- Email: [email protected]
General, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy among Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069 www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
General, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy among Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong David W. Chan Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong Received 26 February 2007; received in revised form 18 May 2007; accepted 14 November 2007
Abstract This study assessed two global (general and collective) and seven domain-specific sets of teacher self-efficacy beliefs among 273 Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. While teachers generally reported having the highest confidence in teaching highly able learners and the least confidence in classroom management, there were significant teacher group differences. Among four groups of teachers, the experienced teachers reported the highest level of global and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, suggesting that there could be a trend of rising teacher self-efficacy as a teacher went through preparation and teaching practice to becoming a novice and then a more experienced teacher. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teacher self-efficacy; Prospective teachers; In-service teachers; Teacher education; Hong Kong
1. Introduction Broadly conceptualized, teacher self-efficacy refers to the teacher’s belief of his or her abilities to bring about valued outcomes of engagement and learning among students, including difficult and unmotivated students (see Bandura, 1977; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Specifically, teacher self-efficacy has been related to a variety of student outcomes that include achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Ross, 1992), motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), and students’ own sense of efficacy (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988), as well as to different teacher Tel.: +852 2609 6947; fax: +852 2603 6921.
E-mail address: [email protected]
classroom behaviors that affect the teacher’s effort in teaching, and his or her persistence and resilience in the face of difficulties with students (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Meijer & Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993). It is also maintained that teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy are more enthusiastic in teaching (Allinder, 1994; Guskey, 1984), more committed to teaching (Coladarci, 1992; Evans & Tribble, 1986; Trentham, Silvern, & Brogdon, 1985), and more likely to stay in teaching (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982). Moreover, under school reforms, these teachers also tend to be more open to new ideas and more willing to experiment and adopt teaching innovations to better meet the needs of students (Allinder, 1994; Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Guskey, 1984, 1988; Smylie, 1988; Stein &
0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.11.010
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1058
D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
Wang, 1988), to use more hands-on teaching methods (Riggs & Enochs, 1990), to use less teacher-directed whole-class instruction (Ashton & Webb, 1986), and to adopt a more humanistic classroom control orientation (Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990). In summary, high teacher self-efficacy has consistently been found to relate to positive student and teacher behaviors, and have a positive influence on educational improvements (e.g., Ross, 1995; Soodak & Podell, 1996), leading to the view that teacher self-efficacy is a crucial factor in improving teacher education and promoting education reform (e.g., Ashton, 1984; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000; Ross, 1998; Scharmann & Hampton, 1995; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Over the years, the construct of teacher selfefficacy has also undergone important changes in line with the changing role of teachers with the increasing diversity and complexity of teacher functioning and responsibilities. Parallel to this reconceptualization, researchers have developed general teacher self-efficacy scales to assess more comprehensively teacher self-efficacy beliefs in representative crucial areas of effective teacher functioning. For example, Schwarzer, Schmitz, and Daytner (1999b) developed the General Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (GTSES) that covers four major areas vital for successful teaching. These areas are job accomplishment, skill development on the job, social interaction with students, parents, and colleagues, and coping with job stress. Accordingly, it is assumed that teachers’ global or general sense of self-efficacy could be assessed through tapping these representative areas. However, it is also understood that teachers do not feel efficacious in all teacher functioning, and their efficacy beliefs could be task-specific and context-specific, thus making it necessary to develop domain-specific teacher self-efficacy scales. With this view, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) have developed a 24-item Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale that includes three subscales to assess the efficacy for instructional strategies, for classroom management, and for student engagement. Bandura (1997) has also maintained that apart from teachers’ efficacy beliefs in their ability to teach subject matter, teacher self-efficacy should consider teachers’ efficacy beliefs in maintaining classroom discipline that establishes an environment of learning, in using resources, and in supporting parental efforts to help their children learn. Thus, Bandura’s
(n.d.) 30-item Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale covers seven categories: efficacy in influencing decisionmaking, in influencing the acquisition and use of school resources, in teaching, in disciplinary matters, in enlisting parental involvement, in involving the community, and in creating a positive school climate. Along the same line, Chan (in press) has developed an 18-item Domain-Specific Teacher SelfEfficacy Scale (DSTSES) to assess teacher selfefficacy beliefs among Chinese teachers in Hong Kong. Specifically, the scale was designed to assess six domains of teacher functioning relevant to changes in the teacher’s role in six focus areas in education reforms in Hong Kong (see Education Commission, 2000; Education Department, 2000; Ho & Hau, 2004). These domains include teachers’ efficacy in teaching highly able learners, classroom management, guidance and counseling, student engagement, teaching to accommodate diversity, and teaching for enriched learning that includes creativity, critical thinking, and problem-based learning. It was thought that a scale developed to take into consideration the inclusion of teacher functioning based on reform-oriented goals should be more suited to evaluating or monitoring reform efforts in educational improvements. In expanding the construct of teacher self-efficacy to cover more comprehensively the increasing areas of teacher functioning, researchers have inevitably moved beyond considering teacher self-efficacy in the classroom to teacher self-efficacy in the school context, sometimes referred to as organizational self-efficacy (e.g., Friedman & Kass, 2002). In this regard, the focus could be on teachers’ view of their abilities to function as professionals, including utilizing school resources and working with administration, colleagues, and parents. More recently, researchers have also started to examine another aspect of organizational culture referred to as collective efficacy that might impact substantially on teacher self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Goddard et al., 2000). Specifically, collective teacher efficacy refers to the efficacy beliefs shared among teachers as professionals in a school. Accordingly, collective teacher efficacy might be assessed through focusing on the group or on the individuals as members of the group. In this connection, Schwarzer, Schmitz, and Daytner (1999a) have developed the Collective Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (CTSES) parallel to their GTSES, focusing on an individual’s perception of the competence of his or her reference group, as a teacher in a school or more broadly as a
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
teacher in the teaching profession. It could be assumed that general teacher self-efficacy might be undermined in schools where teachers perceive difficulties in educating their students as insurmountable, and might be enhanced in schools where teachers work together to find ways to address the learning and emotional needs of their students. With this view, it has been suggested that the effect of collective teacher self-efficacy on general teacher self-efficacy could be more pronounced for novice teachers as they are socialized into the teaching profession. Thus, it is of great interest to examine the relationship between collective teacher selfefficacy and general teacher self-efficacy and even domain-specific teacher self-efficacy at different stages of the teaching career. Given that a higher sense of teacher self-efficacy is associated with more positive student and teacher behaviors, and educational improvements, it is of great interest to explore the development of efficacy beliefs among teachers. According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy beliefs are developed from four main sources of information: Enactive mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states. In the teacher education context, course work and professional development workshops that give teachers information about the task of teaching, for example, could be considered a form of verbal persuasion, whereas the observation of other teachers’ classroom teaching could be considered vicarious experiences. Perhaps the more powerful source of information is enactive mastery, as it provides authentic evidence of the teacher’s performance in the classroom and school setting, possibly leading to enhanced teacher self-efficacy after a successful performance and reduced self-efficacy after a failure experience. While novice and experienced teachers alike are generally provided with this powerful source of information, prospective teachers generally do not have this source of information, at least not until they have their teaching practice in school when specific performance feedback could also be provided by supervisors, other teachers, and even other students. With the differential amount of information from these sources, and with possibly different interpretations of these experiences, one could expect that prospective teachers, with or without the experience of teaching practice, and inservice teachers, novice and relatively experienced teachers, might have different levels of efficacy beliefs.
