大專校院英語教師自我效能探究：探討其與預測因子和教學行為之間的因果關係

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩士論. 文. Master Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 大專校院英語教師自我效能探究：探討其與預測因子和教學行為之間的因果關係 A Study on College EFL Teachers’ Self-Efficacy: Its Causal Relationship with Antecedents and Teaching Behaviors. 指導教授：曾文鐽博士 Advisor: Dr. Wen-Ta Tseng. 研究生：張芳瑜 Fang-Yu Chang 中華民國九十九年ㄧ月 January, 2010.

(2) 摘要研究者指出，教師對於自我教學效能的評估會影響他們的教學行為、教學活動及學生的學習成就。然而，影響教師自我教學效能評估之因果關係的實證研究仍相當缺乏，因此本研究旨在探究兩大因果關係：一為影響大專英語教師自我效能評估的預測因子和教師自我效能評估之間的關係；二為大專英語教師自我效能評估與在課堂上使用動機教學策略之間的關係。本研究在研究方法上採用量化問卷調查法，內容主要包含了三份問卷，分別為受試者的背景資料及預測因子調查、教師自我教學效能評估量表及教師動機策略使用量表，研究對象為 112 位大專院校英語教師。問卷的量化分析方法包括描述統計和多元回歸分析，以證實預測因子、教師自我效能評估和教師動機策略使用之間的因果關係。研究結果顯示，教師在教學策略方面擁有較高的自我效能，在教學行為上則較常使用策略於引發學生初始學習動機，以及維持和確保學生學習動機。此外，研究也發現預測因子可預測教師的自我效能評估，而教師自我效能評估也可成功預測教師動機策略之使用。總結而言，此研究希望能了解預測因子和教師自我效能評估之間的因果關係，以及教師自我效能評估和教師動機策略使用之間的因果關係。藉此，希望能幫助英語教師提升自我效能及增進動機教學策略之運用。. 關鍵字：預測因子、教師自我效能、動機策略、教學行為. i.

(3) ABSTRACT Researchers have suggested that teachers’ perception of their self-efficacy would likely affect their teaching behaviors, pedagogical actions, and students’ learning achievement (Ross, 1992; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Chacón, 2005; Eslami &Fatahi, 2008). However, studies which have empirically documented cause and effect of teachers’ perceived self-efficacy are scarce. Therefore, the aim of this study attempts to explore the causal relationship between antecedents and college English teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and between college English teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and their use of motivational strategies in language classrooms. This research employed a quantitative method—a questionnaire survey. The survey comprised of three sets of questionnaires including demographic information and antecedents of teachers’ self-efficacy, teachers’ self-efficacy scale, and teachers’ motivational strategy measure. A total of 112 teachers teaching English in college or university around Taiwan were involved in this study. The quantitative analysis of the questionnaires was conducted through descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis in order to indicate the direction and the causal relationship between antecedents and teachers’ self-efficacy and between teachers’ self-efficacy and teachers’ use of motivational strategies. The findings revealed that teachers perceived themselves to have higher efficacy for instructional strategies and to use strategies to generate students’ initial motivation and to maintain and protect students’ motivation more frequently. Moreover, antecedents were found to significantly predict teachers’ self-efficacy, and teachers’ perceived self-efficacy successfully made a prediction of teachers’ motivational teaching behaviors. To conclude, this study may be of importance in understanding the causal relationship between antecedents and teachers’ self-efficacy and between antecedents ii.

(4) and teachers’ motivational teaching behaviors. It is hoped that with these understandings in mind, teachers can take action to enhance their self-efficacy and improve their use of motivational strategies.. Keywords: antecedents, teachers’ self-efficacy, motivational strategies, teaching behaviors. iii.

(5) ACKNOWLEGEMENTS The process of thesis composing is an enduring journey requiring a determined effort, and the thesis would not have been completed without the continuous support of many amazing angels around me. My deepest gratitude goes to my advisor, Dr. Wen-ta Tseng, whose inspirational guidance, constant encouragement as well as his valuable academic knowledge and experience have been invaluable to me. His tremendous enthusiasm for academic research always enlightens me to explore more and to recognize the value of my study. Without his patient guidance, insightful suggestions, and considerate understanding, the completion of this thesis would not have been possible. My sincere gratitude also goes to the committee members, Dr. Yi-chien Li and Dr. Hsing-fu Cheng, who provided me with genuine advice and warm encouragement during the composing journey. Despite their tight schedule, they read my thesis thoroughly, offered me valuable feedback, and helped me modify the thesis into a finer piece. It was indeed a true blessing for me to have these two professors as my committee members. Many warm thanks to the 112 college English teachers participating in this study. I would also like to express my profound gratitude and appreciation to my dear friends and former classmates, who kindly assisted me in the distribution of the questionnaires. Without their help, the completion of my graduate work would never have been possible. The constant support and encouragement of many teachers and friends have also been indispensable during this composing process. My grateful thanks to professors, Stephanie Chen, Chuan-min Wu, Mu-lung Fu and my dear friends, Hugo Lin, Becky Chen, Pearl Liao, Kay Lin, Eddy Chen, Jessica Chao, Caren Wu, Alex Wang, Tina Ho, Chien-liang Tang, and Nita Chen. iv.

(6) My wholehearted gratitude also goes to my best friend, Johnny Huang, whose continuous encouragement, considerate understanding, and warm company have led me through this tough time and fulfilled the pursuit of academic study with strong belief and firm resolution. Last but not least, I owe my greatest gratitude to my dearest family—my parents and my older brother, who have been fully supportive throughout the thesis writing and my graduate school years. It is their endless love, greatest support, and invaluable life philosophy that enables me to weather storms of difficulties and hardships during the painful process of thesis completion. This thesis is particularly dedicated to my beloved family.. v.

