Academic Exchange Quarterly
Winter 2005 ISSN 1096-1453
Volume 9, Issue 4
To cite, use print source rather than this on-line version which
may not reflect print copy format requirements or text
lay-out and pagination.
What Predicts Student Teacher Self-Efficacy?
Yesim CAPA AYDIN,
Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Anita WOOLFOLK HOY, The Ohio State University, OH
Capa Aydin,
Ph.D., is Instructor in the Department of Educational Sciences, and Woolfolk Hoy, Ph.D., is Professor of Educational Psychology
and Teacher Education.
Abstract
This
descriptive survey study investigated student teachers’ sources of
self-efficacy. Using simultaneous regression, we predicted student teachers’
sense of efficacy using their relationship with mentors, amount of field
experiences, and teaching support. The regression equation accounted for 27% of
the variance in efficacy scores. Highly efficacious student teachers in this
sample tended to have less teaching experience, but a more positive
relationship with their mentors and more teaching support.
A growing number
of educational researchers are interested in relationships between teacher
efficacy and other educational variables. For example, teachers’ efficacy
judgments have been correlated with decreased burnout (Brouwers
& Tomic, 2000), increased job satisfaction (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003), and
commitment to teaching (Coladarci, 1992). Ross (1998)
reviewed 88 teacher efficacy studies and suggested that teachers with higher
levels of efficacy are more likely to (1) learn and use new approaches and
strategies for teaching, (2) use management techniques that enhance student
autonomy and diminish student control, (3) provide special assistance to low
achieving students, (4) build students’ self-perceptions of their academic
skills, (5) set attainable goals, and (6) persist in the face of student
failure. Teacher efficacy also has been correlated with student achievement
(Ashton & Webb, 1986), student sense of efficacy (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988) and student motivation (Midgley,
Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989).
Sources of Efficacy
Beliefs
The development of
teacher efficacy beliefs among prospective teachers has generated a great deal
of research interest because once established, these beliefs appear to be
resistant to change. Even with this research activity, however, little is known
about the sources of higher efficacy. Woolfolk Hoy
and Burke-Spero (2005) suggested that mastery
experiences during student teaching and the first years of teaching influence
the development of teacher efficacy. Field experiences give student teachers
opportunities to evaluate their capabilities. Observations of other teachers might
serve as “vicarious experience,” which is another effective tool for promoting
a sense of efficacy. In addition, Bandura (1997)
pointed out the importance of feedback and support from environment in the
cultivation of efficacy.
In their longitudinal
case study, Mulholland and Wallace (2001) found that
successful mastery experiences and verbal persuasions were the primary sources
of information for building teacher’s efficacy. During both the preservice and inservice teaching
years, previous experience with an instructional activity, knowing students’
characteristics, preference for manageable activities, and support from
supervisors in early years of teaching helped teachers experience mastery.
Student teaching
is generally considered the most beneficial component of preparation by
prospective and practicing teachers and teacher educators (Borko
& Mayfield, 1995; Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). In practice, the
cooperating teacher plays the most vital role in supervision and is perceived
as the most significant person in the student teacher’s experiences (Booth,
1993); often student teachers move closer to the attitudes and behaviors of
their cooperating teachers (Zeichner, 1980).
However,
researchers have cautioned that student teaching can have negative as well as
positive influences. Poorly chosen placements result in feelings of inadequacy,
low teacher efficacy, and an unfavorable attitude toward teaching (Fallin & Royse, 2000; Feiman-Nemser,
1983); whereas extensive well-planned field experiences can help prospective
teachers develop confidence, self-esteem and an enhanced awareness of the
profession (Thomson, Beacham, & Misulis, 1992).
Results are
mixed on the relationship between teaching experience and teacher efficacy. For
example, in a case study of science teaching, efficacy increased with
experience as the teacher grew better able to manage the students’ behaviors
and inquiry activities. But three
quantitative studies found very little correlation between experience and
teaching efficacy (Cantrell, Yound, & Moore,
2003; Plourde, 2002; Soodak
& Podell, 1996), while other quantitative studies
have found that teacher efficacy decreased with time teaching (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997). In contrast, Woolfolk
Hoy and Burke-Spero (2005) found that efficacy
increased during teacher preparation and student teaching, but decreased during
the first year of teaching. With experience, teachers may grow to believe that
student learning is due to factors beyond their control (Ghaith
& Yaghi, 1997).
Labone (2004) noted much research on teachers’
sense of efficacy lacks a consideration of context. Consistent with social
cognitive theory and the teacher efficacy model proposed by Tschannen-Moran,
Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998), social and
environmental contexts play a major role in the teacher’s analysis of the
teaching task. Declines in efficacy with the first year of teaching have been
attributed, in part, to the withdrawal of the social support provided by the
university when practice teaching ends and real teaching begins (Cantrell et
al., 2003; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005). With respect to the influence of cooperating
teachers on preservice teachers, Li and Zhang (2000)
found that preservice teachers who perceived their
cooperating teachers’ to be highly efficacious had significantly higher general
teaching efficacy than their counterparts. In this study, we use the term
“mentor” rather than “cooperating teacher.”
