personal teaching efficacy beliefs. Another

commented that “(She) possesses the qualities of

a good teacher. She can manage her class and

has a good rapport with her students.” Related

to Enochs, Riggs and Shroyer’s (1995) and

Woolfolk and Hoy’s (1990) investigation of

preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs, maintaining

positive control of as well as rapport with

students are related to self-efficacy, this

particular observation is suggesting positive

engagement between the preservice teachers and

students.

Efficacy along instructional strategies.

The table that follows contains data of the

respondents’ efficacy along instructional

strategies. It is observable that during on-campus

teaching, preservice teachers’ self-rating scored

lowest in terms of ability to adjust the lessons to

the proper level for individual students (2.98)

and use a variety of assessment strategies (2.99);

whereas cooperating teachers, it’s the need to be

more confident in responding to difficult

questions from students (2.68) and provide an

alternative explanation or example when

students are confused (2.73). Ability to respond

to students’ difficult questions (3.17) was self-

scored the highest while for cooperating

teachers, it’s the ability to implement alternative

strategies in classroom (2.89).

Preservice teachers’ greater confidence

to respond students’ difficult questions

compared with what their cooperating teachers

actually observed apparently suggests that focus

on the instructional content should be one the

concerns of the teacher education program.

Ability to respond to students’ difficult

questions goes along with the teachers’ mastery

of the subject matter. It only means that lack of

mastery of the subject matter could significantly

contribute to hesitancy, reluctance and possible

inability to deliver effective instruction in a

classroom setting. This is supported by

Tekkaya’s (2005) findings of his study which

revealed that science knowledge level and

attitude towards science teaching each made a

statistically significant contribution to the

variation in participants' efficacy beliefs.

Similarly, Westerback and Long (1990) as cited

in Hung (2005) found that increased content

knowledge could reduce experienced elementary

teachers' anxiety about science teaching. Hence,

preservice teachers should be adequately

prepared to teach concepts with confidence.

7

Despite the fact that all the above

indicators tells us that these preservice

teachers were “quite efficacious” along

instructional strategies, exploring these

specific indicators which were rated the least

however, points to the need to improve

teacher education program’s course work and

training in terms of enhancing students’

cognitive instructional abilities, both

instructional contents and assessment

strategies to completely address student

diversity inside the classroom.

Looking at the off-campus data,

ability to craft good questions for students

was rated lowest by both groups (3.04 and

3.00); while providing appropriate challenges

for very capable students (self, 3.32) and

ability to adjust lessons to the proper level for

individual students (cooperating teacher,

3.33)were rated the highest. These data

findings were even validated by some of the

cooperating teachers’ written notes on the

distributed forms during the off-campus

teaching. For example, several cooperating

teachers have recommended that “art of

questioning must be learned and developed

well” and “improve strategies to get the

interest of the students.”

True to Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk

and Hoy’s (1998) shared opinion of Ashton

(1984), the above-mentioned comments

encourages teacher training programs to give

them presrvice teachers more opportunities to

conduct teaching practice. This includes

instructing and managing students in a variety

of context as well as levels of complexity and

challenges, so as to provide them with

necessary authentic teaching experience and

skills. In effect as argued by Raudenbush et

al. (1992) high levels of efficacy produce a

generative capability that enables teachers to

adopt innovations, construct new teaching

strategies and increase their levels of effort in

the face of difficult circumstances.

Efficacy along classroom

management. Research indicates that the

quality of an education system of a country

depends on teachers. These teachers should

possess self efficacy and effective classroom

management strategies (Dibapile, 2011).

Preservice teachers report that classroom

management is one of their most salient

concerns (Gossen, 1974; Veenman, 1984

cited in Çakiroglu, 2005). Moreover,

according to Woolfolk and Hoy efficacy

beliefs affect teachers’ classroom

management style. High efficacy is related to

a more humanistic orientation, whereas low

efficacy related to a more custodial

orientation that resulted in a rigid, controlling

atmosphere.