(7) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT (Chinese)………………………………………………...........................i ABSTRACT (English)………………………………………………………………...ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………..…iv TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………..vi LIST OF TABLES ………….………........…...……………………………………….x LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………....…..xii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION………………………………………………….1 1.1 Background and Motivation…………………………………………………..1 1.2 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions………………………………..3 1.3 Significance of the Study…………………………………………………….. 3 1.4 Organization of the Thesis……………………………………………………4 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………..5 2.1 Theory and Measurements of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy………………………...5 2.1.1 A First Conceptual Strand: Rotter’s Social Learning Theory……………5 2.1.1.1 Teacher Efficacy Theory……………………………………………5 2.1.1.2 Teacher Efficacy Measurement……………………………………..6 2.1.2 A Second Conceptual Strand: Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory……...7 2.1.2.1 Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Outcome Expectancies………………….7 2.1.3 Rotter’s Teacher Efficacy & Bandura’s Self-Efficacy…………………...9 2.1.4 Gibson and Dembo’s Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES)…………………...11 2.1.5 Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale……………………...…………13 2.1.6 Integrated Model of Teacher Efficacy………………………………….14 2.1.7 The Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES)……………………...16 2.1.8 The Teachers’ Efficacy Beliefs System—Self (TEBS-Self)…………...18 2.2 Research in Antecedents and Consequences of Teacher Self-Efficacy vi.

(8) Beliefs…………………...………………………………………………….22 2.2.1 Antecedents of Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs…………………...……..22 2.2.1.1 Bandura’s Four Sources of Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs …….....23 2.2.1.2 Contextual Factors Related to School……………………………..25 2.2.1.3 Demographic Variables……………………………………………28 2.2.1.4 EFL Teachers’ Language Proficiency…..…………………………29 2.2.2 Consequences of Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs………………………..30 2.3 The Hypothesized Causal Model in the Present Study………………………..34 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY……………………………………………..35 3.1 Research Design……………………………………………………………...35 3.2 Participants…………………………………………………………………...36 3.3 Instruments……………………………………………………………….…..37 3.3.1 Demographic Information and Measure of Antecedents of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy………………………………………………………..….38 3.3.1.1 The Pilot Study……………………………………………………38 3.3.1.2 The Formal Study…………………………………………………40 3.3.2 Measure of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Language Proficiency…..…...42 3.3.2.1 Measure of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy…………...…………….……42 3.3.2.2 Measure of EFL Teachers’ Language Proficiency……...…….…..44 3.3.3 Measure of Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors……………...45 3.3.3.1 Item Construction…………………………………………………45 3.3.3.2 Item Distribution………………………………………………….46 3.4 Procedures for Data Collection ……………………………………………..48 3.5 Procedures for Data Analysis………………………………………………..49 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS………………………………………………………51 4.1 Analyses of Reliability……………………………………………………...52 vii.

(9) 4.2 Analyses of Validity………………………………………………….……...52 4.3 EFL Teachers’ Perceived Self-Efficacy ………………..………………….. 56 4.4 EFL Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors…………………………. .57 4.5 Effects of Antecedents on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy………………………... .58 4.6 Effects of College EFL Teachers’ Language Proficiency on Teachers’ Perceived Self-Efficacy……………………………………………………61 4.7 Effects of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy on Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors…………………………………………………………………..62 4.8 Summary of the Chapter Four…………………………..…………………..65 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION…………………………………………………...68 5.1 Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Motivational Teaching Behaviors……………..68 5.2 Effects of Antecedents on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy………………………….70 5.3 Effects of College EFL Teachers’ Language Proficiency on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy…………………………………………………..…………….73 5.4 Effects of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy on Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors………………………………..……………………………….....74 5.5 Summary of Chapter Five…………………………………………………...77 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION ..………………………………………………….79 6.1 Summary of the Major Findings……………………………………..……...79 6.2 Implications……………………………………………………..…………..80 6.2.1 Theoretical Implications………………………………………..……..80 6.2.2 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………..…….81 6.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research………….... 82 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………..83 APPENDIX A---The Item Pool of the Measure of EFL Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Teachers’ Language Proficiency…………..………...……….91 viii.

(10) APPENDIX B---The Item Pool of the Measure of EFL Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behavior ………………………………………………...92 APPENDIX C---Demographic Information and Measure of Antecedents of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy (Pilot Study)………………………………..……….94 APPENDIX D---Measure of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy (Pilot Study)………..….….…96 APPENDIX E--- Measure of Teachers’ Language Proficiency (Pilot Study)...…...…97 APPENDIX F---Measure of Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors (Pilot Study)…………………………………………………………..….98 APPENDIX G---Chinese Version of Demographic Information and Measure of Antecedents of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy (Formal Study)….….…..100 APPENDIX H---Chinese Version of the Measure of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy (Formal Study)…….…………………………………………….……........102 APPENDIX I---Chinese Version of the Measure of Teachers’ Language Proficiency (Formal Study)………………………….…………………….......103 APPENDIX J---Chinese Version of the Measure of Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors (Formal Study)…………………..…..………………..104 APPENDIX K---English Version of Demographic Information and Measure of Antecedents of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy (Formal Study)…….….106 APPENDIX L---English Version of the Measure of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy (Formal Study)…………………………………………………………….108 APPENDIX M---English Version of the Measure of Teachers’ Language Proficiency (Formal Study)…………………………………………………..110 APPENDIX N---English Version of the Measure of Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors (Formal Study)………………………………….…….111. ix.

(11) LIST OF TABLES Table 1.. Summary of Measures of Efficacy……………………………………21. Table 2.. Summary of the Participants’ Teaching Institutes…………………….37. Table 3.. Distribution of the Items in the Questionnaire ……………………… 38. Table 4.. Summary of Demographic Information and Measure of Variables of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in the Pilot Study…………………………….40. Table 5.. Summary of Demographic Information and Measure of Variables of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in the Formal Study………………………….41. Table 6.. Summary of the EFL Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Measure………………43. Table 7.. The Reliability of the Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Measure Indicated in Tschannen-Moran et al.’s study (2001)……………………………… 44. Table 8.. Summary of Item Construction in the Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors Measure……………………………………………………46. Table 9.. Summary of Item Distribution in the Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors Measure……………………………..……………………. 47. Table 10.. Summary of the Reliability of the Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Scale and Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors Scale………………….…52. Table 11.. Principal Component Analysis of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy…………....53. Table 12.. Principal. Component. Analysis. for. Indicators. of. Teachers’. Self-Efficacy…………………………………………………………...54 Table 13.. Principal Component Analysis of Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors……………………………………………………………...55. Table 14.. Principal Component Analyses for Indicators of Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors…………………………………………………...56. Table 15.. Descriptive Statistics for Teachers’ Self-Efficacy……………………..57. x.