This
longitudinal study examines the importance of social context in the formation
of efficacy judgments as proposed by the Tschannen-Moran
et al. model. Specifically, we investigated the question:
How
well do teaching experiences, the relationship with mentors, the student
teachers’ perceptions of their mentor, and perceived teaching support predict
the efficacy beliefs of student teachers?
Participants
were 59 female and 11male student teachers enrolled in the Master of Education
(M.Ed.) program in a large mid-western university. Majors were: 36 in foreign
and second language education, 17 in special education, 11 in family and
consumer science education, and 6 in social studies. All students enter the
program with an undergraduate degree and complete the M.Ed. program in five
quarters. Students are in the school setting for much of the time and are
assigned to a mentor teacher. The program requires at least 10 weeks of full
time student teaching.
In addition to
the demographic items, the questionnaire included four sections:
Teachers’
Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES-short
form) (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2001). The TSES includes 12 items on a 7-point scale yielding three
subscales: Efficacy for Classroom Management, Efficacy for
Instructional Strategies, and Efficacy for Student Engagement. Based
on the recommendations of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy for preservice
teachers, we used the total score (alpha = .88). See
“http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/ahoy/researchinstruments.htm#Sense” for the
items.
Relationship
with Mentor. Fifteen
student teacher/mentor relationship characteristics derived from mentoring
research (Jonson, 2002; Podsen
& Denmark, 2000; Rowley, 1999) were put in the form of statements (e. g.,
“Share her/his own struggles and frustrations and how she/he overcame them” and
“Express her/his ideas and policies simply and directly”) and rated using a 5-point scale, with
higher scores indicating positive and trusting relationship with mentor. The
alpha reliability = .95.
Your Mentor
as a Teacher. Based on
the mentoring literature again, seven mentor teaching characteristics were put
in the form of statements (e. g., Demonstrate effective classroom management
practices” and “Have a through command of curriculum being taught”) and rated on a 5-point scale. Higher
score reflected that the student teacher consider his/her mentor as an
effective teacher. The alpha reliability = .92.
Teaching
Support. Participants
were asked to rate six items on a 5-point scale describing the quality of
support they had received from students, school community, and university
supervisor. Four of the items came from the Questionnaire for Beginning
Teachers and Mentors (Reiman & Edelfelt, 1991). The alpha reliability was .76.
Data Analysis
Descriptive
statistics provided a sample profile and summarized variables. Second, Pearson
correlation coefficients were computed between each predictor variable and the preservice teachers’ sense of efficacy at the end of
student teaching. Third, simultaneous multiple regression analysis predicted
the student teachers’ sense of efficacy using the significant variables
identified (significance level set to 0.05 for all analyses).
Results
Descriptive
Statistics
Student
teachers’ mean reported teaching experience was 503.1 hours (range = 200 to
2420 hours). Mentors’ experience ranged from 2 to 35 years with a median of 15
years. The mean scores and standard deviation of the remaining variables are
presented in Table 1 along with the correlation coefficients between the
dependent variable (TSES) and independent variables (Relationship with Mentor,
Your Mentor as a Teacher, and Teaching Support).
The average student teacher efficacy score was 5.65 on a 7-point scale,
indicating a high sense of efficacy. Scores on “Relationship with Mentor”
(average of 4.12 on a 5-point scale) indicated that student teachers believed
that they had positive and trusting relationships. Perceived support from
environment was also high (mean=4.10). An average score of 4.23 demonstrated
that student teachers considered their mentors as skilled teachers.
There were three
significant correlations: student teachers who experienced positive
relationships with their mentors tended to be high in perceived efficacy belief
(r =.35, p < .01); student teachers with perceived higher
levels of teaching support reported higher efficacy (r=.37, p<.01);
and student teachers with more hours of field experience reported lower
efficacy scores (r=-.33, p <. 01). Efficacy was not related to the
student teachers’ perceptions of their mentors as teachers.
Regression
Analysis
The simultaneous regression analysis was
performed predicting preservice teachers’ sense of
efficacy using relationship with mentor, teaching support, and hours of field
experiences as predictors. The perception of mentor as a teacher was not
included because it was not correlated with the efficacy variable but was
significantly correlated with the “relationship with mentor” variable; so
inclusion would have caused a multicollinearity
problem. Eliminating perception of mentor as a teacher, multicollinearity
was not a concern, as indicated by the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values.
Results are given in Table 2.
The regression
equation predicting efficacy was significant (F (3,63) = 7.88, p
< .01) accounting for 27% of the variance in efficacy scores. All of the
variables were significant predictors (p < .05). Semipartial
coefficients, defined as the proportion of variance uniquely explained by the
predictor variable, for “relationship with mentor,” “teaching support,” and
“hours of field experience” were .25, .29, and -.31 respectively.