1059
While there is no lack of research interest in the changes in teacher self-efficacy, there is little data about how efficacy beliefs change at different stages of a teacher’s career (see Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). It has been suggested that prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy beliefs would increase during teacher preparation and student teaching (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). But their somewhat unrealistic high-efficacy beliefs would be tempered when they encounter a reality shock as they confront the complexity of the teaching task (Weinstein, 1988). Moreover, novice teachers might or might not maintain their high self-efficacy beliefs, depending on their commitment to teaching and teacher stress, as well as their satisfaction with support and preparation (Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005). Nonetheless, it is also believed that selfefficacy beliefs tend to stabilize, and once established, efficacy beliefs of experienced teachers seem to be resistant to change (see Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Despite the voluminous body of research on teacher self-efficacy in Western countries, there is a scarcity of research work on teacher self-efficacy in Hong Kong. This exploratory study aimed to assess teacher self-efficacy, including global (general and collective) and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy in a sample of Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Specifically, this study aimed (1) to examine whether general, collective, and domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs were distinct, and could be assessed independently; (2) to explore the relationships among different teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs; and (3) to investigate the differences in self-efficacy beliefs among prospective teachers (with or without teaching practice experience) and in-service teachers (novice and relatively experienced teachers) in order to shed light on the possible change and stability of self-efficacy beliefs at different stages of a teacher’s career. 2. Method 2.1. Participants Two hundred and seventy-three prospective and in-service Chinese teachers (118 men and 155 women) enrolled in the teacher education program for secondary school teaching at the Chinese University of Hong Kong participated voluntarily in the study. These participants were between the ages of 20 and 48 (M ¼ 25.43, SD ¼ 6.30). Ninety-one
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1060
D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
of them (37 men and 54 women, age M ¼ 23.08, SD ¼ 2.01) were prospective teachers with no teaching experience, 97 (48 men and 49 women, age M ¼ 23.88, SD ¼ 3.32) were prospective teachers with 1-month supervised teaching practice in schools, 51 (22 men and 29 women, age M ¼ 25.86, SD ¼ 4.65) were novice teachers with 1–2 years of teaching experience (M ¼ 1.29, SD ¼ 0.46), and 34 (11 men and 23 women, age M ¼ 35.50, SD ¼ 5.32) were relatively experienced teachers with teaching experience ranging from 3 to 19 years (M ¼ 8.44, SD ¼ 4.11). The relatively experienced teachers distributed themselves rather evenly in the full range of years of teaching experience (Median ¼ 8; and the modal frequency was 4 at multiple points of years of teaching experience). These teachers were asked to report their current or intended primary area of teaching in one of the three broad categories: Languages (English or Chinese), Mathematics, Science and Technology, and Social Studies. The number of teachers in each of these categories was respectively, 38, 32, and 21 for prospective teachers with no teaching experience; 29, 33, and 35 for prospective teachers with teaching practice; 23, 21, and 7 for novice teachers; and 7, 10, and 17 for relatively experienced teachers. 2.2. Procedure Participants responded anonymously in groups of about 50 to three self-report scales assembled in a questionnaire. The three scales were GTSES, CTSES, and DSTSES. In responding to questions related to teacher functioning in classroom and the school, prospective teachers, unlike in-service teachers with school and classroom teaching experience, were asked to refer to their experience in the 1-month teaching practice they had undertaken prior to this study or to respond as they imagined themselves doing their teaching practice in the school of their choice. The English versions of these scales were used, as all participants in this study indicated that they had no problems responding in English. All participants were assured that the data would be kept confidential and would be used for research purposes only. 2.3. Measures 2.3.1. General teacher self-efficacy scale The 10-item GTSES was designed to assess general teacher self-efficacy (Schwarzer et al.,
1999b). The 10 items were extracted from an initial 27-item version of the scale administered three times to some 300 German teachers in a nationwide project of Efficacious Schools. The findings yielded internal consistency measures or Cronbach’s a values between .76 and .82, and test–retest reliability in the range of .65 to .76. In completing GTSES, respondents were requested to judge how certain they are in doing the school activities using an 11point scale with anchors of 0 (cannot do at all), 5 (moderately can do), and 10 (highly certain can do). A score was obtained by summing the responses to the ten items. Details of the development and the psychometric properties of GTSES can be found in Schwarzer et al.(1999b). 2.3.2. Collective teacher self-efficacy scale The 12-item CTSES was designed to assess teachers’ collective self-efficacy, focusing on an individual teacher’s perception of the competence of the group of teachers in a school as well as in the profession (Schwarzer et al., 1999a). The 12-item scale was administered to two samples (each about N ¼ 300) of German teachers in a nationwide project of Efficacious Schools. The findings yielded high internal consistency measures or Cronbach’s a values of .91 and .92. One-year test–retest reliability was .77 (N ¼ 197). In completing CTSES, respondents were requested to judge how certain they are, as teachers in the school or in the profession, in doing the school activities using an 11-point scale with anchors of 0 (cannot do at all), 5 (moderately can do), and 10 (highly certain can do). A score was obtained by summing the responses to the 12 items. Details of the development and the psychometric properties of CTSES can be found in Schwarzer et al.(1999a). 2.3.3. Domain-specific teacher self-efficacy scale The original 18-item DSTSES was developed to assess six sets of domain-specific teacher selfefficacy beliefs covering six domains of teacher functioning: Teaching highly able learners, classroom management, guidance and counseling, student engagement, teaching to accommodate diversity, and teaching for enriched learning (Chan, in press). In a study with 159 Hong Kong Chinese teachers, Chan (in press) has demonstrated sound psychometric properties of the scale, including relatively high reliability (Cronbach’s a values ranging from .79 to .91), construct validity by confirmatory item factor analysis, convergent validity
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
with GTSES (.50–.63), positive and substantial correlation (.28–.41, po.001) with the personal accomplishment component of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI, Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996), and negative and low correlations with the other two MBI components. The 21-item version used in this study is a revised version with the addition of three items to assess teachers’ working with colleagues and parents. In responding to items of the scale, participants responded by indicating how certain they were in doing the things described using an 11-point scale with anchors of 0 (cannot do at all), 5 (moderately can do), and 10 (highly certain can do). The relevant items can be aggregated to yield seven scores on seven self-efficacy domains. 3. Results The responses of the teachers to the 10-item GTSES, the 12-item CTSES, and the 21-item DSTSES were first assembled. It was of interest to explore whether these 43 items did reflect general teacher self-efficacy, collective teacher self-efficacy, and teacher self-efficacy in specific domains of teacher functioning. Consequently, the item responses of the 273 teachers were first intercorrelated, and the resulting 43-item correlation matrix was then subjected to an exploratory maximum likelihood factor analysis. An initial estimation yielded seven factors with eigenvalues exceeding unity. The w2 value computed to evaluate the lack of fit for this seven-factor solution was 1151.48 (df ¼ 623, po.001), and the estimated variance accounted for was 60.59%. Thus, a statistically adequate solution, one that yielded a nonsignificant w2 would require more than seven factors. However, in examining the varimax-rotated seven-factor solution for simple structure and interpretability, it was found that this seven-factor solution yielded meaningful and interpretable dimensions. Therefore, the varimax-rotated seven-factor solution was regarded as an adequate representation of the data provided by this sample of teachers, and is summarized in Table 1. In summary, the results of this exploratory item factor analysis indicated that the 43 items emerged in meaningful dimensions largely in line with general, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy. Specifically, general and collective teacher self-efficacy emerged as two independent dimensions distinct from the seven domain-specific teacher self-efficacy reflecting seven areas of teacher
1061
functioning. Rather than emerging separately as seven distinct dimensions, the seven domains were encompassed in five dimensions. While teaching highly able students, classroom management, guidance and counseling, and working with colleagues and parents did emerge as distinct dimensions, teaching to accommodate diversity and teaching for enriched learning seemed to be highly associated, as items of the two subscales loaded saliently in the same factor, and there was no distinct dimension describing student engagement. 3.1. Domain-specific teacher self-efficacy in seven domains of teacher functioning Despite that the 21 items of DSTSES did not emerge as seven distinct dimensions in the exploratory item factor analysis, it was of interest to examine whether the seven domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, which were developed based on substantive consideration, could be meaningful dimensions that were highly associated. Consequently, the item responses of the 273 teachers were intercorrelated to yield a 21-item covariance matrix, and the seven-factor model was tested using maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (LISREL 8; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). Since the model would be rejected by the w2 test statistic at a conventional a level if a large enough sample was used, and accepted if a small enough sample was used (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), a number of goodness of fit or lack of fit indices were employed to help determine whether the seven-dimensional model was appropriate for these data (Bentler, 1989; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Steiger, 1990). Thus, apart from the w2 statistics, the indices used included the Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (S-RMR), the Goodness of Fit and the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Indices (GFI and AGFI), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). In general, an adequate to good fit is suggested by RMSEA and S-RMR values below or approaching .05, and by fit index values between .80 and 1.00. For this seven-factor model, allowing for correlated dimensions (correlation ranged from .40 to .86), the results suggested a reasonably acceptable fit as indicated by the normal theory weighted least square w2 index, w2 (168) ¼ 379.70, po.001, and the corresponding fit indices (RMSEA ¼ .0681, S-RMR ¼ .0467, GFI ¼ .883, AGFI ¼ .839,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1062
D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
Table 1 Summary of Varima-rotated seven-factor solution of teacher self-efficacy by maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis (N ¼ 273) Teacher self-efficacy items
GTSE-1 GTSE-2 GTSE-3 GTSE-4 GTSE-5 GTSE-6 GTSE-7 GTSE-8 GTSE-9 GTSE-10 CTSE-1 CTSE-2 CTSE-3 CTSE-4 CTSE-5 CTSE-6 CTSE-7 CTSE-8 CTSE-9 CTSE-10 CTSE-11 CTSE-12 Teaching highly able learners-1 Teaching highly able learners-2 Teaching highly able learners-3 Classroom management-1 Classroom management-2 Classroom management-3 Guidance and counseling-1 Guidance and counseling-2 Guidance and counseling-3 Student engagement-1 Student engagement-2 Student engagement-3 Teaching to accommodate diversity-1 Teaching to accommodate diversity-2 Teaching to accommodate diversity-3 Teaching for enriched learning-1 Teaching for enriched learning-2 Teaching for enriched learning-1 Working with colleagues and parents-1 Working with colleagues and parents-2 Working with colleagues and parents-3
Factor 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
58 60 56 66 70 77 66 66 76 64 74 70 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
42 – 56 71 54 47 43 50 – – –
41 45 70 63 46 50 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
73 83 70 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – 76 65 71 42 40 – – – – – – – – – –
80 80 64 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – 45 – 40 – – – – – – 40 49 73
Note: GTSES ¼ General Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale; CTSES ¼ Collective Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. Only salient loadings of magnitude .40 or above are shown. Decimals on loadings are omitted.
NNFI ¼ .930, CFI ¼ .944). Thus the confirmatory item factor analysis suggested that the 21 items could be regarded as assessing the intended seven related dimensions or domains of teacher selfefficacy. The dimensions of teaching to accommodate diversity and teaching for enriched learning
were most highly correlated, and the dimension of student engagement correlated highly with guidance and counseling, teaching for enriched learning, and working with colleagues and parents. The completely standardized seven-factor solution is summarized in Table 2.