Examining the data shown in table 3

during on-campus teaching, of the eight

factors, ability to respond to defiant students

(self, 2.95; cooperating teachers, 2.66) were

rated the lowest although interpreted as quite

efficacious; while highest in terms of ability

to get students follow classroom rules (self,

3.28; cooperating teacher, 3.16).

Data during off-campus teaching on

the other hand showed that the ability to make

clear expectations about student behavior

(self, 3.06) and ability to get students follow

classroom rules as well as to keep a few

problem students from ruining an entire

lesson (cooperating teacher, 3.06) were all

rated the lowest; while ability to control

disruptive behavior in the classroom (self,

3.33), and ability to make expectations clear

about student behavior and get students

follow classroom rules (cooperating teacher,

3.20) were rated the highest.

Results along this aspect suggests that

on the average preservice teachers’ belief in

terms of ability to maintain positive control as

well as rapport with students was higher,

compared with their cooperating teachers’

perceived efficacy. This indicates that

cooperating teachers had observed them to be

less confident to some degree about their

personal ability to maintain positive control

over students’ diverse attitude towards

learning. Some comments regarding

preservice teachers’ need to improve

classroom management shared by their

respective cooperating teachers supports this

finding. Comments such as “she can deliver

her lessons well but she should be able to get

attention of her students by maximizing the

loudness of her voice;” and “persuade

students to make them feel your presence”,

8


along Instructional Strategies

Efficacy in instructional

strategies

Mean ratings




Cooperating


Respond to difficult questions

from students 3.17

Quite

efficacious 2.68

Quite

efficacious 3.28

Quite

efficacious 3.05

Quite

efficacious

Gauge student comprehension

of what have taught

3.05 Quite

efficacious 2.82

Quite

efficacious 3.14

Quite

efficacious 3.12

Quite

efficacious

Craft good questions for

students 3.02

Quite

efficacious 2.76

Quite

efficacious 3.04

Quite

efficacious 3.00

Quite

efficacious

Adjust lessons to the proper

level for individual students

2.98 Quite

efficacious 2.88

Quite

efficacious 3.28

Quite

efficacious 3.33

Quite

efficacious

Use a variety of assessment

strategies 2.99

Quite

efficacious 2.85

Quite

efficacious 3.28

Quite

efficacious 3.13

Quite

efficacious

Provide an alternative

explanation or example when

students are confused

3.09 Quite

efficacious 2.73

Quite

efficacious 3.23

Quite

efficacious 3.09

Quite

efficacious

Implement alternative strategies

in classroom 3.13

Quite

efficacious 2.89

Quite

efficacious 3.13

Quite

efficacious 3.11

Quite

efficacious

Provide appropriate challenges

for very capable students 3.13

Quite

efficacious 2.70

Quite

efficacious 3.32

Quite

efficacious 3.21

Quite

efficacious

Average 3.07

Quite

efficacious 2.79

Quite

efficacious 3.21

Quite

efficacious 3.13

Quite

efficacious

Legend: Values for mean scores are as follows: 1= Not efficacious, 2 = Slightly efficacious, 3 = Quite efficacious, 4 = Very efficacious

9


along Classroom Management

Efficacy in classroom

management

Mean ratings




Cooperating


Control disruptive behavior in

the classroom 2.98

Quite

efficacious 2.79

Quite

efficacious 3.33

Quite

efficacious 3.11

Quite

efficacious

Make expectations clear about

student behavior

3.07 Quite

efficacious 2.72

Quite

efficacious 3.06

Quite

efficacious 3.20

Quite

efficacious

Establish routines to keep

activities running smoothly 3.16

Quite

efficacious 2.93

Quite

efficacious 3.17

Quite

efficacious 3.18

Quite

efficacious

Get children to follow

classroom rules

3.28 Quite

efficacious 2.98

Quite

efficacious 3.28

Quite

efficacious 3.20

Quite

efficacious

Get children to follow

classroom rules 3.00

Quite

efficacious 3.16

Quite

efficacious 3.24

Quite

efficacious 3.06

Quite

efficacious

Establish a classroom

management system with each

group of students

3.11 Quite

efficacious 2.81

Quite

efficacious 3.11

Quite

efficacious 3.12

Quite

efficacious

Keep a few problem students

form ruining an entire lesson 2.95

Quite

efficacious 2.76

Quite

efficacious 3.11

Quite

efficacious 3.06

Quite

efficacious

Respond to defiant students 2.80 Quite

efficacious 2.66

Quite

efficacious 3.13

Quite

efficacious 3.13

Quite

efficacious

Average 3.04

Quite

efficacious 2.85

Quite

efficacious 3.18

Quite

efficacious 3.13

Quite

efficacious

Legend: Values for mean scores are as follows: 1= Not efficacious, 2 = Slightly efficacious, 3 = Quite efficacious, 4 = Very efficacious

