Developing the Scale of Teacher Self-Efficacy in Teaching Process

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and valid measurement tool which will reveal teachers’ self-competences in education process. Participants of the study are 300 teachers working at state primary schools in the province of Gaziantep, Results of the exploratory factor analysis administered to the scale in order to determine its construct validity, indicated that it has four sub-dimensions. In accordance with the results of confirmatory factor analysis RMSEA was measured .050 level fit index. The determined levels for GFI is found to be 0.88, whereas for AGFI, 0.85 for NFI, 0.94 for CFI 0.98 and 0.94 for RFI. Also, non normed fit index, (NNFI) has been observed as 0.97. Four dimensions of the scale which was composed of 23 items account for approximately 54% of the total variance. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of internal consistency was counted .86 for the first dimension; .82 for the second dimension, .67 for the third dimension, .70 for the fourth dimension, and .92 for the entire scale. The scale, developed in order to measure teachers’ self-efficacy in the teaching process, proved to be valid and reliable based on the results of the related analyses.

Keywords

• Self efficacy, efficacy, teachers’ self-efficacy, teaching process

References

1. Afacan, S. (2008). Muzik Ogretimi Ozyeterlik Olcegi. Ahi Evran Universitesi Kirsehir Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 1-11.
2. Akkoyunlu, B. O. (2005). Bilgisayar Ogretmenleri Icin “Bilgisayar Ogretmenligi Oz-Yeterlik Olcegi” Gelistirme Calismasi. Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 1-8.
3. Al-Alwan, A. F.,Mahasneh,A.M. (2014). Teachers’ self- efficacy as determinant of students’ attitudes toward school: a study at the school level. . Review of European Studies , 171-179.
4. Altunisik, R.Coskun, R.,Bayraktaroglu, S., & Yildirim, E. (2012). Sosyal Bilimlerde Arastirma Yontemleri Spss Uygulamalari. Sakarya: Sakarya Yayincilik.
5. Askar, P., & Umay,A. (2001). Ilkogretim Matematik Ogretmenligi Ogrencilerinin Bilgisayarla Ilgili Ozyeterlik Algisi. Hacettepe Universitesi, Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 1-8.
6. Atici, M. (2000). Ilkokul ogretmenlerinin sinif yonetiminde yetkinlik beklentisi rolunun Ingiltere ve Turkiye’de secilen bir arastirma grubu uzerinde incelenmesi. Leicester: Leicester Universitesi.
7. Ay, B. (2007). Ogretmenlerin Oz-Yeterlikleri ve Orgutsel Vatandaslik Davranisi. Afyon: Afyon Kocatepe Universitesi .
8. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 118-122.