(12) Table 16.. Descriptive. Statistics. for. Teachers’. Motivational. Teaching. Behaviors……………………………………………………………...57 Table 17.. Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses of the Effect of Antecedents on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy…………..………………………………..60. Table 18.. Descriptive. Statistics. of. Teachers’. Self-reported. Language. Proficiency…………………………………………………………….61 Table 19.. Multiple Regression Analysis of the Effect of College EFL Teachers’ Language Proficiency on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy…………………… 62. Table 20.. Multiple Regression Analysis of the Effect of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy on Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors………………………65. xi.

(13) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.. The Conditional Relationship between Efficacy Beliefs and Outcome Expectancies……….............................................................................9. Figure 2.. Differences between Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Teacher Efficacy……………………………………………………………...11. Figure 3.. The Cyclical Nature of Teacher Efficacy……………………………16. Figure 4.. The Hypothesized Causal Model………………………………...….34. Figure 5.. Procedures of Conducting the Study………………………………..36. Figure 6.. The. Components. of. Process-oriented. Motivational. Teaching. Model………………………………………………………………..47 Figure 7.. The Hypothesized Causal Model……………………………………51. Figure 8.. Scree Plot for Teachers’ Self-Efficacy……………………...……….54. Figure 9.. Scree Plot for Teachers’ Motivational Teaching Behaviors…………56. Figure 10.. A Summary of the Results of Multiple Regression Analyses……….67. xii.

(14) CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Background and Motivation Along with an increasing number of colleges and universities in Taiwan, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan has called for an offering of higher education with more emphasis on quality rather than quantity. Among a series of higher education reform movements, teachers’ self-evaluation of their teaching competence has been one of the most important indicators for the enhancement of teachers’ professional development and student learning achievement (University Act, chapter 4). Teachers’ perceived self-efficacy, i.e. a teacher’s judgment of his or her own ability to perform certain teaching tasks, has been demonstrated to have a significant impact on teaching behavior, pedagogical actions, and students’ learning achievement (Ashton& Webb, 1986; Ross, 1992; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Chacón, 2005; Eslami &Fatahi, 2008). A number of studies (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; 2001; 2007) have indicated that teachers’ sense of self-efficacy as a motivational construct would affect the amount of effort teachers devote to preparation and delivery of instruction, the goals they set, their willingness to apply new methods to help students learn, and their persistence and resilience when encountering obstacles. Also, the higher self-efficacy the teacher perceives, the greater the enthusiasm and commitment a teacher has and the longer the teacher stays in the teaching profession. Considering the significance of self-efficacy indicated above, it is important and worthy to devote efforts to the understanding of teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in the field of education. Over the past few decades, empirical studies of teachers’ self-efficacy have been primarily concerned with the definition of self-efficacy theory, the development of. 1.

(15) self-efficacy measurements, the exploration of the potent antecedents and contextual factors of teachers’ self-efficacy, and the subsequences of teachers’ self-efficacy. As for the self-efficacy measurements, since the construct of self-efficacy is claimed to be subject-matter specific, some researchers have adopted or modified the measurement of self-efficacy to explore teachers’ sense of efficacy in a variety of academic. disciplines. such. as. science. teaching. and. special. education. (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). To date, however, little research has been done to examine teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in language teaching not to mention in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) context (Eslami and Fatahi, 2008) like the situation in Taiwan. Moreover, with regard to the research on the effect of antecedents and subsequences of teachers’ self-efficacy, a fairly large body of literature focuses on the examination of teachers’ self-efficacy among pre-service teachers and experienced teachers in elementary school and middle school. It should be noted, however, there has been relatively little research conducted on understanding teachers’ perceived self-efficacy at the college or university level. Since the educational system and the requirements of teachers in middle schools and colleges vary to a certain extent, the results derived from the research on middle school teachers are not appropriate to be generalized to college or university teaching contexts. Thus, there is an urgent need to conduct a study to explore college and university teachers’ perceptions toward their ability to teach EFL classes. Last but not least, although substantial studies have indicated that there is a correlation between the antecedents and teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and between teachers’ self-efficacy and the subsequences such as teachers’ teaching behaviors, few empirical studies have been conducted to explore if there exists a causal relationship between antecedents and teachers’ perceived self-efficacy, and between perceived 2.

(16) self-efficacy and teachers’ teaching practices and if there is, how strong the predictability each particular variable displays. Considering the scarcity of studies previously mentioned the present study was motivated.. 1.2 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions In light of these concerns indicated above, the present study has three purposes: (a) to present college and university teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and their motivational teaching behaviors in English as a foreign language (EFL) classes in Taiwan; (b) to examine the effect of the antecedents on teachers’ perceived self-efficacy; and (c) to better understand the relationship between teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and their teaching behaviors. Specific research questions addressed in this study are as follows: 1.. What are college EFL teachers’ perceived level of self-efficacy and their motivational teaching behaviors in EFL classes in Taiwan?. 2.. What are the effects of antecedents on teachers’ perceived self-efficacy?. 3.. What is the relationship between teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and their teaching behaviors?. 1.3 Significance of the Study This study has both theoretical and pedagogical significances: Theoretically, this research makes the first step to systematically explore the construct of teachers’ perceived self-efficacy, including its antecedents and subsequences, i.e. teachers’ teaching behaviors. The better understanding of all of these elements may have a contribution to further construct a model of teachers’ self-efficacy in this field. The model which will be developed in this study might pose fruitful and important empirical evidence in terms of the cause and effect of teachers’ 3.

(17) perceptions of their self-efficacy beliefs. Pedagogically, with the understanding of the cause and effect of teachers’ perceived self-efficacy, it is hoped that this study could provide administrators, educators, and principals with an opportunity to know more about how to enhance college and university EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and offer more insightful plans and practices in terms of teachers’ professional development.. 1.4 Organization of the Thesis This chapter has provided a brief introduction of the theoretical background, purposes, research questions, and the significance of the study. Chapter 2 presents a review of literature on teachers’ self-efficacy and proposes a hypothesized causal model of teachers’ self-efficacy. Chapter 3 describes the methodology employed in the study, including the research design, participants, instruments, and procedures for data collection and data analysis. Chapter 4 reports the results of the analyses and chapter 5 provides a discussion of the main findings. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the study and provides implications, limitations of the study, as well as suggestions for future research.. 4.