10

speaks of cooperating teacher’s emphasis on

the need to control pupils to maintain an

orderly classroom.

Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy level vs.

cooperating teachers’ perceived efficacy

level

Table 4 and 5 compares preservice

teachers’ self-efficacy ratings and cooperating

teachers’ in the three efficacy beliefs both

during on and off campus teaching. It is

interesting to examine that during the initial

exposure to the field, these preservice

teachers have had these beliefs that they are

quite efficacious first along student

engagement (3.13), instructional strategies

(3.07), and then classroom management

(3.04). Likewise, their respective cooperating

teachers observed that they are quite

efficacious but primarily along student

engagement, classroom management (2.85),

and lastly along instructional strategies (2.79).

Table 4. Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy

level vs. cooperating teachers’ perceived

efficacy level (on-campus)

Efficacy

beliefs

Mean rating Mean

difference Preservice

teachers’

Cooperating

teachers’

Student

engagement 3.13 2.90 0.23

Instructional

strategies

3.07 2.79 0.28

Classroom

management 3.04 2.85 0.19

Legend: Values for mean scores are as follows: 1= Not efficacious, 2 = Slightly efficacious, 3 = Quite efficacious, 4 =

Very efficacious

Moreover, comparing the degree of

difference between self and perceived level of

efficacy, it should be known that efficacy

along instructional strategies shows a slightly

bigger difference (0.28) compared to the

student engagement (0.19) and classroom

management (0.23).

This degree of differences proposes

preservice teachers’ fairly higher efficacy

beliefs over their cooperating teachers’

perceived efficacy. The former believes that

they can efficiently impart knowledge to the

students using various and appropriate

strategies, efficiently engage students to

learning, and possesses effective classroom

management. Their higher sense of efficacy

could be underpinned by high levels of

confidence that they were well prepared for

relating their experience back to the

theoretical perspectives underpinning the

preservice program. Also, this could imply

that preservice teachers were already

efficacious about teaching before they started

their student teaching experience. Walker’s

(1992) cited in Campbell (1996) study

confirms these findings, which according to

him student teachers tended to rate themselves

highly while cooperating teachers were more

realistic in their appraisals. One of the

obvious conclusions about this rating would

be that student teachers are idealistic about

their expectations of their performance in the classroom.

Table 5. Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy

level vs. cooperating teachers’ perceived

efficacy level (off-campus)

Efficacy

beliefs

Mean rating Mean

difference Preservice

teachers’

Cooperating

teachers’

Student


Instructional

strategies 3.21 3.13 0.08

Classroom


Legend: Values for mean scores are as follows: 1= Not

efficacious, 2 = Slightly efficacious, 3 = Quite efficacious, 4 =

Very efficacious

After completion of practice teaching,

it is notable that preservice teachers’ rank of

efficacy is parallel to on-campus result,

highest in student engagement (3.28),

subsequently in instructional strategies (3.21),

and lastly classroom management (3.18);

11

whereas cooperating teachers’ perception and

ranking of the formers’ efficacy showed they

quite efficacious along student engagement

(3.26) and equally efficacious on instructional

strategies and classroom management. The

very small mean differences between the two

phases of teaching, given the following

figures of 0.12, 0.8, and 0.5 from student

engagement to classroom management, goes

to suggest that longer exposure in the field has

provided them source of efficacy that made

them realize the many demands and

challenges of teaching profession. It can be

inferred also that extensive teaching

experience has corrected the preservice

teachers’ initially inflated levels of self-

efficacy (Barnes, n.d.). Hence, the

demonstrated efficacy belief of these

preservice teachers almost equates with their

cooperating teachers’ perception of their

efficacy.