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
1063
Table 2 Completely standardized seven-factor solution of domain-specific teacher self-efficacy by maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (N ¼ 273) Teacher self-efficacy
Factor 1
Teaching highly able learners Support to strive for excellence/achievement Provide appropriate challenge to the highly able Teach higher order thinking skills to the highly able
2
3
4
5
6
7
84 91 77
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Classroom management Manage disruptive behaviors in classroom Get students to follow rules and regulations Establish classroom management system
0 0 0
89 93 87
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Guidance and counseling Provide appropriate emotional support Express empathic understanding for problem Make a depressed student feel better
0 0 0
0 0 0
91 83 82
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Student engagement Motivate students with low interest in school work Use ways to help students value learning Make students enjoy coming to school
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
84 82 85
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Teaching to accommodate diversity Adjust lessons to proper level Use various assessment strategies Gauge student comprehension of what was taught
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
75 81 83
0 0 0
0 0 0
Teaching for enriched learning Use ways to foster creativity Help students to think critically Facilitate real-life problem-based learning
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
77 73 79
0 0 0
Working with colleagues and parents Collaborate well with teachers Work well with administration Get patents involved to help students learn
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
63 72 86
43 50 51 61 64 40
67 70 65 59 60
79 64 68 57
77 82 80
86 67
66
Factor correlation matrix Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7
Note: Decimals on factor loadings and correlations are omitted.
3.2. General, collective and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy Based on the exploratory factor analysis of items from GTSES, CTSES, and DSTSES, one could regard items assessed in GTSES and CTSES as distinct from those assessed in DSTSES. The results of the confirmatory item factor analysis of DSTSES provided further support that DSTSES assesses
teachers’ efficacy beliefs in seven specific domains of teacher functioning. Accordingly, relevant items of GTSES, CTSES, and the seven subscales of DSTSES were aggregated to yield scores on general teacher self-efficacy, collective teacher self-efficacy, and seven domain-specific teacher self-efficacy. Table 3 shows the mean scores across items and the standard deviations of GTSES, CTSES, and the seven subscales of DSTSES together with their
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1064
D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
measures of internal consistency. It can be seen that the coefficients a as indices of internal consistency were relatively high, ranging from .78 to .94. The mean scores across items for the general, the collective and the seven domain-specific teacher selfefficacy scores indicated that these teachers had the highest confidence in teaching highly able learners as well as guidance and counseling, and lowest confidence in classroom management. Support for the differential levels of efficacy beliefs could be gleaned from the one-way within-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA), treating the nine scores as dependent measures. The ANOVA results with the multivariate test indicated that the overall differTable 3 Means, standard deviations, and internal consistency of general teacher self-efficacy scale, collective teacher self-efficacy scale, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy scale (N ¼ 273) Item
Cronbach’s
N
M
SD
a
10 12
6.82 6.55
1.09 1.22
.87 .94
Domain-specific Teacher Self-efficacy Scale Teaching highly able learners 3 Classroom management 3 Guidance and counseling 3 Student engagement 3 Teaching to accommodate diversity 3 Teaching for enriched learning 3 Working with colleagues and parents 3
7.31 6.09 6.99 6.40 6.60 6.69 6.55
1.40 1.65 1.42 1.41 1.21 1.26 1.39
.87 .92 .87 .87 .84 .81 .78
Global Teacher Self-Efficacy Scales General teacher self-efficacy Collective teacher self-efficacy
ences among the nine scores were significant, Wilks’ L ¼ .52, F (8, 265) ¼ 30.06, po.001, partial Z2 ¼ .476. Follow-up paired t-tests on all 36 possible pairs of scores indicated that 26 pairs were significantly different after controlling for familywise error rate across the 36 tests using the Bonferroni procedure, and t-values were evaluated at .05/36 or .0014 level of significance. Notable nonsignificant differences were found between general teacher self-efficacy and selected domainspecific self-efficacy that included guidance/counseling and teaching for enriched learning, between collective teacher self-efficacy and domain-specific self-efficacy of student engagement, teaching to accommodate diversity, teaching for enriched learning, and working with colleagues/parents, and among the domain-specific efficacy of student engagement, teaching to accommodate diversity, teaching for enriched learning, and working with colleagues/parents. Table 4 presents the intercorrelations among general, collective, and the seven domain-specific teacher self-efficacy. It can be seen that the nine constructs of teacher self-efficacy correlated relatively highly and significantly with each other, ranging from .36 to .71. In general, the two global scales of general and collective teacher self-efficacy correlated highly with each other and with all domain-specific teacher self-efficacy scales. For domain-specific scales, the highest correlations were those related to student engagement, whereas the lowest correlations were those related to teaching highly able students. Table 4 also shows the
Table 4 Correlation matrix of general, collective, domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, and teaching experience of prospective and in-service teachers (N ¼ 273) Teacher self-efficacy Global
General (GTSE) Collective (CTSE) Highly able learners (HA) Classroom management (CM) Guidance and counseling (GC) Student engagement (SE) To accommodate diversity (AD) For enriched learning (EL) With colleagues and parents (WC) Years of teaching experience *po.05; **po.01; ***po.001.
Domain-specific
GTSE
CTSE
HA
CM
GC
SE
AD
EL
WC
.67*** .57*** .65*** .65*** .71*** .66*** .66*** .55*** .21***
.46*** .53*** .56*** .66*** .62*** .64*** .67*** .17**
.40*** .45*** .46*** .55*** .57*** .36*** .12
.61*** .63*** .57*** .51*** .53*** .31***
.71*** .55*** .56*** .48*** .17**
.66*** .69*** .65*** .13*
.69*** .54*** .19***
.51*** .08
.20***
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
correlations between teacher self-efficacy and years of teaching experience of these teachers, suggesting that teaching experience might impact on general and collective teacher self-efficacy in general, but differentially on different domain-specific teacher self-efficacy. Notably, efficacy beliefs in classroom management might be most substantially influenced, but those in teaching for enriched learning and teaching highly able learners might be least influenced. Since teaching experience might affect levels of teacher self-efficacy, the matrix of correlations among global and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy was recomputed separately for each of the four groups of teachers classified on the basis of teaching experience. The four groups were prospective teachers with no teaching experience (Group A), prospective teachers with 1-month supervised teaching practice (Group B), novice teachers with 1–2 years of teaching experience (Group C), and relatively experienced teachers with 3 or more years of experience (Group D). The results suggested that in general a similar pattern of correlations applied to all four groups, with some slight differences. Notably, the domain-specific teacher self-efficacy in teaching highly able students was less highly or nonsignificantly associated with other global and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy for Group A teachers. There was however no evidence that collective teacher self-efficacy was more highly associated with other constructs of teacher selfefficacy for novice (Group C) teachers. 3.3. Differences in teacher self-efficacy among groups of prospective and in-service teachers To explore whether there were significant differences between different groups of prospective teachers and in-service teachers on the two global teacher self-efficacy scores and the seven domainspecific teacher self-efficacy scores, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted using the nine scores as dependent variables and the four groups of teachers as the grouping variable. The MANOVA results indicated that the overall teacher group main effect was significant, Wilks’ L ¼ .79, F (27, 763) ¼ 2.42, po.001, partial Z2 ¼ .077. Subsequent univariate ANOVA on each of the global and domain-specific teacher selfefficacy was conducted as a follow-up test to the significant MANOVA teacher group main effect. Using the Bonferroni procedure to adjust for multiple tests, each ANOVA was evaluated at the
1065
value of .05/9 or .006. The results indicated that there were significant differences among the four groups of teachers on general teacher self-efficacy, F (3, 269) ¼ 5.69, po.001, partial Z2 ¼ .060, and on four domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, namely classroom management , F (3, 269) ¼ 12.57, po.001, partial Z2 ¼ .123, guidance and counseling, F (3, 269) ¼ 4.66, po.005, partial Z2 ¼ .049, teaching to accommodate diversity, F (3, 269) ¼ 5.87, po.001, partial Z2 ¼ .061, and working with colleagues/parents, F (3, 269) ¼ 5.45, po.001, partial Z2 ¼ .057. Follow-up post hoc analyses to the univariate ANOVA for the significant dependent variables, general teacher self-efficacy and the four domainspecific teacher self-efficacy, consisted of conducting pairwise comparisons to find out significant group differences. Each pairwise comparison was tested at the .006/6 or .001 level using the Bonferroni procedure to control for multiple comparisons. The significant group differences are summarized in Table 5. In general, significant group differences always involved relatively experienced (Group D) teachers who reported the highest confidence in all areas of teacher functioning as reflected in global and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy. Assuming that the four groups represented four different stages of a teacher’s career, it could be inferred that there was a general trend of rising teacher selfefficacy as a teacher went from teacher preparation and student teaching to becoming a novice teacher and a relatively experienced teacher. The consistent rise applied to global teacher self-efficacy as well as domain-specific teacher self-efficacy in classroom management and guidance/counseling, whereas a slight fall in teacher self-efficacy was observed at student teaching (for teaching highly able learners and teaching to accommodate diversity) or at the first 2 years of teaching (for student engagement, teaching for enriched learning, and working with colleagues/parents). 4. Discussion The accumulating body of evidence that teacher self-efficacy is consistently related to student valued outcomes and positive teacher behaviors has led some teacher educators to emphasize the importance of investigating teachers’ efficacy beliefs for educational improvements (see Ashton, 1984; Fritz, Miller-Heyl, Kreutzer, & MacPhee, 1995; Housego, 1992; Ramey-Gassert, Shroyer, & Staver, 1996;
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1066
D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
Table 5 Differences on general teacher self-efficacy, collective teacher self-efficacy, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy among prospective and in-service teachers Prospective teachers
Group A
General Collective Highly able learners Classroom management Guidance and counseling Student engagement To accommodate diversity For enriched learning With colleagues and parents
In-service teachers
Group B
Group C
Significant group difference Group D
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
6.63 6.44 7.29 5.74 6.84 6.28 6.56 6.59 6.57
1.07 1.28 1.24 1.52 1.43 1.33 1.27 1.29 1.36
6.71 6.42 7.14 5.90 6.87 6.38 6.43 6.72 6.39
1.09 1.20 1.54 1.63 1.44 1.42 1.11 1.24 1.46
6.91 6.57 7.24 6.09 6.95 6.19 6.48 6.48 6.25
1.01 1.07 1.24 1.68 1.34 1.42 1.18 1.26 1.14
7.47 7.18 7.96 7.59 7.82 7.11 7.38 7.14 7.37
1.02 1.20 1.46 1.18 1.25 1.44 1.09 1.15 1.34
D4 A – – D4A,B,C – – D4B – D4C
Note: Group A are prospective teachers with no teaching experience; Group B are prospective teachers with teaching practice; Group C are novice teachers with 1–2 years of teaching experience; Group D are experienced teachers with 3 or more years of teaching experience. The significant group differences are the results from post hoc tests following analyses of variance.
