The Relationship between Novice and Experienced ... - Science Direct

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 185 (2015) 446 – 452

3rd World Conference on Psychology and Sociology, WCPS- 2014

The Relationship between Novice and Experienced Teachers’ SelfEfficacy for Personal Teaching and External Influences Saeedeh Shohania, Akbar Azizifara*, Habib Gowharya, Ali Jamalinesaria a

Department of English language Teaching, Ilam Branch,Islamic Azad University, Ilam, Iran

Abstract This study investigates the effect of teachers’ self-efficacy on personal teaching and external influences. The study involves 18 novice and 18 experienced English teachers teaching at Ilam high schools from March to September of 2014. Data were collected through a questionnaire. Teacher’s questionnaire consisted of 36 Likert scale items. To analyze the data, t-tests were applied. When the two groups were compared, novice and experienced teachers were found to differ in their self-efficacy for classroom management, but not in their efficacy for personal teaching and external influences. In order to improve teachers' efficacy for personal teaching and external influences in-service training programs and regular meetings where teachers share their experiences can be held. 2015The TheAuthors. Authors. Published Elsevier ©©2015 Published by by Elsevier Ltd.Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center. Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center Keywords: Self-Efficacy, Personal Teaching, External Influence, Misbehavior, Novice Teacher, Experienced Teacher.

1. Introduction Self-efficacy is the “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997). Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy is based on the observation that different people have different levels of selfefficacy under particular conditions. The main concerns of the theory are the differences between people with high self-efficacy and low self-efficacy in terms of their attitudes towards tasks and the amount of work to be done, the

* Akbar Azizifar. Tel.: +0-921-845-7634. E-mail address: [email protected].

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.357

Saeedeh Shohani et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 185 (2015) 446 – 452

structure of self-efficacy, and sources of self-efficacy. Bandura states that people improve their skills as much as they can in particular fields of interest to them. As a result, they have different levels of self-efficacy in different areas. Improving skills necessary to succeed in certain activities and having high self-efficacy to handle demanding conditions are required for high performance. People’s level of self-efficacy affects their performances. Low self-efficacy leads to questions about the self in terms of capabilities and lack of motivation, both of which prevent people from concentrating on the activity they are involved in. When people cannot succeed in an activity, they question their capabilities and feel depressed. However, people with high self-efficacy feel the strength to cope with difficulties. The difficulty of the activity may motivate them even more and they strive for success. The fact that someone has high self-efficacy and has done their best with enthusiasm does not mean that they will be successful. They may fail, but people with high self-efficacy do not feel the need to hide behind external factors like the physical conditions in a setting or the fact that they have shortcomings as people with low self-efficacy do. Instead, they think they should work harder for success and strive to gain control over “potential stressors or threats” (Bandura, 1997). These qualities of people with high self-efficacy separate them from people with low self-efficacy, helping them perform well. Teachers' beliefs about their own effectiveness, known as teacher efficacy, underlie many important instructional decisions which ultimately shape students' educational experiences (Soodak & Podell, 1997). As stated earlier self-efficacy is the “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997). Bandura states that people improve their skills as much as they can in particular fields of interest to them. As a result, they have different levels of self-efficacy in different areas. Improving skills that are important to succeed in certain activities are required for high performance. People’s level of self-efficacy affects their performances. Low self-efficacy leads to questions about the self in terms of capabilities and lack of motivation, both of which prevent people from concentrating on the activity they are involved in. Teachers' sense of efficacy can potentially influence both the kind of environment that they create as well as the various instructional practices introduced in the classroom (Bandura, 1997). Furthermore, teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy are confident that even the most difficult students can be reached if they exert extra effort; teachers with lower self-efficacy, on the other hand, feel a sense of helplessness when it comes to dealing with difficult and unmotivated students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). The literature widely documents the pervasive influence of selfefficacy beliefs and corroborates social cognitive theory that places these beliefs at the roots of human agency (Bandura, 2001). The importance of self-efficacy in behavior management has been highlighted by Martin and colleagues (Martin et al., 1999) who proposed that teachers’ responses to misbehavior may be mediated by their beliefs about their ability to deal with behavior, as well as their beliefs about the causes of student misbehavior. Studies have found a negative correlation between teachers’ confidence and their use of effective behavior management techniques (Safran, 1989; Woolfolk, Rossoff, & Hoy, 1990). For instance, less confident teachers are more likely to become angered and threatened by misbehavior (Ashton, Webb, & Doda, 1983, as cited in Dembo & Gibson, 1985); use inappropriate management techniques (Martin et al., 1999; Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 1992); and frequently refer students to other school personnel (Martin et al., 1999). In comparison, confident teachers believe that difficult students are teachable (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Sheer, 1999); they offer more support (Ashton & Webb, 1986); and use proactive approaches to behavior management (Blankenship, 1988; Cartledge & Johnson, 1996). It has been posited that teachers who fail to handle disruptive behaviors with confidence may precipitate or exacerbate behavior problems (Martin et al., 1999; Pettit et al., 1992). Given these findings, it appears that teachers most effective in dealing with misbehavior are those teachers most confident in their ability to teach difficult students. Iranian students have to pass English course at school and university, but most of the teachers are not able to manage the class with high level of self-efficacy .Thus, research on classroom management and teachers’ self efficacy is worth studying. The present study aims to investigate the relationship between teacher’s self-efficacy and classroom management. Therefore, in the present study, we are going to explore the factors that impact personal teaching and external influences including self-efficacy.