(18) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, previous research concerning issues and studies related to teachers’ self-efficacy and motivational teaching behaviors will be reviewed. The issues explored are: theory and measurements of teachers’ self-efficacy, and related empirical studies of teachers’ self-efficacy, including antecedents and consequences of teachers’ self-efficacy.. 2.1 Theory and Measurements of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy The construct of teachers’ self-efficacy was initially conceived and defined in the mid-1970s mainly based on two conceptual strands of theory and research, namely Rotter’s social learning theory and Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Based on these two separate but intertwined theoretical frameworks, a bulk of related studies were conducted to further define the construct of teacher efficacy and develop various measurements for assessing teachers’ efficacy. Unfortunately, the terms used by different researchers to present the idea of teacher efficacy were not consistent. Some researchers used teacher efficacy and teacher self-efficacy interchangeably; however, some argued that these two terms were different constructs and should be well-distinguished. A history of past research related to teachers’ self-efficacy consisting of its theory, definition, and measurements is examined and presented in a chronological order as follows.. 2.1.1 A First Conceptual Strand: Rotter’s Social Learning Theory 2.1.1.1 Teacher Efficacy Theory The construct of teacher efficacy was first conceived and examined by RAND researchers in 1976 in their study of teacher characteristics and student learning (Armor, et al., 1976). Their research was motivated by Rotter’s (1966) article entitled 5.

(19) “Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement” and was claimed to adopt Rotter’s (1966) social learning theory as its theoretical foundation. In the study, the Rand researchers determined teacher efficacy as “the extent to which teachers believed that they could control the reinforcement of the actions, that is, whether control of reinforcement lay within them or in the environment” (Tschannen-Moran et al., 2001, p.784). In other words, teachers with a belief of external control consider that environment rather than a teacher’s ability could successfully affect students’ learning and performance. The reinforcement of teaching activities is beyond the control of the individual teacher. On the contrary, teachers with a belief of internal control reveal great confidence in teaching and value their own ability rather than the force of environment to have an impact on students’ learning even those students with learning difficulty and low motivation (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). The reinforcement of teaching efforts is in the hands of the teacher.. 2.1.1.2 Teacher Efficacy Measurement In the Rand researchers’ study, teacher efficacy was measured through a simple measurement consisting of only two items. On the questionnaire survey sheets, the participants were asked to rate their level of agreement toward the two items as follows: Rand item 1. “When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment.” Rand item 2. “If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students.” The sum score of the two items represents the notion of teacher efficacy, which 6.

(20) reveal the orientation of factors teachers believe would exert an influence on the outcome of students’ learning including a student’s learning motivation and school performance. Obviously, teachers who strongly agree with the statement in Rand item 1 are those who consider the power of the external environmental factors such as the domestic violence and abuse, the social and economic realities and the psychological, emotional needs of a particular student overrides teachers’ own capacity in affecting students’ motivation and performance. On the contrary, teachers who indicate a high level of agreement with the Rand item 2 are those they believe they are equipped with adequate competence and experience to deal with all the obstacles and difficulties students may encounter on their way of learning. These teachers are claimed to successfully motivate students and produce good outcome of students’ learning in their past teaching (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Although the success of the Rand studies sheds light on the notion of teacher efficacy, the 2-item scale measurement was criticized by researchers for its lack of reliability. Therefore, several researchers have further expanded and modified the RAND measures based on Rotter’s conceptualization in an attempt to more reliably capture the construct of teacher efficacy. The examples of those refined instruments are as follows: Teacher Locus of Control (TLC) proposed by Rose and Medway (1981), Responsibility for Student Achievement (RSA) proposed by Guskey (1981), and the Webb Efficacy Scale developed by Ashton et al. (1982).. 2.1.2 A Second Conceptual Strand: Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory 2.1.2.1 Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Outcome Expectancies The second conceptual strand of teacher efficacy theory was grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Bandura (1977) conceptualized teacher efficacy as a type of self-efficacy, which was first delineated in his 1977 article entitled 7.

(21) “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”. According to Bandura (1997), efficacy belief is “a major basis of action” (p.3) and perceived self-efficacy is defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p.3). It is claimed that self-efficacy beliefs would exert influence on one’s motivation, thought patterns, and affective aspects by which people decide how much effort they would devote to the pursuit of goals, how long they will persevere in the face of adversity, and how much accomplishments they could realize (Bandura, 1986, 1993, 1997). Perceived self-efficacy is considered “a strong predictor of behavior” (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998, p.211). In addition to efficacy expectation mentioned above, the other kind of expectation, outcome expectancy, is also indicated in Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Unlike efficacy expectation focusing on individual’s beliefs about the extent of capacity he or she has for conducting and accomplishing a specific task at a desired level, outcome expectancy shifts the focus to individual’s belief about “the likely consequences of performing that task at the expected level of competence” (Bandura, 1986, as cited in Tschannen-Moran et al., 2001, p.787). It is argued and further clarified by Bandura (1997) that these two types of expectation are distinct constructs in terms of the chronology of appearance and the focus of each type of expectation. Efficacy expectation is usually presented preceding outcome expectancy and in some ways has an effect on the formation of outcome expectancy. Moreover, efficacy expectation centers on teachers’ beliefs about “whether behaviors can be performed” (Dellinger et al., 2008, p.753), whereas outcome expectation emphasizes on beliefs about “whether certain behaviors lead to certain outcomes” (Dellinger et al., 2008, p.753). Due to these concerns, Bandura (1986) has claimed that outcome expectancy has little to do with the predictive power 8.