Ross, 1998; Scharmann & Hampton, 1995). Recent school reforms in Hong Kong and possibly in many parts of the world have greatly transformed the nature of a teacher’s job and increased the complexity of teacher functioning in schools (see Education Commission, 2000). Specifically, teachers have to meet the learning and social emotional needs of students from diverse social and educational backgrounds (Education Commission, 1990), making classroom management and guidance/counseling an important part of their work (see also Ho & Hau, 2004). In addition, teachers have to accommodate in their teaching in the regular classrooms to students of diverse abilities, including students with learning difficulties and gifted learners. Thus, the study of teacher self-efficacy needs to be extended from the focus on general teacher self-efficacy to domainspecific teacher self-efficacy. The findings in this study provided evidence that specific teacher self-efficacy in different domains of teacher functioning were distinct, and could be assessed separately and independently from global general and collective teacher self-efficacy. Among the seven domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, teachers seemed to be most confident in teaching highly able students and in guiding and counseling students, and least confident in managing student problems in classrooms and in engaging students to value schooling. The relatively low level of efficacy in classroom management and student engagement was observed to maintain for prospective and
novice teachers. Consequently, classroom management and student engagement could be domains that require strengthening in teacher education. Contrary to the initial conjecture that the effect of collective teacher self-efficacy on general and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy might be more pronounced for novice teachers as they were socialized into the profession, the correlations between collective teacher self-efficacy and other domain-specific and general teacher self-efficacy were not comparatively higher for novice teachers, providing no strong evidence that there was such a connection. In comparing teacher self-efficacy across different groups of prospective and in-service teachers, perhaps the most notable finding was the substantially higher level of global and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy of the experienced teachers compared with the lower level of teacher selfefficacy of the novice teachers as well as prospective teachers irrespective of whether they had their teaching practice. The conjecture that prospective teachers might have unrealistically high teacher selfefficacy to be tempered when they confronted the reality of teaching at teaching practice or in their early years of teaching was not supported. Rather than characterizing the transition between teacher preparation and actual teaching at school as a slump in teacher self-efficacy beliefs, one might suggest that some slips could occur for certain domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, and that the
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
levels of teacher self-efficacy were relatively stable for prospective and novice teachers. One might even argue that there was more likely an upward trend of rising teacher self-efficacy for global as well as some domain-specific teacher self-efficacy beliefs. Accordingly, efforts at enhancing teacher self-efficacy of prospective teachers in teacher education programs might be targeted at accelerating the upward trend. Among the different domain-specific teacher selfefficacy beliefs, perhaps classroom management could be a difficult area for prospective teachers as well as novice teachers, and self-efficacy in classroom management might be targeted for enhancement by teacher educators. Despite that teacher self-efficacy beliefs could be relatively stable in teacher preparation and the early years of teaching, the study of teacher self-efficacy could provide other clues to improving teacher education. The challenge could lie in identifying teacher education practices that lead to changes in teacher self-efficacy beliefs, which in turn support meaningful changes in actual teaching. In this connection, interviews and anecdotal materials of novice and experienced teachers could be most valuable. The narratives of these teachers, who have to confront new stressors and changes in the teaching profession as a result of school reforms, would provide insight into teacher self-efficacy research. Thus, interpretive research that involves teacher observations and interviews as well as teacher narratives on self-perception or perception of the teaching profession warrants careful consideration in future investigations (see Henson, 2001; Labone, 2004; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Admittedly, the present study had many limitations. In interpreting the differences among the four groups of teachers, it was generally implied that different levels of teacher self-efficacy of the four groups reflected levels of teacher self-efficacy at different stages of the teaching career. However, caution must be exercised in this interpretation, as the findings were based on cross-sectional data from four different cohorts who could differ among themselves on many more variables other than teacher self-efficacy. Thus, the need for studies based on longitudinal data should be emphasized. While the present findings served to demonstrate that domain-specific teacher self-efficacy beliefs could be assessed independently from general teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher selfefficacy, the effect of collective teacher self-efficacy on general and domain-specific teacher efficacy
1067
could not be directly tested in the study. Arguably, the relationship between general and collective teacher self-efficacy could be better explored in the context of the matrix of relationships between domain-specific personal and domain-specific collective teacher self-efficacy beliefs. Indeed, the design of a better test on the influence of collective teacher self-efficacy, global and domain-specific, on personal (general and domain-specific) teacher selfefficacy has to await future research. Perhaps, one other limitation of this study was the small sample size in the four groups of teachers. Specifically, there were only 34 teachers in the experienced group. While they achieved a significantly higher level of global and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, questions may be raised as to their self-selection because they could be more motivated to learn and more competent as opposed to experienced teachers who did not choose to enroll in teacher education programs. However, the same line of reasoning could presumably apply to the novice teachers. Nonetheless, caution must be exercised in generalizing the present findings based on this small sample to the larger population of Hong Kong Chinese teachers. Thus, the need for cross-replication studies with more representative samples of teachers should be emphasized. In conclusion, results from this study serve to expand past findings on teacher self-efficacy and clarify the relationships among general, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy beliefs in prospective and in-service teachers, extending prior work conducted primarily in the West to the Chinese setting in Hong Kong. Specifically, the present findings supported that general, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy beliefs were distinct and could be assessed independently. Contrary to the conjecture that the self-efficacy beliefs of prospective teachers could be unrealistically high and would be adjusted downward with actual teaching experience, this study provided supporting evidence that teacher self-efficacy beliefs, global as well as domain-specific, tend to rise as teachers go through teacher preparation to become novice teachers and more experienced teachers. References Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86–95.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1068
D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34, 148–165. 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. Bandura, A. (n.d.). Teacher self-efficacy scale. Available on line at: /http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu.ahoy/researchinstruments. htm#BanS. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Bentler, P. (1989). Comparative fit indices. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chan, D. W. (in press). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 323–337. Education Commission. (1990). Education commission report no. 4. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Education Commission. (2000). Learning for life– learning through life: Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. Education Department. (2000). Development of gifted education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Author. Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 81–85. Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 675–686. Fritz, J. J., Miller-Heyl, J., Kreutzer, J. C., & MacPhee, D. (1995). Fostering personal teaching efficacy through staff development and classroom activities. The Journal of Educational Research, 88, 200–208. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, M. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451–458. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582. Glickman, C., & Tamashiro, R. (1982). A comparison of first-year, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in Schools, 19, 558–562. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479–507. Guskey, T. R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245–259.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69. Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 819–836. Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: Similarities and differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 313–323. Housego, B. (1992). Monitoring student teachers’ feelings of preparedness to teach and teacher efficacy in a new elementary teacher education program. Journal of Education for Teaching, 18, 259–272. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 279–300. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software. Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: Maturing the construct through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 341–359. Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Meijer, C. J. W., & Foster, S. F. (1988). The effect of teacher efficacy on referral chance. Journal of Special Education, 22, 378–385. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247–258. Podell, D., & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 247–253. Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. R. (1996). A qualitative study of the factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science Education, 80, 283–315. Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625–638. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17, 51–65. Ross, J. A. (1995). Strategies for enhancing teachers’ beliefs in their effectiveness: Research on a school improvement hypothesis. Teachers College Record, 97, 227–250. Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 7 (pp. 49–73). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Scharmann, L. C., & Hampton, C. M. O. (1995). Cooperative learning and preservice elementary teacher science selfefficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(3), 125–133. Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Daytner, G. T. (1999a). Collective teacher self-efficacy. Available on line at: /http:// www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen/Language_Selection/Turkish/ Collective_Teacher_EfficacyS. Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Daytner, G. T. (1999b). Teacher self-efficacy. Available on line at: /http://www. fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen/Language_Selection/Turkish/Teacher_ EfficacyS.
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069 Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1–30. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66–81. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401–412. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171–187.
1069
Trentham, L., Silvern, S., & Brogdon, R. (1985). Teacher efficacy and teacher competency ratings. Psychology in Schools, 22, 343–352. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248. Weinstein, C. S. (1988). Preservice teachers’ expectations about the first year of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 31–40. Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137–148. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343–356.
Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069 www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
General, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy among Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong David W. Chan Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong Received 26 February 2007; received in revised form 18 May 2007; accepted 14 November 2007
Abstract This study assessed two global (general and collective) and seven domain-specific sets of teacher self-efficacy beliefs among 273 Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. While teachers generally reported having the highest confidence in teaching highly able learners and the least confidence in classroom management, there were significant teacher group differences. Among four groups of teachers, the experienced teachers reported the highest level of global and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, suggesting that there could be a trend of rising teacher self-efficacy as a teacher went through preparation and teaching practice to becoming a novice and then a more experienced teacher. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teacher self-efficacy; Prospective teachers; In-service teachers; Teacher education; Hong Kong
1. Introduction Broadly conceptualized, teacher self-efficacy refers to the teacher’s belief of his or her abilities to bring about valued outcomes of engagement and learning among students, including difficult and unmotivated students (see Bandura, 1977; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Specifically, teacher self-efficacy has been related to a variety of student outcomes that include achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Ross, 1992), motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), and students’ own sense of efficacy (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988), as well as to different teacher Tel.: +852 2609 6947; fax: +852 2603 6921.
E-mail address: [email protected]
classroom behaviors that affect the teacher’s effort in teaching, and his or her persistence and resilience in the face of difficulties with students (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Meijer & Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993). It is also maintained that teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy are more enthusiastic in teaching (Allinder, 1994; Guskey, 1984), more committed to teaching (Coladarci, 1992; Evans & Tribble, 1986; Trentham, Silvern, & Brogdon, 1985), and more likely to stay in teaching (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982). Moreover, under school reforms, these teachers also tend to be more open to new ideas and more willing to experiment and adopt teaching innovations to better meet the needs of students (Allinder, 1994; Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Guskey, 1984, 1988; Smylie, 1988; Stein &
0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.11.010
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1058
D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
Wang, 1988), to use more hands-on teaching methods (Riggs & Enochs, 1990), to use less teacher-directed whole-class instruction (Ashton & Webb, 1986), and to adopt a more humanistic classroom control orientation (Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990). In summary, high teacher self-efficacy has consistently been found to relate to positive student and teacher behaviors, and have a positive influence on educational improvements (e.g., Ross, 1995; Soodak & Podell, 1996), leading to the view that teacher self-efficacy is a crucial factor in improving teacher education and promoting education reform (e.g., Ashton, 1984; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000; Ross, 1998; Scharmann & Hampton, 1995; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Over the years, the construct of teacher selfefficacy has also undergone important changes in line with the changing role of teachers with the increasing diversity and complexity of teacher functioning and responsibilities. Parallel to this reconceptualization, researchers have developed general teacher self-efficacy scales to assess more comprehensively teacher self-efficacy beliefs in representative crucial areas of effective teacher functioning. For example, Schwarzer, Schmitz, and Daytner (1999b) developed the General Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (GTSES) that covers four major areas vital for successful teaching. These areas are job accomplishment, skill development on the job, social interaction with students, parents, and colleagues, and coping with job stress. Accordingly, it is assumed that teachers’ global or general sense of self-efficacy could be assessed through tapping these representative areas. However, it is also understood that teachers do not feel efficacious in all teacher functioning, and their efficacy beliefs could be task-specific and context-specific, thus making it necessary to develop domain-specific teacher self-efficacy scales. With this view, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) have developed a 24-item Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale that includes three subscales to assess the efficacy for instructional strategies, for classroom management, and for student engagement. Bandura (1997) has also maintained that apart from teachers’ efficacy beliefs in their ability to teach subject matter, teacher self-efficacy should consider teachers’ efficacy beliefs in maintaining classroom discipline that establishes an environment of learning, in using resources, and in supporting parental efforts to help their children learn. Thus, Bandura’s
(n.d.) 30-item Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale covers seven categories: efficacy in influencing decisionmaking, in influencing the acquisition and use of school resources, in teaching, in disciplinary matters, in enlisting parental involvement, in involving the community, and in creating a positive school climate. Along the same line, Chan (in press) has developed an 18-item Domain-Specific Teacher SelfEfficacy Scale (DSTSES) to assess teacher selfefficacy beliefs among Chinese teachers in Hong Kong. Specifically, the scale was designed to assess six domains of teacher functioning relevant to changes in the teacher’s role in six focus areas in education reforms in Hong Kong (see Education Commission, 2000; Education Department, 2000; Ho & Hau, 2004). These domains include teachers’ efficacy in teaching highly able learners, classroom management, guidance and counseling, student engagement, teaching to accommodate diversity, and teaching for enriched learning that includes creativity, critical thinking, and problem-based learning. It was thought that a scale developed to take into consideration the inclusion of teacher functioning based on reform-oriented goals should be more suited to evaluating or monitoring reform efforts in educational improvements. In expanding the construct of teacher self-efficacy to cover more comprehensively the increasing areas of teacher functioning, researchers have inevitably moved beyond considering teacher self-efficacy in the classroom to teacher self-efficacy in the school context, sometimes referred to as organizational self-efficacy (e.g., Friedman & Kass, 2002). In this regard, the focus could be on teachers’ view of their abilities to function as professionals, including utilizing school resources and working with administration, colleagues, and parents. More recently, researchers have also started to examine another aspect of organizational culture referred to as collective efficacy that might impact substantially on teacher self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Goddard et al., 2000). Specifically, collective teacher efficacy refers to the efficacy beliefs shared among teachers as professionals in a school. Accordingly, collective teacher efficacy might be assessed through focusing on the group or on the individuals as members of the group. In this connection, Schwarzer, Schmitz, and Daytner (1999a) have developed the Collective Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (CTSES) parallel to their GTSES, focusing on an individual’s perception of the competence of his or her reference group, as a teacher in a school or more broadly as a
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
teacher in the teaching profession. It could be assumed that general teacher self-efficacy might be undermined in schools where teachers perceive difficulties in educating their students as insurmountable, and might be enhanced in schools where teachers work together to find ways to address the learning and emotional needs of their students. With this view, it has been suggested that the effect of collective teacher self-efficacy on general teacher self-efficacy could be more pronounced for novice teachers as they are socialized into the teaching profession. Thus, it is of great interest to examine the relationship between collective teacher selfefficacy and general teacher self-efficacy and even domain-specific teacher self-efficacy at different stages of the teaching career. Given that a higher sense of teacher self-efficacy is associated with more positive student and teacher behaviors, and educational improvements, it is of great interest to explore the development of efficacy beliefs among teachers. According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy beliefs are developed from four main sources of information: Enactive mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states. In the teacher education context, course work and professional development workshops that give teachers information about the task of teaching, for example, could be considered a form of verbal persuasion, whereas the observation of other teachers’ classroom teaching could be considered vicarious experiences. Perhaps the more powerful source of information is enactive mastery, as it provides authentic evidence of the teacher’s performance in the classroom and school setting, possibly leading to enhanced teacher self-efficacy after a successful performance and reduced self-efficacy after a failure experience. While novice and experienced teachers alike are generally provided with this powerful source of information, prospective teachers generally do not have this source of information, at least not until they have their teaching practice in school when specific performance feedback could also be provided by supervisors, other teachers, and even other students. With the differential amount of information from these sources, and with possibly different interpretations of these experiences, one could expect that prospective teachers, with or without the experience of teaching practice, and inservice teachers, novice and relatively experienced teachers, might have different levels of efficacy beliefs.