On-campus vs. off-campus efficacy level

Data presented in table 6 and 7 are the

comparisons of teaching efficacy of

preservice teachers’ themselves and as

perceived by their respective cooperating

teachers’ between on- and off-campus

denoted by the mean differences, thus

changes in efficacy levels.

In general, as seen from table 6 there

is no remarkable change in efficacy level

along the three correlated factors as indicated

with the mean differences of 0.15 (student

engagement) and 0.14 (instructional strategies

and classroom management). Negligible as it

may seem, it is important to note however the

minute change among respondents’ teaching

efficacy suggesting a continued belief that

they are quite efficacious teachers. The result

corroborates Knobloch’s (2002) statement

that student teachers may also have an

inflated efficacy that they can teach, which

remains inflated throughout student teaching

because of the supportive teaching

environment of a cooperating teacher.

Table 6 Preservice teachers’ efficacy

between on and off campus teaching

Efficacy

beliefs

On-

campus

Off-

campus

Mean

difference

Student


Instructional

strategies 3.07 3.21

0.14

Classroom


Mean rating 3.08 3.22 0.14


efficacious, 2 = Slightly efficacious,3 = Quite efficacious, 4 =

Very efficacious

Table 7 reveals cooperating teachers’

beliefs that preservice teachers are reasonably

efficacious along the three factors. However,

mean differences even if small is a positive

indication of change in efficacy. Off-campus

teachers exhibit slightly higher belief on

preservice teachers’ efficacy specifically

along student engagement (0.36), closely

followed of instructional strategies (0.34) and

lastly on classroom management. It could be

inferred that on-campus experience provided

them greater influence and helped them better

understand the responsibilities that

accompany teaching. Consequently when sent

to off campus teaching, their cooperating

teachers have seen them with somewhat

higher teaching efficacy.

Table 7. Cooperating teachers’ perceived

efficacy between on and off campus

teaching

Efficacy

beliefs

On-

campus

Off-

campus

Mean

difference

Student


Instructional

strategies 2.79 3.13

0.34

Classroom


Mean rating 2.85 3.17 0.32


efficacious, 2 = Slightly efficacious,3 = Quite efficacious, 4 = Very efficacious

12

Shown in table 8 is an overall

comparison of efficacy level between the two

groups of population of different teaching

periods. Data clearly shows that preservice

teachers exhibit higher efficacy compared to

their cooperating teachers’ observed efficacy

on both teaching periods. Comparing the

overall self-rated efficacy level between the

two phases of teaching, data shows smaller

mark gain (0.14) compared to cooperating

teachers’ perception designated with a mark

gain of 0.32. In addition, results indicate that

the length of student teaching can

significantly increase preservice teachers’

efficacy. This finding is congruent to

Knoblauch (2004), Housego (2002) and

Cannon’s (2001) study which showed

significant increases in teacher’s sense of

efficacy following student teaching,

particularly when the subject of the study

were subjected to extended practicum

experience. It shall be noted that preservice

teachers in this study have had two shifts of

student teaching and that minor yet significant

mean difference between on- and off-campus

student teaching speaks of the impact to

teaching efficacy belief when exposure in the

actual field is extensive.

Table 8. On-campus vs. off-campus efficacy

level

Preservice

teachers’

Cooperating

teachers’

On campus 3.08 2.85

Off campus 3.22 3.17

Mean

difference 0.14 0.32


efficacious, 2 = Slightly efficacious, 3 = Quite efficacious, 4 =

Very efficacious

It can also be argued that the

preservice teachers’ mark gain indicates a

reinforced sense of self-efficacy as teachers or

gained conviction that their “teacher training

program and/or experience” had given them

“the necessary skills to be an effective

teacher.” This could be an indication that

settings that provide young teachers with an

opportunity to have teaching experience are

worthwhile addition to a teacher education

program (Barnes, n.d.).