Discussion
Findings from this study contribute to
the identification of sources of efficacy information of student teachers. Data
analysis indicated that the relationship between student teacher and mentor,
the support received from environment, and the number of field experiences were
significant predictors of student teachers’ sense of efficacy. Higher efficacy
student teachers in this sample tended to believe they had positive
relationship with their mentors, received support from the environment beyond
their mentor, and had less teaching experience. R2 of .27
implied a moderate effect size, likely due to small sample size.
Findings of this study provide empirical
evidence for Bandura’s (1997) sources of efficacy
(mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, physiological
states) and the Tschannen-Moran et al. model of
teacher efficacy (1998). The model suggested that support and feedback from
persons in the environment could serve as social persuasion. In this study,
both the supports from environment and from mentors were significant predictors
of efficacy information of student teachers. Considering the consistent finding
in the literature showing that efficacy falls during the first years of teaching,
this finding suggests that, to protect their efficacy beliefs, social support
should not be withdrawn from novice teachers. In addition, more support and
feedback from mentors and university supervisors would be valuable sources of
information for student teachers.
Field placements are important because
they generally are the student teacher’s first potential source of mastery
experience. Yet we found that as student teachers gain more experience, their
perceived efficacy weakens. We did not determine whether the field experiences
were successful. The student teachers may have had negative experiences, which
weakened their efficacy beliefs. Bandura noted that
some factors might be curvilinear in contributing to the efficacy judgments, a
possibility not tested in this study. A longitudinal study might address this
question.
Another source of efficacy judgments
identified by Bandura is vicarious experience.
Student teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their mentor were
gathered in this study to see if student teachers considered mentors as models.
Analysis indicated that this variable was not significantly correlated with
teachers’ sense of efficacy. Bandura suggested that
“the greater the assumed similarity, the more persuasive are the model’s
successes and failures” (1997, p. 87). These student teachers might have seen
their mentors as unlike them in terms of experience (mentors had 4 to 25 years)
or teaching style, and thus not appropriate or powerful sources of vicarious
experience.
This study did
not take student teachers’ initial beliefs into consideration; those beliefs
often are resistant to change. Second, the study relied on self-reported data
for both predictor and criterion variables, on the assumption that student
teachers reflect their actual perceptions. Other measures are recommended for
further studies such as observations of classroom behaviors and relationships
with mentors, in-depth interviews, and the perceptions of mentors and
university supervisors. Finally, this study was limited by census sampling;
data were gathered from every individual in the population. Even a complete
census of all known members of a population is subject to random and/or
measurement error (Fowler, 2001). Therefore, findings cannot be generalized to
the population of student teachers without further research and replication.
References
Anderson, R., Greene, M.,
& Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among
teachers’ and students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student
achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165.
Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R.
B. (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.
Booth, M. (1993). The
effectiveness and role of the mentor in school: The students’ view. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 23, 184-197.
Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The
roles of the cooperating teacher and university in learning to teach. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 11(5), 501-518.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic,
W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy
in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 239-253.
Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A.
(2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of preservice elementary
teachers. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 14(3), 177-192.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli,
C., Borgogni, L.,
& Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as
determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 821-832
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy
and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4),
323-337.
Fallin, J., & Royse, D. (2000). Student teaching:
the keystone experience. Music Educators Journal, 87(3), 19-22.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook on teaching and
policy (pp. 150-170). New York: Longman.
Fowler, F. J. (2001). Survey
research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi,
M. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes
toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 13, 451-458.
Guyton, E. & McIntyre, D. J. (1990).
Student teaching and school experiences. In W. Houston, M. Haberman
& J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on
teacher education (pp. 514-534). New York: MacMillan.
Jonson, K. F. (2002). Being an effective
mentor: how to help beginning teachers succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: Maturing the
construct through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 20, 341-359.
Li, X., & Zhang, M. (2000). Effects
of early field experiences on preservice teachers’
efficacy beliefs – a pilot study. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No.
ED 444973).
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer,
H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and
task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high
school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258.
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher
induction and elementary science teaching: enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 17, 243-261.
Plourde, L. A. (2002). The influence of student
teaching on preservice elementary teachers' science
self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 29(4), 245-253.
Podsen, I. J., & Denmark, V. M. (2000). Coaching
& mentoring first-year and student teachers.. Larchmont, NY: Eye on
Education.
Reiman, A. J., & Edelfelt,
R. A. (1991). Questionnaire for beginning teachers and mentor teachers. In P.
E. Lester & L. E. Bishop, Handbook of tests and measurement in education
and the social sciences (pp. 109-112). Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and
consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Bropy (Ed.), Advances
in research on teaching, Vol. 7 (pp. 49-73). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
Rowley, J. B. (1999). The good mentor. Educational
Leadership, 56(8), 20-22.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, M. (1996).
Teacher efficacy: toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 12, 401-411.
Thomson, S., Beacham,
B., & Misulis, K. (1992). A university and public
school collaborative approach to preparing elementary teachers. The Teacher
Educator, 28(2), 46-51.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk
Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk
Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review
of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. E., & Burke-Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the
early years of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343-356.
Zeichner, K.M. (1980). Myths and realities:
Field-based experiences in pre-service teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 31(6), 45-55.