(22) of efficacy measures. Since the purpose of the present study attempts to understand the relationship between college EFL teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and their actual teaching behaviors, the research focus is limited to the exploration of self-efficacy beliefs rather than outcome expectancies.. PERSON. BEHAVIOR. EFFICACY BELIEFS. OUTCOME. OUTCOME EXPECTANCIES. Figure 1. The conditional relationships between efficacy beliefs and outcome expectancies. (Adopted from Bandura, 1997, p.22). 2.1.3 Rotter’s Teacher Efficacy & Bandura’s Self-Efficacy As stated earlier, the notion of teacher efficacy was first systematically conceived mainly based on two conceptual strands of theory, i.e. Rotter’s social learning theory and Bandura’s social cognitive theory. In subsequent years, researchers have pointed out that the nature of “teacher efficacy” proposed by Rotter differs from Bandura’s “self-efficacy.” However, the use of these two terms in numerous studies in the literature was confusing and misleading, the clarification and specification of these two terms is given as follows in order to present the study in a more comprehensible way. Bandura (1997) has demonstrated that his perceived self-efficacy theory is not the same as Rotter’s (1966) internal-external teacher efficacy theory in terms of the definition of the construct. To be more specific, perceived self-efficacy is concerned. 9.

(23) with teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to carry out certain tasks, whereas teacher efficacy is basically focused on “teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to affect student performance” (Dellinger et al., 2008, p.753). In other words, unlike self-efficacy dealing with the issue of teachers’ individual efficacy, teacher efficacy is basically interested in “causal beliefs about the relationship between actions and outcomes” (Tschannen-Moran, 1998, p.211). An example in the following clearly identified the difference between these two notions. It is said that a teacher who believes that the control of outcomes of students’ performance lays within his hands, i.e. internally controlled, may still have little confidence in his ability to perform certain actions in a given situation (Tschannen-Moran, 1998). According to this, perceived self-efficacy is also claimed to have stronger predictive power of behaviors in comparison with Rotter’s teacher efficacy. (Tschannen-Moran, 1998) Furthermore, Dellinger et al. (2008) even indicated that the term teacher self-efficacy used in a number of studies was actually a reflection of the definition and measurements of Rotter’s teacher efficacy rather than Bandura’s self-efficacy construct. In attempts to clear up the long-standing confusion caused by careless use of these two terms, Figure 2 illustrated in Dellinger et al. (2008) points out the difference between teacher self-efficacy and teacher efficacy. It is argued that teacher efficacy confines the crucial role of teachers’ beliefs to only the ability to successfully affect students’ performance, an outcome derived from teaching behaviors and student behaviors. However, teacher self-efficacy is a judgment about teachers’ ability to accomplish the variety of tasks required in teaching contexts as presented in Figure 2. Since the notion of Bandura’s self-efficacy corresponds with the present research focus, the efficacy construct and measure developed in this study is named under the term, teacher self-efficacy measure, in attempts to avoid confusion.. 10.

(24) Other Environmental Sources of Information. Characteristics. Teacher Self-Efficacy. External Influence. Beliefs about Proposed Behavior in Context. B1 SE1. OE1. Displayed Teaching Behaviors. B2. Teacher. SE4. B3 OE4. B4. S t u d e n t. Student Performance. Teacher Efficacy Figure 2. Differences between Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Teacher Efficacy (Adopted from Dellinger et al., 2008, p.753) Note: SE stands for “self-efficacy.” OE stands for “outcome expectancy.”. 2.1.4 Gibson and Dembo’s Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) By adapting the formulations of Rand research and the conceptualizations of Bandura’s social learning theory, Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed a 30-item teacher efficacy scale (TES), which has been the most frequently used instrument of teacher efficacy to date among the measures of teacher efficacy. As indicated in the factor analysis of items, TES is known for its two-factor subscale, namely personal teaching efficacy (PTE) and general teaching efficacy (GTE). This two-factor structure is considered a reflection of two types of expectancies proposed in Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Personal teaching efficacy scale represents teacher. 11.

(25) self-efficacy and general teaching efficacy scale refers to outcome expectancy. Teachers with a high score on both general teaching efficacy and personal teaching efficacy are claimed to be more active in interacting with students and be more willing to devote efforts to teaching and persist longer in the face of obstacles. On the contrary, teachers with low general teaching efficacy and personal teaching efficacy are more likely to give up if they cannot reach the goal. The sample items of the TES are displayed as follows: 1.. When a student gets a better grade than he usually gets, it is usually because I found better ways of teaching. 2.. The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the influence of their home environment.. As stated previously, the TES has been the most documented teacher efficacy instrument in literature to date; however, there remains considerable problems and debates about its conceptual and psychometric aspects. For instance, the controversy over the theoretical issue argued that the definition of the two factors and the description of teaching tasks were not specified explicitly (Tschannen-Moran et al, 2001; Dellinger et al., 2008), which may invalidate results of the findings based on this measure. As for the issue addressed in statistical aspect, researchers have found the inconsistencies in the results of factor analysis. During the item analysis, several items were shown to load on both GTE and PTE factors. In other words, it seems that there is an overlap between GTE and PTE and the content validity of these two factors remains questionable. . Considering those shortcomings identified in the TES, a more valid and reliable measure of teacher self-efficacy is called for by researchers in this field. In the past decade, some researchers have adapted the TES in their studies, and others developed new measures of teacher self-efficacy such as Bandura’s teacher self-efficacy scale, 12.

(26) the Ohio State teacher efficacy scale (OSTES), and the Teachers’ Efficacy Beliefs System—Self Form (TEBS-Self), all of which are introduced in the following sections. Among them, OSTES and TEBS-Self are adapted as the instrument of teacher self-efficacy employed in this study.. 2.1.5 Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale In the phenomenon of desperately seeking for an instrument to best measure teacher efficacy, Bandura proposed an unpublished teacher self-efficacy scale, which has been noticed among researchers. This teacher self-efficacy scale was built up on Bandura’s (1997) claim that teachers’ sense of self-efficacy is task and subject-matter specific. In other words, teachers do not feel equally efficacious under different teaching tasks and subjects teachers are asked to perform. By taking the specificity nature of teacher self-efficacy into consideration, a 30-item instrument derived from seven subscales is created. The seven subscales constructed, namely efficacy to influence decision making, efficacy to influence school resources, instructional efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, efficacy to enlist parental involvement, efficacy to enlist community involvement, and efficacy to create a positive school climate, are in attempts to provide teachers with an opportunity to capture the strength of their efficacy beliefs across multifaceted teaching-related dimensions. The sample items of Bandura’s teacher self-efficacy scale can be referred as follows: How much can you influence the decisions that are made in your school? How much can you do to overcome the influence of adverse community conditions on student learning? How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? How much can you do to make students enjoy coming to school? 13.