CONCLUSIONS

Preservice teachers demonstrated no

different efficacy belief to influence student

learning, adopt instructional strategies

meeting students’ diverse needs and

confidence to manage a class as per

observation of their cooperating teachers and

themselves. However, none of the

determining factors were evaluated as very

efficacious by both populations even after the

final phase of teaching; all were rated and

interpreted as quite efficacious. Detailed

examination of each determining factors tells

about which of those would require

improvements such as in terms of getting

through the most difficult students, with low

interest, and not performing well, helping

them think critically; adjusting the lesson to

their levels by providing appropriate

challenges for advanced students, crafting

good questions and responding to difficult

ones, helping them comprehend when

confused with the concept, and using various

strategies; controlling disruptive behavior of

defiant and few problem students from

ruining the lesson by establishing classroom

management system so as to get the students

follow rules.

Examination of data although reveals

that there is a discrepancy between self-rating

and cooperating teachers’ rating during the on

and off-campus teaching despite having the

same interpretation of being quite efficacious.

Supported by the descriptive data previously

presented, finding implies that preservice

teachers manifests a bit higher level of

readiness and confidence to apply the learned

theories to actual teaching, compared to what

their cooperating teachers actually observed.

Lastly, study shows change in the

efficacy levels after the final phase of

teaching evidenced by the small mark gains.

Though seemingly insignificant, this is a

positive indication of enhanced efficacy at the

end of exposure in the field of teaching.

Apparently, preservice teachers didn’t

encounter a significant reality shock when

they enter into student teaching. This means

to say that extensive exposure to actual

13

teaching reinforced them to become more

confident in their ability to affect students’

learning, have a broader view for instructional

strategies, and to strengthen awareness of the

challenges in managing a class.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are the

recommendations are forwarded based on the

findings drawn from the study:

It is recommended that the preservice

education program should expose preservice

teachers to a variety of instructional strategies

that will give them opportunity assimilate the

concepts that they have to teach to their

students. It should be understand that mastery

experience serves as one of the greatest

influence to self-efficacy judgments for

teacher and this could only be possibly

attained with mastery of the concepts. In

addition, intensive training ought to be

devised that focuses on how to improve

engagement with students and classroom

management system.

Over-estimated levels of teacher self-

efficacy can be detrimental to teachers when

they encounter reality. This study invites

further investigation into the sources of

teacher self-efficacy during the beginning

phase of teaching to identify key points in

efficacy development. Investigation of

sources influencing sustained efficacy would

be important to teacher educators to train and

equip teachers for more complex tasks.

This study observes the periods of

flux and stability as the preservice teachers

moved between the first phase of student

teaching to the final phase. It is recommended

however that this study be continued to

document levels of efficacy. If future findings

confirms that teacher efficacy beliefs are high

during the student teaching and resistant to

change after this period or having gone

through the reality of teaching profession ,

then teacher educators and policy makers

would need to reconsider the support needed

for important training to would-be teachers

by promoting sustained teacher self-efficacy

beliefs. On the other hand, if findings show a

decline in teacher self-efficacy between the

student teaching and actual practice of the

profession, teacher educators and policy

makers would need to reconsider the support

needed for retaining beginning teachers by

promoting resilient self-efficacy beliefs.

REFERENCES

Anderson, L. W. (2004). Paris 2004 UNESO:

International Institute for Educational

Planning. Increasing teacher effectiveness.

(2nd

ed.). Available online:

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/00137

6/137629e.pdf

Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of

control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Barnes, G. V. (n.d.). Self-efficacy and teaching

effectiveness. University of South Carolina.

Available online:

http://www.cfa.arizona.edu/jsr/jsrbarnes/jsrbar

nes%20main%20frame.htm

Cannon, J. R. (2001). Influence of an extended

elementary science teaching practicum

experience upon preservice elementary

teachers’ science self-efficacy. Available

online:

http://www.ed.psu/ci/Journals/97pap8.html

Çakiroglu, J. (2005). Pre-service teacher self-

efficacy beliefs regarding science teaching:

A comparison of pre-service teachers in

Turkey and the USA. Science Educator.

Spring 2005. Available online:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4049

/is_200504/ai_n14718070

Crim, C. L. & Desjean-Perrotta, B., (2008).