1059
While there is no lack of research interest in the changes in teacher self-efficacy, there is little data about how efficacy beliefs change at different stages of a teacher’s career (see Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). It has been suggested that prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy beliefs would increase during teacher preparation and student teaching (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). But their somewhat unrealistic high-efficacy beliefs would be tempered when they encounter a reality shock as they confront the complexity of the teaching task (Weinstein, 1988). Moreover, novice teachers might or might not maintain their high self-efficacy beliefs, depending on their commitment to teaching and teacher stress, as well as their satisfaction with support and preparation (Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005). Nonetheless, it is also believed that selfefficacy beliefs tend to stabilize, and once established, efficacy beliefs of experienced teachers seem to be resistant to change (see Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Despite the voluminous body of research on teacher self-efficacy in Western countries, there is a scarcity of research work on teacher self-efficacy in Hong Kong. This exploratory study aimed to assess teacher self-efficacy, including global (general and collective) and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy in a sample of Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Specifically, this study aimed (1) to examine whether general, collective, and domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs were distinct, and could be assessed independently; (2) to explore the relationships among different teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs; and (3) to investigate the differences in self-efficacy beliefs among prospective teachers (with or without teaching practice experience) and in-service teachers (novice and relatively experienced teachers) in order to shed light on the possible change and stability of self-efficacy beliefs at different stages of a teacher’s career. 2. Method 2.1. Participants Two hundred and seventy-three prospective and in-service Chinese teachers (118 men and 155 women) enrolled in the teacher education program for secondary school teaching at the Chinese University of Hong Kong participated voluntarily in the study. These participants were between the ages of 20 and 48 (M ¼ 25.43, SD ¼ 6.30). Ninety-one
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1060
D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
of them (37 men and 54 women, age M ¼ 23.08, SD ¼ 2.01) were prospective teachers with no teaching experience, 97 (48 men and 49 women, age M ¼ 23.88, SD ¼ 3.32) were prospective teachers with 1-month supervised teaching practice in schools, 51 (22 men and 29 women, age M ¼ 25.86, SD ¼ 4.65) were novice teachers with 1–2 years of teaching experience (M ¼ 1.29, SD ¼ 0.46), and 34 (11 men and 23 women, age M ¼ 35.50, SD ¼ 5.32) were relatively experienced teachers with teaching experience ranging from 3 to 19 years (M ¼ 8.44, SD ¼ 4.11). The relatively experienced teachers distributed themselves rather evenly in the full range of years of teaching experience (Median ¼ 8; and the modal frequency was 4 at multiple points of years of teaching experience). These teachers were asked to report their current or intended primary area of teaching in one of the three broad categories: Languages (English or Chinese), Mathematics, Science and Technology, and Social Studies. The number of teachers in each of these categories was respectively, 38, 32, and 21 for prospective teachers with no teaching experience; 29, 33, and 35 for prospective teachers with teaching practice; 23, 21, and 7 for novice teachers; and 7, 10, and 17 for relatively experienced teachers. 2.2. Procedure Participants responded anonymously in groups of about 50 to three self-report scales assembled in a questionnaire. The three scales were GTSES, CTSES, and DSTSES. In responding to questions related to teacher functioning in classroom and the school, prospective teachers, unlike in-service teachers with school and classroom teaching experience, were asked to refer to their experience in the 1-month teaching practice they had undertaken prior to this study or to respond as they imagined themselves doing their teaching practice in the school of their choice. The English versions of these scales were used, as all participants in this study indicated that they had no problems responding in English. All participants were assured that the data would be kept confidential and would be used for research purposes only. 2.3. Measures 2.3.1. General teacher self-efficacy scale The 10-item GTSES was designed to assess general teacher self-efficacy (Schwarzer et al.,
1999b). The 10 items were extracted from an initial 27-item version of the scale administered three times to some 300 German teachers in a nationwide project of Efficacious Schools. The findings yielded internal consistency measures or Cronbach’s a values between .76 and .82, and test–retest reliability in the range of .65 to .76. In completing GTSES, respondents were requested to judge how certain they are in doing the school activities using an 11point scale with anchors of 0 (cannot do at all), 5 (moderately can do), and 10 (highly certain can do). A score was obtained by summing the responses to the ten items. Details of the development and the psychometric properties of GTSES can be found in Schwarzer et al.(1999b). 2.3.2. Collective teacher self-efficacy scale The 12-item CTSES was designed to assess teachers’ collective self-efficacy, focusing on an individual teacher’s perception of the competence of the group of teachers in a school as well as in the profession (Schwarzer et al., 1999a). The 12-item scale was administered to two samples (each about N ¼ 300) of German teachers in a nationwide project of Efficacious Schools. The findings yielded high internal consistency measures or Cronbach’s a values of .91 and .92. One-year test–retest reliability was .77 (N ¼ 197). In completing CTSES, respondents were requested to judge how certain they are, as teachers in the school or in the profession, in doing the school activities using an 11-point scale with anchors of 0 (cannot do at all), 5 (moderately can do), and 10 (highly certain can do). A score was obtained by summing the responses to the 12 items. Details of the development and the psychometric properties of CTSES can be found in Schwarzer et al.(1999a). 2.3.3. Domain-specific teacher self-efficacy scale The original 18-item DSTSES was developed to assess six sets of domain-specific teacher selfefficacy beliefs covering six domains of teacher functioning: Teaching highly able learners, classroom management, guidance and counseling, student engagement, teaching to accommodate diversity, and teaching for enriched learning (Chan, in press). In a study with 159 Hong Kong Chinese teachers, Chan (in press) has demonstrated sound psychometric properties of the scale, including relatively high reliability (Cronbach’s a values ranging from .79 to .91), construct validity by confirmatory item factor analysis, convergent validity
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
with GTSES (.50–.63), positive and substantial correlation (.28–.41, po.001) with the personal accomplishment component of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI, Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996), and negative and low correlations with the other two MBI components. The 21-item version used in this study is a revised version with the addition of three items to assess teachers’ working with colleagues and parents. In responding to items of the scale, participants responded by indicating how certain they were in doing the things described using an 11-point scale with anchors of 0 (cannot do at all), 5 (moderately can do), and 10 (highly certain can do). The relevant items can be aggregated to yield seven scores on seven self-efficacy domains. 3. Results The responses of the teachers to the 10-item GTSES, the 12-item CTSES, and the 21-item DSTSES were first assembled. It was of interest to explore whether these 43 items did reflect general teacher self-efficacy, collective teacher self-efficacy, and teacher self-efficacy in specific domains of teacher functioning. Consequently, the item responses of the 273 teachers were first intercorrelated, and the resulting 43-item correlation matrix was then subjected to an exploratory maximum likelihood factor analysis. An initial estimation yielded seven factors with eigenvalues exceeding unity. The w2 value computed to evaluate the lack of fit for this seven-factor solution was 1151.48 (df ¼ 623, po.001), and the estimated variance accounted for was 60.59%. Thus, a statistically adequate solution, one that yielded a nonsignificant w2 would require more than seven factors. However, in examining the varimax-rotated seven-factor solution for simple structure and interpretability, it was found that this seven-factor solution yielded meaningful and interpretable dimensions. Therefore, the varimax-rotated seven-factor solution was regarded as an adequate representation of the data provided by this sample of teachers, and is summarized in Table 1. In summary, the results of this exploratory item factor analysis indicated that the 43 items emerged in meaningful dimensions largely in line with general, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy. Specifically, general and collective teacher self-efficacy emerged as two independent dimensions distinct from the seven domain-specific teacher self-efficacy reflecting seven areas of teacher
1061
functioning. Rather than emerging separately as seven distinct dimensions, the seven domains were encompassed in five dimensions. While teaching highly able students, classroom management, guidance and counseling, and working with colleagues and parents did emerge as distinct dimensions, teaching to accommodate diversity and teaching for enriched learning seemed to be highly associated, as items of the two subscales loaded saliently in the same factor, and there was no distinct dimension describing student engagement. 3.1. Domain-specific teacher self-efficacy in seven domains of teacher functioning Despite that the 21 items of DSTSES did not emerge as seven distinct dimensions in the exploratory item factor analysis, it was of interest to examine whether the seven domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, which were developed based on substantive consideration, could be meaningful dimensions that were highly associated. Consequently, the item responses of the 273 teachers were intercorrelated to yield a 21-item covariance matrix, and the seven-factor model was tested using maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (LISREL 8; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). Since the model would be rejected by the w2 test statistic at a conventional a level if a large enough sample was used, and accepted if a small enough sample was used (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), a number of goodness of fit or lack of fit indices were employed to help determine whether the seven-dimensional model was appropriate for these data (Bentler, 1989; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Steiger, 1990). Thus, apart from the w2 statistics, the indices used included the Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (S-RMR), the Goodness of Fit and the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Indices (GFI and AGFI), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). In general, an adequate to good fit is suggested by RMSEA and S-RMR values below or approaching .05, and by fit index values between .80 and 1.00. For this seven-factor model, allowing for correlated dimensions (correlation ranged from .40 to .86), the results suggested a reasonably acceptable fit as indicated by the normal theory weighted least square w2 index, w2 (168) ¼ 379.70, po.001, and the corresponding fit indices (RMSEA ¼ .0681, S-RMR ¼ .0467, GFI ¼ .883, AGFI ¼ .839,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1062
D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
Table 1 Summary of Varima-rotated seven-factor solution of teacher self-efficacy by maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis (N ¼ 273) Teacher self-efficacy items
GTSE-1 GTSE-2 GTSE-3 GTSE-4 GTSE-5 GTSE-6 GTSE-7 GTSE-8 GTSE-9 GTSE-10 CTSE-1 CTSE-2 CTSE-3 CTSE-4 CTSE-5 CTSE-6 CTSE-7 CTSE-8 CTSE-9 CTSE-10 CTSE-11 CTSE-12 Teaching highly able learners-1 Teaching highly able learners-2 Teaching highly able learners-3 Classroom management-1 Classroom management-2 Classroom management-3 Guidance and counseling-1 Guidance and counseling-2 Guidance and counseling-3 Student engagement-1 Student engagement-2 Student engagement-3 Teaching to accommodate diversity-1 Teaching to accommodate diversity-2 Teaching to accommodate diversity-3 Teaching for enriched learning-1 Teaching for enriched learning-2 Teaching for enriched learning-1 Working with colleagues and parents-1 Working with colleagues and parents-2 Working with colleagues and parents-3
Factor 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
58 60 56 66 70 77 66 66 76 64 74 70 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
42 – 56 71 54 47 43 50 – – –
41 45 70 63 46 50 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
73 83 70 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – 76 65 71 42 40 – – – – – – – – – –
80 80 64 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – 45 – 40 – – – – – – 40 49 73
Note: GTSES ¼ General Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale; CTSES ¼ Collective Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. Only salient loadings of magnitude .40 or above are shown. Decimals on loadings are omitted.
NNFI ¼ .930, CFI ¼ .944). Thus the confirmatory item factor analysis suggested that the 21 items could be regarded as assessing the intended seven related dimensions or domains of teacher selfefficacy. The dimensions of teaching to accommodate diversity and teaching for enriched learning
were most highly correlated, and the dimension of student engagement correlated highly with guidance and counseling, teaching for enriched learning, and working with colleagues and parents. The completely standardized seven-factor solution is summarized in Table 2.