(27) How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork? It seems that Bandura’s teacher self-efficacy scale has dealt with some of the long-lasting problems of efficacy measure such as a lack of specificity in measurement; however, it is still criticized by some teachers and educators in a seminar that the tasks described in the items are not representative enough concerning a teacher’s work life (Tschannen-Moran et al., 2001). After a closer examination of the several sample items in Bandura’s teacher self-efficacy scale, indeed there remains a problem of the appropriateness of task selection. For instance, the item, how much can you do to get local colleges and universities involved in working with your school, is considered beyond an individual teacher’s competence. The task is more related to what school administration can do rather than what a teacher can perform. Moreover, according to Tschannen-Moran et al. (2001), the information about the reliability and validity of this measure is still unknown yet. To sum up, even though there is still a room for the improvement of task selections, doubtlessly Bandura’s teacher self-efficacy has made a great contribution toward the level of specificity for the measurement by measuring the construct from multifaceted dimensions.. 2.1.6 Integrated Model of Teacher Efficacy In the midst of the conceptual confusion of teacher efficacy, Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) proposed a cyclic model (Figure 3) to figure out the construct of teacher efficacy by summarizing the conceptual strands of theory stated earlier in a more systematic way. At the same time, the model also plays a role in introducing the research framework for related research in teacher efficacy field. More specifically, teacher efficacy serves as a mediator in the framework, and many other related studies are conducted to investigate the relationship between antecedents of efficacy beliefs and teacher efficacy and the relationship between teacher efficacy and teachers’ actual 14.

(28) performance such as their persistence, goal accomplishment and their reflected teaching behaviors in classroom (Ross, 1998). As indicated in this model, the elements displayed are closely related to each other and are interconnected, upon which a cyclic nature of teacher efficacy is formed. In this section, the discussion is focused on the formation of teacher efficacy and the remaining parts are elaborated in section 2.2. According to Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998), the formation of teacher efficacy beliefs is mainly built upon two dimensions, namely the teacher’s analysis of a particular teaching task considering the resources and constraints presented in a certain teaching context and the teacher’s assessment of personal teaching competence. As a result, a fine-grained instrument of teacher efficacy should be designed to include these two parts. In response to this two-faceted nature of teacher efficacy, Tschannen-Moran & Hoy (2001) argued that most of the teacher efficacy measures presented in the literature did not incorporate both dimensions into their instruments. For instance, “the first Rand item and other measures of general teaching efficacy tend to assess just the external constraints faced by teachers and not the resources, while the second Rand item and other measures of personal teaching efficacy assess teaching strengths but not personal challenges” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001, p.795).. 15.

(29) Analysis of Teaching Task. Sources of Efficacy Information 1.. Verbal Persuasion. 2.. Vicarious Experience. 3.. Physiological Arousal. 4.. Mastery Experience. Cognitive Processing. New Sources of Efficacy Information. Assessment of Personal Teaching Competence. Teacher Efficacy. Consequences of Teacher Efficacy Performance. Goals, effort, persistence, etc.. Figure 3. The Cyclical Nature of Teacher Efficacy (Adopted from Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998, p.228). 2.1.7 The Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES) In response to the above model of the cyclical nature of teacher efficacy (in fact, it refers to teacher self-efficacy) suggested by Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998), a new measure of teacher self-efficacy with a long version (24 items) and a short version (12 items), named the Ohio State teacher efficacy scale (OSTES) (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001), is constructed and has been more frequently applied to educational research (e.g., Shore, 2004; Chacón, 2005). Although the scale was named teacher efficacy scale, in fact this particular measure was developed to measure teacher self-efficacy beliefs instead of teacher efficacy. This measure adopts Bandura’s view of capturing teachers’ beliefs of their competence across a wide variety of teaching activities and tasks. Items constructed for the measure either were from Bandura’s teacher self-efficacy scale or items. 16.

(30) developed by researchers themselves in order to complement the areas neglected in Bandura’s scale. The new items included in the OSTES are a broad range of significant teaching tasks that are documented correlates of effective teaching and learning such as “assessment, adjusting the lesson to individual student needs, dealing with learning difficulties, repairing student misconceptions, and motivating student engagement and interest” (Tschannen-Moran, 2001, p.796). The construct of teacher self-efficacy was measured from three dimensions, i.e. efficacy for instructional strategies, efficacy for classroom management, and efficacy for student engagement. The sample items are as follows: 1. Efficacy for instructional strategies To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies? 2. Efficacy for classroom management How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? 3. Efficacy for student engagement How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork? The OSTES with proved reliability and validity has been claimed to take a great leap in the measure of teacher self-efficacy in terms of the assessment of multifaceted teaching dimensions and selections of representative teaching activities and tasks. As indicated in Tschannen-Moran & Hoy’s (2001) study, unlike the Rand items and Gibson and Dembo’s instrument that limit the focus of efficacy measure on “coping with student difficulties and disruptions as well as overcoming the impediments posed by an unsupportive environment” (p.801), the OSTES incorporates more essential tasks such as the application of instructional strategies and multiple teaching assessments, and the cultivation of students’ creativity and critical thinking. In addition, the three dimensions of efficacy subscales are considered complete enough 17.