"Impacting teacher efficacy for preservice

teachers through university/public school

partnerships" Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Association of

Colleges for Teacher Education, Hilton New

Orleans Riverside, New Orleans, LA Online

<PDF>. 2010-03-12 from

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p207524_i

ndex.html

Dibapile, W. (2011). A literature review of

literature on teacher efficacy and classroom

management. The 2011 New Orleans

International Academic Conference New

Orleans, Louisiana USA

14

Enochs, L. G., Riggs, I. M. & Shroyer, M. G.

(1995). Enhancing preservice teachers’

science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the

Association for Education of Teachers of

Science, Charleston, WV.

Hoy, A. W. (2004, April). What do teachers need

to know about self-efficacy? Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, San

Diego.

Housego, A. E. (2002). Efficacy beliefs and the

organizational health of schools. The

Elementary School Journal, 3 (5), 55-72.

Hung, C. M. (2005). Science teaching efficacy

beliefs. Academic Exchange Quarterly.

Available online:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Science+teachi

ng+efficacy+beliefs.-a0142636387

Kiviet, A. (2006). Science teaching self-efficacy

beliefs in selected South African schools and

their implications for professional practice.

University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Available online:

http://www.leadership.fau.edu/ICSEI2006/Pa

pers/Kiviet.pdf

Knoblauch, D. E. (2004). Contextual factors and

the development of student teachers’ sense of

efficacy. Published dissertation. The Ohio

State University. Available online:

http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=osu

1085620654

Knobloch, N. A. (2002). A Comparison of

personal factors, environmental factors, and

student teachers’ efficacy between two

agricultural education student teacher

programs. University of Illinois

Kurz, N. (2006). The relationship between

teachers’ sense of academic optimism and

academic optimism and commitment to the

profession (dissertation). The Ohio State

University. Available online:

http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-

pdf.cgi/Kurz%20Nan%20M.pdf?osu1148322

317

Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011).

Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacy

beliefs: an insight into the making of teachers.

Vol. 36: Iss. 12, Article 4. Australian Journal

of Teacher Education. Available online:

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol36/iss12/4

Raudenbush , S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F.

(1992). Contextual effects on the self-efficacy

of high school teachers. Sociology of

Education. Volume 65. American Sociological

Association

Tekkaya, C. (2005). Self-efficacy, attitude and

science knowledge. Academic Exchange

Quarterly. Available online:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Self-

efficacy,+attitude+and+science+knowledge.-

a0142636388

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk, A. & Hoy, W.

K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and

measure. Review of Educational Research, 68

(2), 202-248.

Wan, C. P. (2005). Teaching efficacy beliefs of

pre service teachers. Jurnal IPBA / Jilid 3:

Bilangan 2. Available online:

http://apps.emoe.gov.my/ipba/ResearchPaper/

journal/article14.pdf

Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Changes in teacher

efficacy during the early years of teaching.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association,

New Orleans, LA. Session 43:22, Qualitative

and Quantitative Approaches to Examining

Efficacy in Teaching and Learning, April 28,

2000. Available online:

Woolfolk, A. E. & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective

teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about

control. Journal of Educational Psychology,

82, 81-91.

Swars, S. L., Smith S. Z., Smith, M. E. & Hart, L.

C. (2006). Elementary preservice teachers’

changing pedagogical and efficacy beliefs

during a developmental teacher reparation

program. Vol.2-548 PME-NA 2006

Proceedings. Available online:

http://www.pmena.org/2006/cd/TEACHER%

20BELIEFS/TEACHER%20BELIEFS-

0002.pdf

________________________________________ 1 The author is a candidate for doctorate degree

in PhD major in Educational Foundations at Bicol University Graduate School. It is in this same university where she earned her master’s degree in Biology Education (MA in Bio. Ed.). She was a HED instructor at the Universidad de Sta. Isabel (USI) and a faculty researcher when she conducted this study. Apart from this paper, she also had three other research papers published in the university journal of USI, and others which were unpublished. To date, she is serving as public school teacher in her hometown at Daraga, Albay.

efficacy level of preservice teachers

Documents