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
1063
Table 2 Completely standardized seven-factor solution of domain-specific teacher self-efficacy by maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (N ¼ 273) Teacher self-efficacy
Factor 1
Teaching highly able learners Support to strive for excellence/achievement Provide appropriate challenge to the highly able Teach higher order thinking skills to the highly able
2
3
4
5
6
7
84 91 77
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Classroom management Manage disruptive behaviors in classroom Get students to follow rules and regulations Establish classroom management system
0 0 0
89 93 87
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Guidance and counseling Provide appropriate emotional support Express empathic understanding for problem Make a depressed student feel better
0 0 0
0 0 0
91 83 82
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Student engagement Motivate students with low interest in school work Use ways to help students value learning Make students enjoy coming to school
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
84 82 85
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Teaching to accommodate diversity Adjust lessons to proper level Use various assessment strategies Gauge student comprehension of what was taught
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
75 81 83
0 0 0
0 0 0
Teaching for enriched learning Use ways to foster creativity Help students to think critically Facilitate real-life problem-based learning
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
77 73 79
0 0 0
Working with colleagues and parents Collaborate well with teachers Work well with administration Get patents involved to help students learn
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
63 72 86
43 50 51 61 64 40
67 70 65 59 60
79 64 68 57
77 82 80
86 67
66
Factor correlation matrix Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7
Note: Decimals on factor loadings and correlations are omitted.
3.2. General, collective and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy Based on the exploratory factor analysis of items from GTSES, CTSES, and DSTSES, one could regard items assessed in GTSES and CTSES as distinct from those assessed in DSTSES. The results of the confirmatory item factor analysis of DSTSES provided further support that DSTSES assesses
teachers’ efficacy beliefs in seven specific domains of teacher functioning. Accordingly, relevant items of GTSES, CTSES, and the seven subscales of DSTSES were aggregated to yield scores on general teacher self-efficacy, collective teacher self-efficacy, and seven domain-specific teacher self-efficacy. Table 3 shows the mean scores across items and the standard deviations of GTSES, CTSES, and the seven subscales of DSTSES together with their
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1064
D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
measures of internal consistency. It can be seen that the coefficients a as indices of internal consistency were relatively high, ranging from .78 to .94. The mean scores across items for the general, the collective and the seven domain-specific teacher selfefficacy scores indicated that these teachers had the highest confidence in teaching highly able learners as well as guidance and counseling, and lowest confidence in classroom management. Support for the differential levels of efficacy beliefs could be gleaned from the one-way within-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA), treating the nine scores as dependent measures. The ANOVA results with the multivariate test indicated that the overall differTable 3 Means, standard deviations, and internal consistency of general teacher self-efficacy scale, collective teacher self-efficacy scale, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy scale (N ¼ 273) Item
Cronbach’s
N
M
SD
a
10 12
6.82 6.55
1.09 1.22
.87 .94
Domain-specific Teacher Self-efficacy Scale Teaching highly able learners 3 Classroom management 3 Guidance and counseling 3 Student engagement 3 Teaching to accommodate diversity 3 Teaching for enriched learning 3 Working with colleagues and parents 3
7.31 6.09 6.99 6.40 6.60 6.69 6.55
1.40 1.65 1.42 1.41 1.21 1.26 1.39
.87 .92 .87 .87 .84 .81 .78
Global Teacher Self-Efficacy Scales General teacher self-efficacy Collective teacher self-efficacy
ences among the nine scores were significant, Wilks’ L ¼ .52, F (8, 265) ¼ 30.06, po.001, partial Z2 ¼ .476. Follow-up paired t-tests on all 36 possible pairs of scores indicated that 26 pairs were significantly different after controlling for familywise error rate across the 36 tests using the Bonferroni procedure, and t-values were evaluated at .05/36 or .0014 level of significance. Notable nonsignificant differences were found between general teacher self-efficacy and selected domainspecific self-efficacy that included guidance/counseling and teaching for enriched learning, between collective teacher self-efficacy and domain-specific self-efficacy of student engagement, teaching to accommodate diversity, teaching for enriched learning, and working with colleagues/parents, and among the domain-specific efficacy of student engagement, teaching to accommodate diversity, teaching for enriched learning, and working with colleagues/parents. Table 4 presents the intercorrelations among general, collective, and the seven domain-specific teacher self-efficacy. It can be seen that the nine constructs of teacher self-efficacy correlated relatively highly and significantly with each other, ranging from .36 to .71. In general, the two global scales of general and collective teacher self-efficacy correlated highly with each other and with all domain-specific teacher self-efficacy scales. For domain-specific scales, the highest correlations were those related to student engagement, whereas the lowest correlations were those related to teaching highly able students. Table 4 also shows the
Table 4 Correlation matrix of general, collective, domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, and teaching experience of prospective and in-service teachers (N ¼ 273) Teacher self-efficacy Global
General (GTSE) Collective (CTSE) Highly able learners (HA) Classroom management (CM) Guidance and counseling (GC) Student engagement (SE) To accommodate diversity (AD) For enriched learning (EL) With colleagues and parents (WC) Years of teaching experience *po.05; **po.01; ***po.001.
Domain-specific
GTSE
CTSE
HA
CM
GC
SE
AD
EL
WC
.67*** .57*** .65*** .65*** .71*** .66*** .66*** .55*** .21***
.46*** .53*** .56*** .66*** .62*** .64*** .67*** .17**
.40*** .45*** .46*** .55*** .57*** .36*** .12
.61*** .63*** .57*** .51*** .53*** .31***
.71*** .55*** .56*** .48*** .17**
.66*** .69*** .65*** .13*
.69*** .54*** .19***
.51*** .08
.20***
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
correlations between teacher self-efficacy and years of teaching experience of these teachers, suggesting that teaching experience might impact on general and collective teacher self-efficacy in general, but differentially on different domain-specific teacher self-efficacy. Notably, efficacy beliefs in classroom management might be most substantially influenced, but those in teaching for enriched learning and teaching highly able learners might be least influenced. Since teaching experience might affect levels of teacher self-efficacy, the matrix of correlations among global and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy was recomputed separately for each of the four groups of teachers classified on the basis of teaching experience. The four groups were prospective teachers with no teaching experience (Group A), prospective teachers with 1-month supervised teaching practice (Group B), novice teachers with 1–2 years of teaching experience (Group C), and relatively experienced teachers with 3 or more years of experience (Group D). The results suggested that in general a similar pattern of correlations applied to all four groups, with some slight differences. Notably, the domain-specific teacher self-efficacy in teaching highly able students was less highly or nonsignificantly associated with other global and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy for Group A teachers. There was however no evidence that collective teacher self-efficacy was more highly associated with other constructs of teacher selfefficacy for novice (Group C) teachers. 3.3. Differences in teacher self-efficacy among groups of prospective and in-service teachers To explore whether there were significant differences between different groups of prospective teachers and in-service teachers on the two global teacher self-efficacy scores and the seven domainspecific teacher self-efficacy scores, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted using the nine scores as dependent variables and the four groups of teachers as the grouping variable. The MANOVA results indicated that the overall teacher group main effect was significant, Wilks’ L ¼ .79, F (27, 763) ¼ 2.42, po.001, partial Z2 ¼ .077. Subsequent univariate ANOVA on each of the global and domain-specific teacher selfefficacy was conducted as a follow-up test to the significant MANOVA teacher group main effect. Using the Bonferroni procedure to adjust for multiple tests, each ANOVA was evaluated at the
1065
value of .05/9 or .006. The results indicated that there were significant differences among the four groups of teachers on general teacher self-efficacy, F (3, 269) ¼ 5.69, po.001, partial Z2 ¼ .060, and on four domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, namely classroom management , F (3, 269) ¼ 12.57, po.001, partial Z2 ¼ .123, guidance and counseling, F (3, 269) ¼ 4.66, po.005, partial Z2 ¼ .049, teaching to accommodate diversity, F (3, 269) ¼ 5.87, po.001, partial Z2 ¼ .061, and working with colleagues/parents, F (3, 269) ¼ 5.45, po.001, partial Z2 ¼ .057. Follow-up post hoc analyses to the univariate ANOVA for the significant dependent variables, general teacher self-efficacy and the four domainspecific teacher self-efficacy, consisted of conducting pairwise comparisons to find out significant group differences. Each pairwise comparison was tested at the .006/6 or .001 level using the Bonferroni procedure to control for multiple comparisons. The significant group differences are summarized in Table 5. In general, significant group differences always involved relatively experienced (Group D) teachers who reported the highest confidence in all areas of teacher functioning as reflected in global and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy. Assuming that the four groups represented four different stages of a teacher’s career, it could be inferred that there was a general trend of rising teacher selfefficacy as a teacher went from teacher preparation and student teaching to becoming a novice teacher and a relatively experienced teacher. The consistent rise applied to global teacher self-efficacy as well as domain-specific teacher self-efficacy in classroom management and guidance/counseling, whereas a slight fall in teacher self-efficacy was observed at student teaching (for teaching highly able learners and teaching to accommodate diversity) or at the first 2 years of teaching (for student engagement, teaching for enriched learning, and working with colleagues/parents). 4. Discussion The accumulating body of evidence that teacher self-efficacy is consistently related to student valued outcomes and positive teacher behaviors has led some teacher educators to emphasize the importance of investigating teachers’ efficacy beliefs for educational improvements (see Ashton, 1984; Fritz, Miller-Heyl, Kreutzer, & MacPhee, 1995; Housego, 1992; Ramey-Gassert, Shroyer, & Staver, 1996;
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1066
D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
Table 5 Differences on general teacher self-efficacy, collective teacher self-efficacy, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy among prospective and in-service teachers Prospective teachers
Group A
General Collective Highly able learners Classroom management Guidance and counseling Student engagement To accommodate diversity For enriched learning With colleagues and parents
In-service teachers
Group B
Group C
Significant group difference Group D
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
6.63 6.44 7.29 5.74 6.84 6.28 6.56 6.59 6.57
1.07 1.28 1.24 1.52 1.43 1.33 1.27 1.29 1.36
6.71 6.42 7.14 5.90 6.87 6.38 6.43 6.72 6.39
1.09 1.20 1.54 1.63 1.44 1.42 1.11 1.24 1.46
6.91 6.57 7.24 6.09 6.95 6.19 6.48 6.48 6.25
1.01 1.07 1.24 1.68 1.34 1.42 1.18 1.26 1.14
7.47 7.18 7.96 7.59 7.82 7.11 7.38 7.14 7.37
1.02 1.20 1.46 1.18 1.25 1.44 1.09 1.15 1.34
D4 A – – D4A,B,C – – D4B – D4C
Note: Group A are prospective teachers with no teaching experience; Group B are prospective teachers with teaching practice; Group C are novice teachers with 1–2 years of teaching experience; Group D are experienced teachers with 3 or more years of teaching experience. The significant group differences are the results from post hoc tests following analyses of variance.