(31) to cover the three major elements in the core of an effective teaching and learning, i.e. teachers (efficacy for instructional strategies), classroom management (efficacy for classroom management), and students (efficacy for student engagement). Taking the advantage of the OSTES, the present study adopts the long version of the OSTES to investigate college English teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in Taiwan.. 2.1.8 The Teachers’ Efficacy Beliefs System—Self (TEBS-Self) In addition to the OSTES measuring teacher self-efficacy, recently another new American measure of teacher self-efficacy, the Teachers’ Efficacy Beliefs System—Self Form (TEBS-Self), was constructed with a purpose to assess teachers’ beliefs about their capacities to conduct important teaching tasks within teachers’ classroom context (Dellinger et al., 2008). Moreover, it was claimed that the measure was developed in attempts to overcome those shortcomings indicated in the past measurements (e.g. a lack of conceptualization of teacher self-efficacy, a lack of specificity and generality of teaching tasks, and negligence of the context in which beliefs are formed). As a result, the TEBS-Self laid its theoretical foundation on Bandura’s self-efficacy theory and related studies in effective teaching and learning (Davis, 2000; Ellett, 1999; Ellett et al., 2002). Teaching tasks were selected based on the PACES, an assessment of teaching and learning within the context of classroom, and the tasks were demonstrated to be able to lead students into a better learning (Dellinger et al., 2008). In total, the TEBS-Self consists of 30 items and is composed of four to five factors—accommodation. of. individual. difference,. classroom. management,. clarification and feedback from teachers, higher order thinking skills, and motivation of students— identified by means of confirmatory factor analysis across three studies. Sample items are displayed in the following. Right now in my present teaching situation, the strength of my personal beliefs in 18.

(32) my capabilities to… ♦. implement teaching methods at an appropriate pace to accommodate differences among my students (accommodation of individual difference). ♦. effectively manage routines and procedures for learning tasks (classroom management). ♦. clarify student misunderstandings or difficulties in learning (clarification from teachers). ♦. actively involve students in critical analysis and/or problem solving (higher order thinking skills). ♦. motivate students to perform to their fullest potential (motivation of students). Though the TEBS-Self has addressed several issues raised in the teacher self-efficacy studies, more studies need to be conducted to assure the validity and reliability of this measure. It should be noted that the factors generated from three studies, i.e. Oliver (2000), Bobbett, (2001), and Delliinger (2001), adopting the TEBS-Self mentioned in Dellinger et al. (2008) have not yet arrived at an agreement. Additionally, there is an imbalance between the amounts of items displayed under each factor. For example, in Dellinger’s (2001) study there are five items constructed under the category of accommodation of individual difference, whereas only three items were developed for the category of classroom management. A reasonable justification is required to explain this distribution. Furthermore, by making a comparison between the TEBS-Self and the OSTES, it is considered that the OSTES seems to be a better teacher self-efficacy instrument due to the following two reasons. First, although an overlap was found between the teaching tasks selected by these two scales, the OSTES demonstrated a much more reliable result with regard to the factors generated from confirmatory factor analysis 19.

(33) across studies, with three factors in total, and a much more balanced item distribution under each subscale, with 8 items for each. Second, unlike the TEBS-Self appears as a new instrument in teacher self-efficacy research, the OSTES has been frequently adopted by many other researchers in the field of education and its reliability and validity have been proven. As a result, the OSTES is selected as the instrument of teacher self-efficacy employed in the present study. Last but not least, while the TEBS-Self as a teacher self-efficacy measure still needs a further exploration, it is worthy to be noted that some of the essential teaching tasks selected by the TEBS-Self indeed reflect an effective teaching practice. Therefore, some of the teaching tasks have been successfully modified into items for the measure of teachers’ motivational teaching behaviors in the present study. Detailed information is provided in chapter 3. Because there are too many measures of efficacy mentioned in this chapter, Table 1 is displayed to summarize those measures.. 20.

(34) Table 1.. Summary of Measures of Efficacy. Instrument Rand measure (Armor et al., 1976). Key Concepts & Structure Concepts: internal control & external control Structure: 2 items on a 5-point Likert scale. Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Concepts: general teaching efficacy (GTE) & personal teaching efficacy (PTE) Structure: 30items on a 6-point Likert scale Concepts: efficacy to Bandura’s influence decision Teacher making, school resources, Self-Efficacy instructional efficacy, Scale disciplinary efficacy, efficacy to enlist parental involvement, community involvement, and efficacy to create a positive school climate Structure: 30 items on a 9-point Likert scale The Ohio State Concepts: efficacy for instructional Teacher Efficacy Scale strategies, efficacy for classroom management, (OSTES) (Tschannenand efficacy for student Moran & Hoy, engagement 2001) Structure: a long form with 24 items or a short form with 12 items on a 9-point Likert scale The Teachers’ Concepts: accommodation of Efficacy individual difference, Beliefs classroom management, System—Self clarification and feedback (TEBS-Self) (Dellinger et from teachers, higher al., 2008) order thinking skills, and motivation of students Structure: 30 items on a 21. Example Items Rand item 1. “When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment.” Rand item 2. “If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students.” When a student gets a better grade than he usually gets, it is usually because I found better ways of teaching. The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the influence of their home environment. How much can you influence the decisions that are made in your school? How much can you do to make students enjoy coming to school? How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork?. To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies? How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork? How much can you do to foster student creativity? Right now in my present teaching situation, the strength of my personal beliefs in my capabilities to… ---effectively manage routines and procedures for learning tasks ---implement teaching methods at an appropriate pace to accommodate differences among my students ---clarify student misunderstandings.

(35) 4-point Likert scale. or difficulties in learning. 2.2 Research in Antecedents and Consequences of Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs The. research. framework. of. teachers’ self-efficacy,. as. illustrated. in. Tschannen-Moran & Hoy’s (1998) cyclic model (Figure 3), has been formed centering on the issues of the effects of potent antecedents on the formation of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and the impact of teachers’ perception of their self-efficacy beliefs. on. the. subsequent. outcomes. and. performances.. According. to. Tschannen-Moran & Hoy (2007), there is theoretical and practical importance to enrich the knowledge of the key sources and factors teachers consider when making self-efficacy judgments in the instruction since the better understanding of the antecedents provides teachers, educators, and principals with an opportunity to strengthen teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in a more efficient way. Moreover, understanding the relationship between teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and the reflected outcomes can help us sketch the outline of the teachers’ teaching behaviors in advance and involve an intervention if it is necessary in the right time. In the next section, a review of studies begins with the antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs, and then follows by studies with regard to the consequences of teachers’ self-efficacy.. 2.2.1 Antecedents of Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs Tschannen-Moran et al.’s (1998) model has indicated that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are influenced by their own “attributional analysis and interpretation of the four possible sources” (p.227) proposed by Bandura (1986; 1997), as well as some other potent new sources such as factors of school contexts, motivation and performance of students, supports from colleagues, and developments of teachers’ profession. The antecedents examined in the following are Bandura’s well-known 22.

