by Dr. Michael S. Miller
Bandura
(1997) presented self-efficacy as a mechanism of behavioral change and
self-regulation in his social cognitive theory. Defined as “beliefs in one’s
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce
given attainments” (p. 3), Bandura (1997) proposed that efficacy beliefs were
powerful predictors of behavior because they were ultimately self-referent in
nature and directed toward specific tasks.
The
predictive power of efficacy has generally been borne out in research,
especially when efficacy beliefs are measured concerning specific tasks. It is necessary, therefore, to find the
optimal level of specificity of the measure, which is in correspondence with
the task and the area under evaluation.
In the same vein, Burgoyne (2010) summarizes some properties implied in
measuring self-efficacy, which refers to certain tasks or activities. They are linked to certain areas of operation
and are dependent on the context in which the task is given. It is dependent on both a criterion referring
to oneself and compared to performance of others. A person in the teaching profession is no
exception.
Bandura’s teacher
self-efficacy scale. Bandura developed his own teacher
efficacy scale, which is a 30-item instrument with seven subscales: efficacy to
influence decision making, efficacy to influence school resources,
instructional efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, efficacy to enlist parental
involvement, efficacy to enlist community involvement, and efficacy to create a
positive school climate. Each item is measured on a 9-point scale anchored by
the following: “nothing, very little, some influence, quite a bit, a great
deal” (Bandura, 2001).
Teachers’ sense of
efficacy scale (TSES). TSES, previously called the Ohio
State Teacher Efficacy Scale, was developed in a seminar on self-efficacy in
teaching and learning at the Ohio State University. The participants of the
seminar searched for an instrument, which includes the types of tasks
representative of frequent teaching activities. Taking the Bandura teacher
efficacy scale as a base, they developed and added new items. They decided to
use a 9-point scale as in the Bandura scale. The resulting instrument was
investigated in different studies by Tschannen-Moran and her colleagues.
The
initial study of the instrument with 52 items was administered to a sample of
224 participants (both pre-service and in-service teachers). Thirty-two of the
items were selected as a result of principal-axis factoring with varimax
rotation (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). In the second study, the
32-item version of TSES was investigated with a sample of 70 pre-service and
147 in-service teachers. Tschannen- Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) used
principal axis factor extraction again. The rule of an Eigen value greater than
one yielded an eight-factor solution, while the scree test suggested a possible
two- or three-factor solution. After examining both two- and three- factor
solutions, the authors decided to go with the three-factor solution, which
better represents the tasks of teaching.
Later, the instrument was reduced to 18 items by removing redundant
items and items with low factor loadings. The factor analysis with varimax
rotation produced three factors accounting for 51% of the variance. These
factors were called as efficacy for student engagement (eight items with an
alpha reliability of .82), efficacy for instructional strategies (seven items
with an alpha reliability of .81), and efficacy for classroom management (three
items with an alpha reliability of .72). A further analysis, using collapsing
samples from study 1 and study 2, generated one strong factor with factor
loadings ranging from .74 to .84. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) argued
that TSES could be used for assessment of either three domains of efficacy or
one generalized efficacy factor.
Bond
and Fox (2001) evaluated an 18-item instrument while expressing their concerns
about a third factor with only three items. They collected data from 183 in-
service teachers, and subjected the data to confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). The CFA approach is different
from Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) approach, which used exploratory
factor analysis. Their findings supported the factorial validity of TSES but
for only “efficacy for student engagement” and “efficacy for instructional
strategies” factors. Roberts and Henson (2001) argued that the items of third
factor should be removed from the instrument for its further use. In addition,
they rejected the one- dimensional model suggested by Tschannen-Moran and
Woolfolk Hoy (2001).
On
the other hand, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) argued that classroom
management is a crucial factor for teaching and disagree with the elimination
of this factor. They developed new items concerning classroom management by
taking Emmer’s teacher efficacy for classroom management scale into
consideration. The resultant instrument included 36 items. Tschannen-Moran and
Woolfolk Hoy (2001) employed principal-axis factoring with varimax rotation
with a sample of 410 pre-service and in-service teachers. A four-factor
solution was suggested by using eigenvalues greater than one, whereas three
factors were suggested by the scree test. The three-factor solution was
consistent with the findings of study 2. Later and as a final step, Tschannen-
Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) selected items with higher loadings and developed
12- and 24-item instruments. Analyses of both forms indicated that the TSES,
either long or short version, could be accepted as a reliable and valid
instrument for assessing the teacher efficacy construct. Both versions
supported the three factor model with high subscale reliabilities (ranging from
.87 to .91 for the longer version and .81 to .86 for the shorter version).
An integrated model of
teacher’s sense of efficacy. Based on their review of research on teacher
efficacy, Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998) proposed a theoretical
model, which attempts to present a comprehensive picture of teacher efficacy by
considering the history of advances in teacher efficacy research and suggesting
new sources of information.
The
primary factor affecting teacher efficacy is believed to be the interpretation
of four sources of information proposed by Bandura (1997): verbal persuasion,
vicarious experiences, physiological arousal, and mastery experience. However,
as consistent with our previous knowledge, efficacy perceptions are accepted as
task and context-specific; i.e., teachers show varying levels of sense of
efficacy in particular situations or for teaching different subjects.
Accordingly, this model considers not only the perceived competence to perform
specific behaviors but also the teaching task and its context (concepts are
related but not the same as previously identified teacher efficacy dimensions,
personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy, respectively). Read Other Section
References
Bandura,
A. (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales (Revised). Retrieved
from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/banduraguide.html
Bandura,
A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of
control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bond,
T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying
the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Burgoyne,
J. (2010). Towards the learning company. Management
Education & Development, 20(1), 1-8.
Roberts,
J. K., & Henson, R. K. (2001). A
confirmatory factor analysis of a new measure of teacher efficacy: Ohio State
Teacher Efficacy Scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
Tschannen-Moran,
M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 17, 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran,
M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational
Research, 68(2), 202-248.