447

448


2. Questions and Hypotheses The current study seeks answers to the following questions: 1. What is the relationship between the novice and experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy for personal teaching? 2. What is the relationship between the novice and experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy for external influences? 2.1 Research hypotheses H01: There is no relationship between novice and experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy for personal teaching. H02: There is no relationship between novice and experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy for external influences. 3. Methodology 3.1 Participants The study is descriptive in nature and survey method was used to collect data. The participants are 36 English teachers working at Ilam high Schools. 3.2. Instruments A questionnaire was used to collect data in this study. The questionnaire given to teachers was used to measure their self-efficacy for personal teaching and external influences. In order to make the distinction between novice and experienced teachers, Freeman’s (2001) definition was used. Freeman defines novice teachers as those having less than three years of experience and experienced teachers as those having five or more years of experience. However, because there are only few teachers who can be described as novice according to Freeman’s definition at Ilam high Schools, all teachers with less than five years of experience have been regarded as novice teachers in this study. Emmer and Hickman’s (1991) Teacher Efficacy Scale was used in this study to measure teachers’ self-efficacy for personal teaching and external influences. The researchers developed this questionnaire by adding 12 more items to Gibson and Dembo’s Teacher Efficacy Scale, which is the most well-known scale for measuring teacher efficacy (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003; Henson, Kogan, & Vacha-Haase, 2001). 3.3. Procedure The participants were asked to fill the questionnaire in order to investigate the relationship between novice and experienced teachers’ self efficacy for personal teaching and external influences. It took about fifteen minutes for teachers to fill out the questionnaires. Information about the participants’ thoughts and feelings was gathered through the use of a Likert scale (Brown & Rodgers, 2002). The questionnaire, which uses a six point Likert scale, provided the respondents with six possible answers ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. 3.4 Data Analysis The obtained data were loaded into the Statistics Package (SPSS). The mean scores of the results for teachers’ self-efficacy for personal teaching and external influences were calculated.


Before running any statistical tests on the data, the items with negative meanings were reversed. Items 17, 19, 23, and 33 in this questionnaire were reversely scored. 4. Results Statistical assumptions of normality test are set out as follows: H01: the distribution of data for each variable is normal. H02: The distribution of data for each variable isn’t normal. Table1. Results of testing data normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Self-efficacy of Experienced English teachers Self-efficacy of Novice English teachers

Statistic

df

Sig.

Statistic

df

Sig.

