Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

www.iiste.org

Assessment of Teacher Efficacy among Secondary School Teachers in Kigali City, Rwanda
Y.N. Sridhar University of Mysore Department of Studies in Education Manasagangothri, Mysore-570006, India E-mail: [email protected] Semana Javan University of Mysore Department of Studies in Education Manasagangothri, Mysore-570006,India E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Teacher efficacy has proven to be an important variable in teachers effectiveness. It is consistently associated with positive teaching behaviors and student outcomes. However, the measurement of this construct is the subject of current debate, which includes critical examination of predominant instruments used to assess the teachers efficacy. In the present study, One hundred and fifty secondary teachers in Kigali city completed a teaching efficacy scale which was developed by Anita & Hoy (1990). Descriptive statistics was utilized to measure various components and secondary variables of teacher efficacy. In total, teachers efficacy among Rwanda secondary school teachers in Kigali city had only 54.08% less than the teaching efficacy of 65.35. In the end it was found that secondary variables like gender and subject studied did not influence the teaching efficacy. Key words: Teacher efficacy, Personal Teacher efficacy, General Teacher efficacy, Total Teacher efficacy and Gender. 1. Introduction The concept of teacher efficacy is usually described as the extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect student performance (Bergman et al., 1977). In a review of virtually all sources dated between 1974 and 1997 that used the term teacher efficacy Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) identified over 100 articles, conference papers and books that refer somehow to teacher efficacy. Down through the years, the concept of teacher efficacy has been connected with many important educational variables such as student achievement, student attitudes to school, student attitudes to the subject matter being taught, student attitudes to the teacher, teachers classroom behaviours, teachers attitudes to teaching, teacher stress and burn-out, and teachers willingness to implement innovation (TschannenMoran et al., 1998). Many measurement instruments have been developed to assess teacher efficacy, based on two areas of research (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). The first one is grounded in Rotters social learning theory of internal versus external control (1966). According to this theory, teachers who believe that they are competent to teach difficult or unmotivated students are considered to have internal control, whereas teachers who believe that the environment has more influence on student learning than their own teaching ability are considered to have external control. The Rand organization, the first to conduct research on teacher efficacy, developed two items to measure a teachers locus of control (Armor et al., 1976). The statement that indicates that environmental factors overwhelm a teachers power to influence student learning was labeled general teaching efficacy. The other, labeled personal teaching efficacy, indicates The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) www.iiste.org

Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

www.iiste.org

the importance of a teachers ability to overcome factors that could make learning difficult for students. In the course of time several other instruments were developed to measure teacher efficacy in the Rotter tradition, including Teacher Locus of Control (Rose and Medway, 1981), Responsibility for Student Achievement (Guskey, 1981) and the Webb Efficacy Scale (Ashton et al., 1982). Reviewing the literature on the factorial validity of the Teacher Efficacy Scale revealed that the two-factor solution of Gibson and Dembo (1984) is not the only one possible. Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) were the first to propose a different factorial solution than Gibson and Dembo (1984) initially assumed. In their validation study Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) first noticed a discrepancy between Banduras conceptualisation of self-efficacy and outcome expectations and Gibson and Dembos (1984) model of teacher efficacy. The second area of research on teacher efficacy is grounded in Banduras social cognitive theory and his construct of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Bandura distinguishes between two kinds of expectation, selfefficacy and outcome expectation. A self-efficacy expectation is the individuals conviction that he or she has the capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997), while an outcome expectation is the individuals estimate of the likely consequences of his or her actions. 2. Review of Related literature Armor, et al., (1976) combined teacher' responses to these two questions into one measure of efficacy, which they defined as "the extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to produce an effect on the learning of students. The researchers reported that students with teachers who had a strong sense of efficacy showed more advancement in schools. Smylie, Conley, and Marks (2002) further documented this importance of teacher efficacy in supporting educational change efforts stating, " . . . lessons learned from recent school improvement efforts have shown that improvement depends less on structural changes than on the development of teachers' knowledge, abilities, and commitment, which are more likely to change the social organization and culture of schools" Building upon the Rand study of teacher efficacy, Ashton, Olejnik, Croker and McAuliffe (1982) developed the Webb Efficacy measure which was a forced-choice scale. The Efficacy Vignettes (Ashton, Buhr, & Crocker, 1984) were also developed as means to measure teacher efficacy. Ashton and Webb (1986) reported the Rand measure of teacher efficacy had a significant correlation with the Webb Efficacy scale but not the Efficacy Vignettes. The researchers concluded these results supported the existence of two independent dimensions in the construct of teachers' sense of efficacy. However, the researchers also reported that the Webb Efficacy scale had inadequate internal consistency and the Efficacy Vignettes, although strong in internal consistency, did not correlate with student achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986). Ashton (1984) established the following dimensions that differentiated high from low efficacy teachers. High efficacy teachers have: (a) a sense of personal accomplishment, (b) positive expectations for student behavior and achievement, (c) personal responsibility for student learning, d) strategies for achieving objectives, (e) positive affect, (f) sense of control, (g) sense of common teacher-student goals, and (h) democratic decision-making. Brown (1999) determined that when individuals have low self-efficacy about what they can accomplish, they limit their participation in an endeavor and are more likely to give up at an initial sign of difficulty. Their limited efficacy beliefs created barriers to their professional development. This is supported by Tschannen-Moran, Hoy and Hoy (1998) who reported, "Teacher efficacy will be determined, in part, by the individual's comparative judgment of whether his or her current abilities and strategies are adequate for the teaching task in question". Based upon the results of their Teacher Efficacy Study, Ashton and Webb (1986) suggested that teachers differed in their efficacy attitudes, and these differences were reflected the teachers behaviors and students' performance. They determined that the construct of teacher efficacy was va1uab1e in understanding teachers' definitions of their role, work attitudes and interactions with students. This concept was confirmed by Brownell and Pajares (1996) who studied teachers' The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) www.iiste.org

Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

www.iiste.org

judgments of their ability to successfully educate students who had diverse learning and behavior difficulties. The researchers determined that teachers' efficacy beliefs were a context-specific judgment of capability in a particular instructional endeavor. They found that the quality of pre service preparation and collegiality with other special education teachers had a strong direct effect on teachers' efficacy beliefs. Gibson and Dembo (1984) determined two dimensions of teacher efficacy related to Bandura's (1977) concepts of efficacy expectation and outcome expectation. Personal teacher efficacy (PTE) was related to efficacy expectation and reflected a teacher's "belief that one has the skill and abilities to bring about student learning". Further, general teaching efficacy (GTE) was related to "the teacher's belief about the general relationship between teaching and learning" and corresponded to outcome expectations. Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998) defined teacher efficacy as "the teacher's belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context" (p. 232). The researchers proposed an integrated model of teacher efficacy. This model reflected Bandura's (1977, 1994) four sources of self-efficacy information: (a) mastery experiences, (b) physiological and emotional arousal, (c) vicarious experience, and (d) social persuasion. Further, Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy suggested that cognitive processing, or interpretation of this information, influenced teachers' analysis of teaching tasks and their assessment of their personal teaching competence for the tasks. The authors indicated that the analysis of teaching task was related to a general teaching efficacy and the assessment of personal teaching competence for a task was related to personal teaching efficacy. Goddard, Hoy, and Woolfolk (2004) argued "teachers' sense of efficacy is a significant predictor of productive teaching" (p. 4). Moreover, when considering teachers' sense of efficacy and its impact on student learning, Milner and Hoy (2002) determined the importance of context and its impact on teachers' experiences and teacher efficacy. Teachers' sense of efficacy related to the context of available support was investigated by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2002). The researchers conducted a study involving a group of 155 in-service teachers including novice and experienced teachers. Their findings indicated no significant differences in teacher efficacy beliefs between groups related to age, gender, and race or teaching context. However, teaching level and number of years of experience did seem to influence efficacy with elementary teachers exhibiting significantly higher overall efficacy than either middle or high school teachers. Teachers with five or more years of experience showed a higher overall sense of efficacy than novice teachers. Further, perceived support was correlated to efficacy for novice teachers rather than experienced teachers, which according to the researchers, seemed to emphasize the importance of the beginning years of teaching in developing teacher efficacy. Additionally, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2002) suggested that structural changes in the schools and more opportunities for professional development could help increase the efficacy of teachers of older children. One of the structural changes in schools working toward school improvement includes the increase in collaboration and collegiality among staff members. Spillane and Louis (2002) confirmed the importance of collegiality in the development of teachers, indicating that teachers who develop a network of colleagues with whom they discuss teaching practices are more likely to improve their instructional practice in a way that improves student achievement. More specifically, Hoy (2004) suggested schools that provide opportunities for teachers to learn, reflect and share enhance teachers' sense of efficacy. Hoy (2004) summarized the importance of teacher efficacy stating, "Beliefs matter, self-efficacy is a powerful belief, and teachers can make a difference for their students and themselves through selfefficacy. Teachers can make this difference on a collective level as well as a persona11evel. According to Ross, Hogaboam-Gray and Gray (2003) "Collective teacher efficacy refers to teacher perceptions that they constitute an effective instructional team, capable of bringing about learning in students". Goddard, Hoy and Woolfolk (2004) determined "a strong sense of collective efficacy enhances teachers' self-efficacy beliefs while weak collective efficacy beliefs undermine teachers' The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) www.iiste.org

Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) sense of efficacy, and vice versa".

www.iiste.org

Ross, Hogaboam-Gray and Gray (2003) surveyed 2,170 teachers in 141 elementary schools in a large school district in Ontario, Canada to examine the antecedents of collective teacher efficacy. The results of the study indicated that there is a reciprocal relationship between a school's collective teacher efficacy and the achievement of its students. They further determined that teacher ownership of school processes was a significant predictor of collective teacher efficacy. Additionally, prior student achievement, although significant, was a weaker predictor of collective teacher efficacy. Research has shown that teachers considered their principals to have a significant impact on the school and thus on their teaching experience (Joffres & Haughey, 2001). Elliott (2000) reported findings on the importance of the principal within the school setting suggesting three critical results: 1. the The principal is the most important reason why teachers grow - or are stifled on job.

2. The principal is the most potent factor in determining school climate. 3. The principal is the key to a good school. The quality of the educational program depends on the school principal. 4. Effective principals promote the certainty that teachers can and do impact student achievement. (Hipp, 1997). Further, principals promote the structures and dynamics in the day to day life of schools that develop and nurture teacher efficacy as well as collective efficacy of the school's teaching staff' (Hoy, 2004). Moreover, Teachers as pivot of the progress of education through the effort furnished by them in performing successfully their duties, here researcher in the present study interested to examine ability of secondary school teachers in fulfillment the expected outcome of their students. 3. Objectives of the study The present study aims to study: 1. Teaching efficacy of Kigali city secondary teachers 2. General and personal teaching efficacy of Kigali secondary school teachers 3. Influence of secondary school teachers variables like gender and subjected studied on teachers efficacy. 4. Research questions 1. Is there any significant difference in Kigali secondary school teachers efficacy belief? 2. Is there any significant difference in Kigali/Rwanda secondary schools teachers general efficacy? 3. Is there any significant difference in Kigali/Rwanda secondary schools teachers personal efficacy?

4.

Does secondary variables like gender and subject studied influence Kigali/Rwanda secondary schools teachers efficacy? 5. Hypotheses of the Study 1. There is no significant difference in Kigali (Rwanda) secondary school teachers efficacy. 2. There is no significant difference in Kigali (Rwanda) secondary school teachers general efficacy. The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) www.iiste.org

Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

www.iiste.org

3. There is no significant difference in Kigali (Rwanda) secondary school teachers personal efficacy. 4. There is no significant influence of secondary variables like gender and subject studied on teacher efficacy of Kigali (Rwanda) secondary schools.

5. Methods 5.1. Participants Participants in the present study were 150 secondary teachers working in Kigali city of Rwanda. One hundred and twenty one of the participants were male teachers (80.6 percent) and 29 were female teachers (19 .4 per cent). 5.2. Instrumentation and Measurement Teacher Efficacy Scale. Teachers sense of efficacy was measured through the Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) standard teacher-efficacy scale whereby participants responded to 22 six-point agree/disagree statements. Ten statements (items: 2,3,4,9,10,13,15,17,20,21) dealt with general teaching efficacy and the remaining items (1,5,6,7,7,8,11,12,14,16,18,19,22) to obtain a score. That score was then divided by the number of items on the subscale to obtain a mean score that reflected the original unit of measurement. This procedure allowed the researcher to make comparisons between the subscales using the same scale. According to the protocols of the instrument authors, possible scores for both the subscales could range from 1.00 to 6.00, with higher scores indicating more efficacious in each subscale. The validity and reliability of the instrument was initially established by the authors, which makes these unnecessary in the Rwandan context. 5.3. Procedure of data collection The stratified random sampling in selection of schools of Kigali city and teachers in each school was used. 5.3. Sample and population One hundred fifty secondary teachers/educators were selected as sample among 847 comprised total number of all teachers of Kigali city referred to the report of Kigali city council in charge of education (2010). The sample of 21 schools was used from 67 secondary schools of Kigali city. 6. Analysis and Interpretation of results In the present study, descriptive statistics were used to measure components of teacher efficacy namely General and Personal efficacy and some background variables are tested to identify its influence on teacher efficacy. General teaching efficacy: One sample t-test revealed a significant difference between the obtained and expected teaching efficacy scores as the obtained t-value of 34.65 was found to be significant at .000 level. The obtained mean score was 39.21 against the expected score of 60, which constituted only 65.35%. Personal teaching efficacy: In this component also, one sample t-test revealed a significant difference between the obtained and expected teaching efficacy scores as the obtained t-value of 50.19 was found to be significant at .000 level. The obtained mean score was 32.17 against the expected score of 72, which constituted only 44.68%. The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) www.iiste.org

Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

www.iiste.org

Total teaching efficacy scores: It was observed that Rwandan teachers in Kigali City as surveyed had significantly lesser teaching efficacy (mean 71.38 out of 132). This constituted only 54.08% of the total. Further, one sample t-test revealed a highly significant difference (t=89.83; P=.000), further confirming that the Rwandan surveyed teachers in Kigali City had just crossed 50% of the teaching efficiency as against the best 100%. Gender, Subject and general teaching efficacy The of secondary variables on teaching efficacy was observed, it was found that in general efficacy, gender ( F=.308; P=.580), the subject (F=.840; P=.361) which did not reflect a significant influence, as well as the interaction effect between gender and subject was also found to be non-significant (F=.060; P=.807), indicating that pattern of teacher efficacy was the same for teachers with arts and science subjects irrespective of their gender. Gender, Subject and personal teaching efficacy In personal teaching efficacy male and female teachers had statistically equal mean scores (F=.809; P=.370). Subject-wise comparison also revealed a non-significant difference (F=.146; P=.703), indicating that teachers with arts and science background have statistically similar scores and the interaction between gender and subject was also found to be non-significant (F=.001; P=.971). Gender, Subject and Total teaching efficacy The influence of the secondary variables on total teaching efficacy was observed, it was found that in total efficacy, neither gender (F=.2.451; P=.120) nor the subject (F=.134; P=.715) had a significant influence, as well as the interaction effect between gender and subject was also found to be non-significant (F=.069; P=.794), indicating that pattern of teacher efficacy was same for teachers with arts and science subjects irrespective of their gender. 7. Main findings The main findings of the present study are: 1. In total teaching efficacy, Rwandan secondary teachers had only 54.08% efficacy. 2. 3. Personal teaching efficacy (44.68%) was significantly lesser than general teaching efficacy (65.35%) Secondary variables like gender and subject studied studied did not influence the teachers efficacy. Discussion

8.

This study examined the secondary school teachers efficacy in Rwanda especially in Kigali city. In order to confirm or reject the hypotheses formulated, we have tried to compare our results with further studies done in the same area. Gibson & Dembo in their study of teachers efficacy revealed that personal teacher efficacy (PTE) was related to efficacy expected which is significantly different to the results of the present study where it was found a less score of 32.17 comparatively to the expected score. Here it found that the hypothesis, there is no significant difference in Personal teaching efficacy in Kigali (Rwanda) secondary school teachers is rejected. In the same study, the general efficacy (GTE) was related to the teachers belief about general relationship between teaching and learning and corresponded to the outcome, where it seems that in the present study the general teaching efficacy is related to the expected score at moderately level of 65%. This result also in confirm out hypotheses formulated in the present study, said that there is no significant difference in Kigali (Rwanda) secondary schools teacher in general teaching efficacy. Payne, 1994; Soodak and Podell, (1997) in their study teacher efficacy indicated that veteran teachers express more confidence in their overall teaching abilities than novice teachers and that African American teachers working in urban schools express higher levels of efficacy than other teachers. My findings revealed difference that some background information selected in the present study such gender and subjects studied by secondary schools teachers didnt influenced the teaching efficacy. This result also confirmed by Tschannen-Moran&Hoy (2002) where in their studies some selected variables such age, The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) www.iiste.org

Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

www.iiste.org

gender and race or teaching context did not influenced the efficacy of teachers. Here, the results confirm our hypothesis formulated, where it has seen that there is no influence of background information of teachers efficacy with reference to the selected variables like age and subject studied during their preservice formation in arts or science. 9. Conclusion There is strong evidence to support the notion that it is necessary to take into consideration the efficacy beliefs element in secondary school teachers, as evident through the review of various related literature, findings, and suggestions that promote fostering a stronger sense of teaching efficacy beliefs among secondary school teachers. In the present study:150 secondary school teachers selected in Kigali city as sample, it was found that in total teaching efficacy, Rwandan secondary teachers had only 54.08% efficacy, personal teaching efficacy(44.68%) was significantly lesser than general teaching efficacy (65.35%) and secondary variables like gender and subject studied did not influence the teachers efficacy. Refer to these results, it found that the Kigali secondary school teachers should improve their officious in teaching in order to have a sound expectation or outcome from their students. Furthermore, some suggestions may be addressed to the concerned educators in order to enhance the efficacy of teacher. The government has to invest in the pre-service training of elementary and secondary school teachers in order to have a sufficient package of knowledge can lead to expected outcomes of the student. Secondly , government has to motivate the teachers in taking care of their life by providing them with a salary can afford the updated market in order to avoid instability of number of teachers moving from one school to another and abandon their teaching profession in order to search the affordable employment can satisfy their needs. The organization of some training, seminars and workshops of secondary school teachers have to be organized in order to learn some updated methodology of teaching and improving their experience. The school headmasters have to create a good environment to facilitate the secondary school teachers to fulfill their duties as possible as they can, such as good communication, regular meeting, incentives, etc. References Ashton, P. (1984), Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education, Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 5, 28-32. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986), Making a difference: Teachers sense of efficacy and student achievement, New York: Longman. Ashton, P. T., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L., and McAuliffe, M. (1982), Measurement Problems in the Study of Teachers Sense of Efficacy, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Ashton, P. T., Webb R. B., & Doda, N. (1983), A study of teachers' sense of efficacy, Final report Number 1. National Institute of Education Contract No. 400-79 0075. University of Florida. Ashton, P., Buhr, D., and Crocker, L. (1984), Teachers sense of efficacy: A self- or norm- referenced construct, Florida Journal of Educational Research 26, 1, 2941. Ashton, P., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L., & McAuliffe, M. (1982, March), Measurement problems in the study of teachers' sense of efficacy, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Ashton, P., & Webb, RB. (1986), Making a differences: Teacher's sense of efficacy and student achievement: New York: Longman. The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) www.iiste.org

Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

www.iiste.org

Bandura, A (1993), Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning, Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148. Bandura (1990), Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Academic Efficacy, Stanford CA: Stanford University. Bandura (1997), Self-efficacy: the exercise of control, New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (1977), Self-efficacy: toward an unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychological Review 84, 191215. Bandura, A. (1994), Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Vol. 4, p.7181). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of Mental Health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998). Bergman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, M., Pauly, E., and Zellman, G. (1977), Federal Programs supporting Educational Change VII, Factors affecting Implementation and Continuation, Santa Monica CA: Rand (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 140 432). Brown, B. L. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs and career development. ERIC Digest No. 205 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED429187), Viewed 7 June ,2010, < http://ericacv.orgldigests.asp> Brown, T., Lemus, N., & Dollbaum, S. (2001), The three secrets of effective school leaders: Team building, school climate, and school vision, Viewed, 25 April 2011, <http://hdcs.fullerton.edulfaculty/orozco/stlec3secrets.htm1> Brownell, M., & Pajares, F. (1996). The influence of teachers' efficacy beliefs on perceived success in mainstreaming students with learning and behavior problems: A path analysis. Florida Educational Research Council, Sanibel, FL. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984), Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. Goddard, R. D., A. W. Hoy, et a!. (2004), Collective Efficacy Beliefs: Theoretical Developments, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions." Educational Researcher 33, 3, p. 11. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee. A. (2002), Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Goodlad, J. 1. (1975), The dynamics of educational change: Toward responsive schools. New York: McGrawHill, Inc. Guskey, T. R., and Passaro, P. D. (1994), Teacher efficacy: a study of construct dimensions, American Educational Research Journal 31, 62743. Guskey, T.R. (1982), Differences in teachers perceptions of personal control of positive versus negative student learning outcomes, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 70-80. Guskey, T.R. (1987), Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy, Research, 81, 41-47. Journal of Educational

Hipp, K. & Bredeson, P. (1995). Exploring connections between teacher efficacy and principals' leadership behaviors. Journal of School Leadership, 5, 136-150. Hipp, K. (1996, April), Teacher efficacy: Influence of principal leadership behavior, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) www.iiste.org

Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

www.iiste.org

Hipp, K. (1997, March), Documenting the effects of transformational leadership behavior on teacher efficacy, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Hoy, A. W. (2004), What do teachers need to know about self-efficacy?, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 2004, San Diego, CA, Viewed 25, June,2011, <http://www.emory.eduiEDUCATION/mfp/effpage.html> Hoy, A. W., W. K. Hoy, et al. (1998), Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure, Review of Education Research 68, 2, 202-248. Joffres, C., & Haughey, M. (2001), Elementary teachers' commitment declines: Antecedents, processes, and outcomes [99 paragraphs]. The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 6(1), Viewed 24 April, 2011< http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-1/joffres.html> Rose, J. S., and Medway, F. J. (1981), Measurement of teachers belief in their control over student outcome, Journal of Educational Research 74, 18590. Ross, J. (1994), Belief that makes a difference: the origins and impact of teacher efficacy, Eric document reproduction service no. Ed 379 316, pp.1-9. Ross, J. (1995), Strategies for enhancing teachers' beliefs in their effectiveness: Research on a school improvement hypothesis. Teachers College Record, 97 (2), 227-251. Ross, J. A (1992), Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement, Canadian Journal of Education, J 7, 51-65. Ross, J. A. (1994), Beliefs that make a Difference: the origins and impacts of teacher efficacy, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Calgary, Alta, June (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 379 216). Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy, viewed 24 June 2011, < http://www.oise.utoronto.calfieldcentres/ ross/CTEleadership. Pdf> Ross, J.A. (1994), The impact of an in-service to promote cooperative learning on the stability of teacher efficacy. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 381-394. Ross, J.A. Hogaboam-Gray, A, & Gray, P. (2003, April). The contribution of prior student achievement and school processes to collective teacher efficacy in elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479719) Rotter, J. B. (1966), Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement, Psychological Monographs 80, 128. Smylie, M. A., Conley, S., & Marks, H.M. (2002), Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for school improvement. The LSS Review, 1(2), 18-19. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED474262) viewed April24, 2011,< http://www. temple.edu/lss/pdf/lssreview /lssrev _leadershp/pdf> Soodak, L,&Podell, D.(1996), Teacher efficacy: toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct, Teaching and teacher education,12,401-411 Tschannen-Moran, M, & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001),Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct, Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783 - 805. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy. W., Hannum, J., (1998), Organizational climate and student achievement: A parsimonious and longitudinal view, Journal of School Leadership, 8, 1-22 The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) www.iiste.org

Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

www.iiste.org

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, AW. (2002), The influence of resources and support on teachers' efficacy beliefs, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. Woolfolk, A. E., and Hoy, W. K. (1990), Prospective teachers sense of efficacy and beliefs about control, Journal of Educational Research 82 (1), 8191. Woolfolk, A.(2000), Changes in Teacher Efficacy during the early years of Teaching, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Neworleans.pp.2 8. Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.

List of tables: Table 1. : Descriptive statistics for various components of teacher efficacy and results of one sample t tests Components Max Possible General teaching efficacy Personal teaching efficacy Total teaching efficacy 60 72 132 Mean obtained 39.21 32.17 71.38 7.34 9.72 8.27 65.35 44.68 54.08 S.D Percent One sample P-value t value

34.65 50.19 89.83

.000 .000 .000

Table 2. Mean scores of male and female secondary teachers with different subject backgrounds on general, personal and total teaching efficacy scores and results of MANOVA Components of Teaching efficacy Gender Subject General Personal Total Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Science 38.56 6.72 31.93 9.69 70.48 8.34 Male Arts 40.58 8.70 31.13 9.17 71.71 9.96 Total 38.96 7.16 31.77 9.56 70.73 8.66 Science 39.95 8.25 34.10 11.12 74.05 6.15 Female Arts 41.13 8.27 33.12 8.74 74.25 4.80 Total 40.28 8.12 33.83 10.38 74.10 5.73 Science 38.81 7.00 32.31 9.95 71.12 8.09 Total Arts 40.72 8.46 31.63 8.97 72.34 8.95 Total 39.21 7.35 32.17 9.72 71.38 8.27 The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) www.iiste.org

Journal of Education and Practice - Vol 2, No 2 ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) F (Gender) F (Subject) F (Interaction) F=.308; P=.580 F=.840; P=.361 F=.060; P=.807 F=.809; P=.370 F=.146; P=.703 F=.001; P=.971

www.iiste.org

F=2.451; P=.120 F=.134; P=.715 F=.069; P=.794

The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) www.iiste.org