(36) four sources of teachers’ sense of self-efficacy, the contextual factors related to school, demographic variables, and EFL teachers’ language proficiency.. 2.2.1.1 Bandura’s Four Sources of Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs Along with the social cognitive theory, Bandura (1986, 1997) proposed four possible sources of teacher self-efficacy beliefs as identified in Figure 3, namely mastery experiences, verbal persuasion, vicarious experiences, and physiological and affective states, all of which have been widely documented in the literature. Mastery experiences referring to the extent of a teacher’s satisfaction with his or her past professional performance has been claimed to be the most powerful source of self-efficacy judgments for teachers (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). It is claimed that teachers tend to have stronger self-efficacy beliefs if they consider their past performance a success. On the other hand, teachers displayed lower self-efficacy beliefs usually are those perceiving their past performance as a failure. The explanation is that the successful and failing experience respectively contributes to teachers’ expectations that their future performance will be either proficient or inept. In Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2007) study, they have found that teachers’ interpretations of their past experiences were moderately associated with teachers’ perceived self-efficacy for both novice and experienced teachers. In addition, teachers’ reliance of mastery experiences on their teaching task analysis was raised along with the accumulation of their teaching experiences. Verbal persuasion, the second source reported by Bandura (1986, 1997), can be interpreted as “verbal interactions that a teacher receives about his or her performance and prospects for success from important others in the teaching context, such as administrators, colleagues, parents, and members of the community at large” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007, p.945). Both the feedback provided from a formal 23.

(37) talk in the office and an informal chatting in the teachers’ lounge have been claimed to affect teachers’ self-efficacy and the subsequent performance to a certain extent. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2007) conducted a study to explore the effect of various forms of verbal persuasion, namely interpersonal support from administrators, colleagues, parents and the community on novice and experienced teachers’ self-efficacy. The results showed that in the regression analysis none of the verbal persuasion variables contributed to experienced teachers’ self-efficacy, whereas the support from colleagues and the community was linked to novice teachers’ self-efficacy. However, it is worthy to be noted that the power of verbal persuasion for teachers’ judgment of their capacities may differ in some ways due to “the credibility, trustworthiness, and expertise” (Bandura, 1986, as cited in Tschannen-Moral et al., 1998, p.230) the persuader reveals during the interaction. As for vicarious experiences, they refer to the experiences of observing other teachers modeling a target activity. The effect of the modeled performances on observers’ self-efficacy beliefs is determined by “the degree to which the observer identified with the model” (Bandura, 1977, as cited in Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007, p.945). For example, there is a stronger impact on teachers’ efficacy beliefs if the model identified is closely related to the observer in terms of the gender, training, and the profession experiences. On the contrary, there is little impact on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs if the model identified is considered considerably different from the observer in many ways. Lastly, physiological and affective states such as pleasure or depression teachers experience during their teaching is claimed to have an impact on teachers’ perception of their individual competence. A sense of happiness experienced from a successful teaching doubtlessly boosts teachers’ positive judgment of their capability, while a sense of anxiety and depression undermines teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. 24.

(38) Considering the nature of the participants and the generalizability of the research, the current study examined two of these sources of teachers’ self-efficacy, i.e. mastery experiences and verbal persuasion. Vicarious experiences are excluded considering the less of the observing and modeling opportunity between college teachers. Moreover, the source of physiological and affective states is excluded in the present research due to the involvements of too many uncontrollable personal factors and contextual factors.. 2.2.1.2 Contextual Factors Related to School In addition to the four sources proposed by Bandura (1986, 1997), it is essential to examine the effect of school-related contextual factors on teachers’ perceived self-efficacy since these factors “may be elements that teachers consider in their assessment of the difficulty of the teaching task in determining how successful they expect to be at that task” (Tschannen-Moran, 2007, p.945). Furthermore, this argument is also corresponding to Bandura’s (1997) claim that the nature of teacher self-efficacy is context-specific. Thus, numerous studies have investigated the effect of a number of various school-level variables on the development of teachers’ perception of their self-efficacy. Following, several school contextual factors associated with teachers’ self-efficacy presented in the literature are reviewed: school climate and structure, principal leadership, teacher participation in decision making, teaching resources, and peer coaching and teacher training. School climate and structure. The school climate has been demonstrated to be an important variable in determining teachers’ self-efficacy. Adopting Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) scale as the instrument of efficacy measure, Moore and Esselman (1992) revealed that teachers who displayed stronger self-efficacy beliefs were those perceiving school climate positive. Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) also found that teachers 25.

(39) expressed a greater sense of self-efficacy in a school climate emphasizing on academic achievement among staffs. In addition, several researchers have further identified elements of school climate that may enhance or decrease teachers’ perceived self-efficacy. For instance, sense of community in a school and collaboration with other teachers are considered important predictor of developments of teachers’ self-efficacy (Lee et al., 1991; Rosenholtz, 1989); whereas elements such as “excessive role demands, poor morale, lack of recognition, inadequate salaries, low status, and professional isolation” (Webb and Ashton, 1987 as cited in Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007, p.946) are regarded as threats to teachers’ self-efficacy. Principal leadership. The leadership of the principal is claimed to have an impact on teachers’ judgment of their teaching abilities. The characteristics of school principals reported to be able to develop a greater sense of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are delineated as follows. First, those principals are considered capable of making a good use of their leadership to provide teachers with teaching resources, with enough flexibility to deal with classroom matters (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998), with encouragement to implement innovation in teaching, and with responses toward their concerns (Newmann et al., 1989). Second, principals who are capable of managing students’ disruptive behaviors were claimed to be more likely to reinforce teachers’ efficacy beliefs (Lee et al., 1991). Lastly, teachers perceived higher self-efficacy “when the principal of a school modeled appropriate behavior and provided rewards contingent on performance” (Hipp & Bredeson, 1995, as cited in Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007, p.947). Teacher participation in decision making. Presenting opportunities and freedom for teachers’ participation in the discussion of teaching affairs has been demonstrated to increase teachers’ self-efficacy. As stated in Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2007) 26.