.217

18

.195

.743

18

.241

.228

18

.198

.849

18

.256

Based on the above table, the data distribution obeys a normal distribution, and H0 hypothesis is accepted. 4.1 Inferential Statistics The current study encompassed 36 EFL teachers drawn from several high schools in Ilam province. Within all teachers’ responding to the study, 18 (50%) of teachers had less than 5 years of teaching experience, and 18 (50%) had more or equal to 5 years of teaching experience. 4.1.2. What is the relationship between novice and experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy for personal teaching? Tables (2) and (3) show the difference between the experienced and novice English language teachers' selfefficacy for personal teaching. To investigate this question, standard deviation and mean were computed.

Table (2) Group Statistics for relationship between the novice and experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy for personal teaching VAR00002 EXT NT

5.00 dimension1 6.00

N 18 18

Mean 32.8333 34.6667

Std. Deviation 7.61770 4.87491

Std. Error Mean 1.79551 1.14903

449

450

Saeedeh Shohani et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 185 (2015) 446 – 452 Table (3) Independent Samples Test for relationship between the novice and experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy for personal teaching Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means Equality of Variances

Equal variances VAR000 assumed 01

F

Sig.

t

df

Sig. (2tailed)

95% Confidence Interval Mean Std. Error of the Difference Difference Difference Lower Upper

1.988

.168

-.860

34

.396

-1.83333

2.13169

-6.16546

2.49879

Based on the calculated value of t and a significance level greater than 0.05 (.396), there is no reason for rejecting the null hypothesis of normality based on the data, and H0 hypothesis is accepted. According to the above table, there is no significant difference between experienced and novice English language teachers’ personal teaching. 4.1.3. What is the relationship between novice and experienced English Teachers’ self efficacy for external influences? Tables (4) and (5) display the difference between experienced and novice English language teachers' self-efficacy for external influences. Like the previous one, to investigate this question, we calculated mean and standard deviation. Then, t-test for equality of means is obtained.

Table (4) Group Statistics for relationship between the novice and experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy for external influences VAR00002 EXT NT

dimension1

7.00 8.00

N 18 18

Mean 60.7222 58.2778

Std. Deviation 12.07723 8.49779

Std. Error Mean 2.84663 2.00295

Table (5) Independent Samples Test for relationship between the novice and experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy for external influences

Equal variances VAR000 assumed 01

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F

Sig.

t

df

Sig. (2tailed)

95% Confidence Interval Mean Std. Error of the Difference Difference Difference Lower Upper

.308

.583

.702

34

.487

2.44444

3.48068

-4.62914

9.51803

Based on the calculated value of t and a significance level greater than 0.05 (.487), it can be concluded that H0 hypothesis is accepted. That is, there is no significant difference between experienced and novice English language teachers’ external influences.