Ross, 1998; Scharmann & Hampton, 1995). Recent school reforms in Hong Kong and possibly in many parts of the world have greatly transformed the nature of a teacher’s job and increased the complexity of teacher functioning in schools (see Education Commission, 2000). Specifically, teachers have to meet the learning and social emotional needs of students from diverse social and educational backgrounds (Education Commission, 1990), making classroom management and guidance/counseling an important part of their work (see also Ho & Hau, 2004). In addition, teachers have to accommodate in their teaching in the regular classrooms to students of diverse abilities, including students with learning difficulties and gifted learners. Thus, the study of teacher self-efficacy needs to be extended from the focus on general teacher self-efficacy to domainspecific teacher self-efficacy. The findings in this study provided evidence that specific teacher self-efficacy in different domains of teacher functioning were distinct, and could be assessed separately and independently from global general and collective teacher self-efficacy. Among the seven domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, teachers seemed to be most confident in teaching highly able students and in guiding and counseling students, and least confident in managing student problems in classrooms and in engaging students to value schooling. The relatively low level of efficacy in classroom management and student engagement was observed to maintain for prospective and
novice teachers. Consequently, classroom management and student engagement could be domains that require strengthening in teacher education. Contrary to the initial conjecture that the effect of collective teacher self-efficacy on general and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy might be more pronounced for novice teachers as they were socialized into the profession, the correlations between collective teacher self-efficacy and other domain-specific and general teacher self-efficacy were not comparatively higher for novice teachers, providing no strong evidence that there was such a connection. In comparing teacher self-efficacy across different groups of prospective and in-service teachers, perhaps the most notable finding was the substantially higher level of global and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy of the experienced teachers compared with the lower level of teacher selfefficacy of the novice teachers as well as prospective teachers irrespective of whether they had their teaching practice. The conjecture that prospective teachers might have unrealistically high teacher selfefficacy to be tempered when they confronted the reality of teaching at teaching practice or in their early years of teaching was not supported. Rather than characterizing the transition between teacher preparation and actual teaching at school as a slump in teacher self-efficacy beliefs, one might suggest that some slips could occur for certain domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, and that the
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
levels of teacher self-efficacy were relatively stable for prospective and novice teachers. One might even argue that there was more likely an upward trend of rising teacher self-efficacy for global as well as some domain-specific teacher self-efficacy beliefs. Accordingly, efforts at enhancing teacher self-efficacy of prospective teachers in teacher education programs might be targeted at accelerating the upward trend. Among the different domain-specific teacher selfefficacy beliefs, perhaps classroom management could be a difficult area for prospective teachers as well as novice teachers, and self-efficacy in classroom management might be targeted for enhancement by teacher educators. Despite that teacher self-efficacy beliefs could be relatively stable in teacher preparation and the early years of teaching, the study of teacher self-efficacy could provide other clues to improving teacher education. The challenge could lie in identifying teacher education practices that lead to changes in teacher self-efficacy beliefs, which in turn support meaningful changes in actual teaching. In this connection, interviews and anecdotal materials of novice and experienced teachers could be most valuable. The narratives of these teachers, who have to confront new stressors and changes in the teaching profession as a result of school reforms, would provide insight into teacher self-efficacy research. Thus, interpretive research that involves teacher observations and interviews as well as teacher narratives on self-perception or perception of the teaching profession warrants careful consideration in future investigations (see Henson, 2001; Labone, 2004; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Admittedly, the present study had many limitations. In interpreting the differences among the four groups of teachers, it was generally implied that different levels of teacher self-efficacy of the four groups reflected levels of teacher self-efficacy at different stages of the teaching career. However, caution must be exercised in this interpretation, as the findings were based on cross-sectional data from four different cohorts who could differ among themselves on many more variables other than teacher self-efficacy. Thus, the need for studies based on longitudinal data should be emphasized. While the present findings served to demonstrate that domain-specific teacher self-efficacy beliefs could be assessed independently from general teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher selfefficacy, the effect of collective teacher self-efficacy on general and domain-specific teacher efficacy
1067
could not be directly tested in the study. Arguably, the relationship between general and collective teacher self-efficacy could be better explored in the context of the matrix of relationships between domain-specific personal and domain-specific collective teacher self-efficacy beliefs. Indeed, the design of a better test on the influence of collective teacher self-efficacy, global and domain-specific, on personal (general and domain-specific) teacher selfefficacy has to await future research. Perhaps, one other limitation of this study was the small sample size in the four groups of teachers. Specifically, there were only 34 teachers in the experienced group. While they achieved a significantly higher level of global and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy, questions may be raised as to their self-selection because they could be more motivated to learn and more competent as opposed to experienced teachers who did not choose to enroll in teacher education programs. However, the same line of reasoning could presumably apply to the novice teachers. Nonetheless, caution must be exercised in generalizing the present findings based on this small sample to the larger population of Hong Kong Chinese teachers. Thus, the need for cross-replication studies with more representative samples of teachers should be emphasized. In conclusion, results from this study serve to expand past findings on teacher self-efficacy and clarify the relationships among general, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy beliefs in prospective and in-service teachers, extending prior work conducted primarily in the West to the Chinese setting in Hong Kong. Specifically, the present findings supported that general, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy beliefs were distinct and could be assessed independently. Contrary to the conjecture that the self-efficacy beliefs of prospective teachers could be unrealistically high and would be adjusted downward with actual teaching experience, this study provided supporting evidence that teacher self-efficacy beliefs, global as well as domain-specific, tend to rise as teachers go through teacher preparation to become novice teachers and more experienced teachers. References Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86–95.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1068
D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34, 148–165. 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. Bandura, A. (n.d.). Teacher self-efficacy scale. Available on line at: /http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu.ahoy/researchinstruments. htm#BanS. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Bentler, P. (1989). Comparative fit indices. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chan, D. W. (in press). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 323–337. Education Commission. (1990). Education commission report no. 4. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Education Commission. (2000). Learning for life– learning through life: Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. Education Department. (2000). Development of gifted education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Author. Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 81–85. Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 675–686. Fritz, J. J., Miller-Heyl, J., Kreutzer, J. C., & MacPhee, D. (1995). Fostering personal teaching efficacy through staff development and classroom activities. The Journal of Educational Research, 88, 200–208. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, M. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451–458. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582. Glickman, C., & Tamashiro, R. (1982). A comparison of first-year, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in Schools, 19, 558–562. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479–507. Guskey, T. R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245–259.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69. Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 819–836. Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: Similarities and differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 313–323. Housego, B. (1992). Monitoring student teachers’ feelings of preparedness to teach and teacher efficacy in a new elementary teacher education program. Journal of Education for Teaching, 18, 259–272. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 279–300. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software. Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: Maturing the construct through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 341–359. Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Meijer, C. J. W., & Foster, S. F. (1988). The effect of teacher efficacy on referral chance. Journal of Special Education, 22, 378–385. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247–258. Podell, D., & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 247–253. Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. R. (1996). A qualitative study of the factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science Education, 80, 283–315. Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625–638. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17, 51–65. Ross, J. A. (1995). Strategies for enhancing teachers’ beliefs in their effectiveness: Research on a school improvement hypothesis. Teachers College Record, 97, 227–250. Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 7 (pp. 49–73). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Scharmann, L. C., & Hampton, C. M. O. (1995). Cooperative learning and preservice elementary teacher science selfefficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(3), 125–133. Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Daytner, G. T. (1999a). Collective teacher self-efficacy. Available on line at: /http:// www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen/Language_Selection/Turkish/ Collective_Teacher_EfficacyS. Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Daytner, G. T. (1999b). Teacher self-efficacy. Available on line at: /http://www. fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen/Language_Selection/Turkish/Teacher_ EfficacyS.
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.W. Chan / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1057–1069 Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1–30. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66–81. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401–412. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171–187.
1069
Trentham, L., Silvern, S., & Brogdon, R. (1985). Teacher efficacy and teacher competency ratings. Psychology in Schools, 22, 343–352. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248. Weinstein, C. S. (1988). Preservice teachers’ expectations about the first year of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 31–40. Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137–148. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343–356.