451

5. Discussion The results of the items in the questionnaire were analyzed in order to find the differences in novice and experienced teachers’ efficacy levels for personal teaching, and external influences. The mean scores of the three groups of items were calculated separately for both novice and experienced teachers. T-test was run to compare the responses of novice and experienced teachers. The t-test results indicate that the two groups of teachers do not significantly differ from one another in terms of their self-efficacy level for personal teaching and external influences. The first question of the study attempted to explore the relationship between novice and experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy for personal teaching. Although novice teachers may be acting in similar ways to experienced teachers in the classroom, novice teachers may expect to be able to prevent or deal with problems more efficiently. As a result of their limited experience, novice teachers’ expectations might be higher than what is possible to achieve. For example, novice teachers may be evaluating their performance low because there is one or two students they cannot control as well as they would like to. However, experienced teachers may accept the presence of one or two disruptive students as the general situation in most of the classrooms. Thus, they may not consider such exceptional cases while evaluating their general practice. Gabrielatos (2002) emphasizes the importance of teachers’ personalities and teaching skills in language teaching. He states that teachers need to be willing to help learners overcome the problems they face in the learning process. Because teachers may vary in the degree of willingness to help, students may have different perceptions of different teachers’ practices. Gabrielatos (2002) uses a triangle to describe the factors that influence a language teacher’s success in teaching. He states that teachers need to be knowledgeable in terms of methodology of language teaching, efficient users of the language in all skills, and also have personalities that help learners overcome the problems they face in the learning process. For example, effective language teachers use various kinds of materials depending on the learning styles of students, are accurate and fluent users of the target language, and are careful about the interests and needs of their learners. Just as the three sides of a triangle form the whole picture, these three aspects are required to be effective teachers. Because of the interactive nature of these teaching characteristics, students may form more holistic views of teachers that include their teachers’ personalities and teaching skills. The second question of the study attempted to explore the relationship between novice and experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy for external influences.. The factors teachers see as the reasons for the disruptive behaviors are the characters of the students, home environment, classroom environment, and teachers’ practices in the classroom. The first two reasons are external factors over which teachers do not have much control. As the results of the teacher questionnaire show, the mean score of teachers’ efficacy for external influences is low. When novice and experienced teachers’ efficacy for external influences is measured separately, experienced teachers are found to have high efficacy for external influences. However, experienced teachers as well have a lower level of efficacy for external influences than their efficacy for personal teaching and classroom management. Although teachers with high efficacy are expected not to believe external factors are the reasons for difficult situations they need to deal with (Bandura, 1997; Dweck, 2000), several experienced, highly efficacious teachers in this study pointed to the difference these factors make. The reason for identifying external factors may not be an attempt to cover failure as teachers pointed out not only external factors but also the effect teachers’ practices make. This result may show that teachers are aware of the various sources of influence on student behavior. Teachers believe in the effect these factors make on classroom management problems, but they also ask students about the reasons for their inappropriate behavior, which is one of the methods to deal with problems. The practices of the experienced teachers using verbal intervention do not match their levels of efficacy when the literature is considered (Bandura, 1997; Henson, 2001). The reason behind the novice teachers’ sensitive approach towards students might be the fact that they have studied classroom management and teaching methods more recently than the experienced teachers. Experienced teachers might well be losing their patience in time because they have dealt with so many problematic students, which may result in their using the verbal intervention method.

452


References Ashton, P. & Webb, R., (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman. Bandura, A., (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Bandura, A., (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52, (1), 1-26. Blankenship, C., (1988). Structuring the classroom for success. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 12, 25-30. Brouwers, A. & Tomic, W., (2003). A test of the factorial validity of the teacher efficacy scale [electronic version]. Research in Education, 69, 67-78. Brown, J. D. & Rodgers, T. S., (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buell, M., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S., (1999). A survey of general and special inservice needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 143-156. Cartledge, G., & Johnson, C. T., (1996). Inclusive classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Critical variables. Theory into Practice,35, (1), 51-57. Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S., (1985). Teachers' sense of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 173-184. Dweck, C. S., (2000). Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. London: Psychology Press. Emmer, E. T. & Hickman, J., (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline. Educational Psychological Measurement, 51, 755-766. Freeman, D., (2001). Second language teacher education. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gabrielatos, C., (2002). The shape of the language teacher [electronic version]. In A. Pulverness (Ed.). IATEFL 2002: York Conference Selections London: IATEFL Publications. Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. H., (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation.Journal of educational psychology, 76, (4), 569. Henson, R. K., (2001). Relationships between preservice teachers’ selfefficacy, task analysis, and classroom management beliefs [electronic version]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R. & Vacha-Haase, T., (2001). A reliability generalization study of the teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 404-420. Martin, A., Linfoot, K. & Stephenson, J., (1999). How teachers respond to concerns about misbehaviour in their classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 347-358. Pettit. G. S., Bates, J. E. & Dodge, K. A., (1992). Family interaction patterns and children’s conduct problems at home and school: A longitudinal perspective. School Psychology Review, 22, 178-189. Safran, S., (1989). Australian teachers’ views of their effectiveness in behaviour management. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 36, 15 - 27. Soodak, L. C. & Podell, D. M., (1997). Efficacy and experience: Perceptions of efficacy among preservice and practicing teachers. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30, (4), 214-221. Woolfolk, A., Rosoff, B. & Hoy, W., (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.