9. Bandura, A. (1985). Self-efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Bandura, A. (1997). Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman and Company.
11. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide For Constructing Self- Efficacy Scales. F. Pajares. (Ed.). icinde, Self-Efficacy Beliefs Of Adolescents (s. 307-337). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
12. Bayram, N. (2011). Yapisal Esitlik Modellemesine Giris Amos Uygulamalari. Yayinlari, Bursa: Ezgi Kitapevi.
13. Bikmaz, F. H. (2004). Ozyeterlik Inanclari. ( Ed). Prof. Dr. Yildiz Kuzgun icinde, Egitimde Bireysel Farkliliklar. (s. 90-110). Ankara: Nobel Yayinlari.
14. Bindak, R.,Ozgen,K. (2008). Matematik Okuryazarligi Oz-Yeterlik Olceginin Gelistirilmesi . Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi, 517–528.
15. Buyukozturk, S., Cakmak, E.C., Akgun O.E., Karadeniz S., Demirel. F. (2013). Bilimsel Arastirma Yontemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
16. Buyukozturk, S. (2008). Bilimsel Arastirma Yontemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayinlari.
17. Caprara, G. V.,Barbaranelli,C.,Steca,P.,&Malone,P.S. (2006). Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs As Determinants Of Job Satisfaction And Students' Academic Achievement: A Study At The School Level. Journal of school psychology, 473-490.
18. Comert, M. D. (2009). Orta Ogretim Ogretmenlerinin Oz-Yeterlik Algilari. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 1-16.
19. Cakiroglu, J. O. (2002). Fen Bilgisi Aday Ogretmenlerin Fen Kavramlarini Anlama Duzeyleri, Fen Ogretimine Yonelik Tutum Ve Oz-Yeterlik Inanclari. Ankara: Ortadogu Teknik Universitesi.
20. Ekici, G. (2002). (2002) Biyoloji Ogretmenlerinin Laboratuar Dersine Yonelik Tutum Olcegi. Hacettepe Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 22-36.
21. Friedman, I. A. (2003). Self-Efficacy and Burnout in Teaching: The Importance of Interpersonal- Relations Efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 191-215.
22. Garvis, S. & Pendergast,D. (2011) Pre-Service Student- Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs: An insight into the making of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46-56.
23. Garvis, S. & Pendergast,D. (2011). An investigation of early childhood teacher self-efficacy beliefs in the teaching of arts education. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 9.
24. Gercek, C., Koseoglu,P.,Soran,H.,&Yilmaz,M. (2005). Ogretmen Oz-Yeterlik Inanci. Milli Egitim Dergisi, 45-56.
25. Gist, M.E.,&Mitchell,T.R. (1992). Self Efficacy: A Theorical Analysis Of its Determinants And Malleability. Academy Of Management Review, 183- 211.
26. Gibson,S.,&Dembo,M.H.(1984).Self Efficacy:A Theorical Analysis of its Determinants and Malleability.Academy of Management Reviev. 183-211.
27. Goddard, R. D., Hoy W.K.&Hoy,A.W.(2004). Collective Efficacy Beliefs: Theoretical Developments, Empirical Evidence, And Future Directions . Educational Researcher, 3-13.
28. Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher Efficacy, Self-Concept, and Attitudes Toward The Implementation Of Instructional Innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63-69.
29. Gulev, D. (2008). Biyoloji Ogretmen Adaylarinin Biyoloji Konularindaki. Kavram Yanilgilari, Biyoloji Ogretimine Yonelik Ozyeterlik Inanclari Ve Tutumlari. Ankara: Gazi Universitesi.
30. Kan, A. (2007). Ogretmen Adaylarinin Egitme-Ogretme Ozyetkinligine Yonelik Olcek Gelistirme ve Egitme- Ogretme Ozyetkinlikleri Acisindan Degerlendirilmesi (Mersin Universitesi Ornegi). Mersin Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 35-50.
31. Karagoz, Y. K. (2008). Iletisim becerileri Degerlendirme Olceginin Faktor Analizi Metodu ile Gelistirilmesi. Dumlupinar Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21.
32. Karasar, N. (1999). Bilimsel Arastirma Yontemi . Ankara: Nobel Yayinlari.
33. Kurbanoglu, S. (2004). Oz-Yeterlik inanci ve Bilgi Profesyonelleri icin Onemi. Bilgi Dunyasi Dergisi, 137-152.
34. Meydan, C. H. (2011). Yapisal Esitlik Modellemesi Amos Uygulamalari. Ankara: Detay Yayincilik.
35. Midgley, C. F. (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, 247-258.
36. Oettingen, G. (1985). Cross-Cultural Perspectives On Self-Efficacy. (Ed).A.Bandura icinde, Self-Efficacy In Changing Societies, (s. 149-176. ). Newyork: Cambridge University.
37. Ozata, H. (2007). Ogretmenlerin Oz-Yeterlik Algilarinin Ve Orgutsel Yenilesmeye Iliskin Goruslerinin Arastirilmasi. . Kocaeli: Kocaeli Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu.
38. Ozdamar, K. (2002). Paket Programlar Ile Istatistiksel Veri Analizi. Eskisehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
39. Ozdemir, S. M. (2008). Sinif Ogretmeni Adaylarinin Ogretim Surecine Iliskin OzYeterlik Inanclarinin Cesitli Degiskenler Acisindan Incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi , 277-306.
40. Pendergast, D. G. (2011). Pre-Service Student-Teacher Self-EfficacyBeliefs: An Insight Into The Making Of Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 152-171.
41. Schwarzer, R. &. (2008). Perceived teacher self‐efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied Psychology, 152-171.
42. Scott, J. E. (1996). Self-efficacy: A key to literacy learning. . Reading Horizons, 195-213.
43. Senemoglu, N. (2001). Gelisim ve Ogrenme: Kuramdan Uygulamaya. Ankara: Gazi Yayinlari.
44. Senemoglu, N. (2005). Gelisim ogrenme ve ogretim. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
45. Skaalvik, E. M. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self- efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of educational psychology, 604-611.
46. Skaalvik, E. M. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations . Teaching and teacher education, 1059-1069.
47. Stajkovic, A. (1979). Social Cognitive Theory and Self efficacy: Implications for Motivation Theory and Practice. . Organizational Dynamics, 62-74.
48. Sumer, N. (2000). Yapisal Esitlik Modelleri: Temel Kavramlar Ve Ornek Uygulamalar. Turk Psikoloji Yazilar, 49-74.
49. Simsek, O. F. (2009). Yapisal Esitlik Modellemesine Giris. Temel Ilkeler ve Lisrel Uygulamalari. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayinlari.
50. Tavsancil, E. (2002). Tutumlarin Olculmesi ve SPSS ile Veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayinlari.
51. Tepe, D.,&Demir,K. (2012). Okul Oncesi Ogretmenlerinin Oz-Yeterlik Inanclari Olcegi. Abant Izzet Baysal Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 137-158.
52. Tschannen-Moran, M. &Woolfolk Hoy,A. (2002). The influence of resources and support on teachers’ efficacy beliefs. New Orleans: In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
53. Umay, A. (2002). Ilkogretim Matematik Ogretmenligi Programini Matematige Karsi Ozyeterlik Algisina Etkisi. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Egitimi Sempozyumu. Ankara: Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi.
54. Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Teachers' sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and teacher Education, 137-148.
55. Yaman, S.,Cansungu,K.,&Altuncekic,A. (2004). Fen Bilgisi Ogretmen Adaylarinin Ozyeterlik Inanc Duzeylerinin Incelenmesi Uzerine Bir Arastirma. Turk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 355-364.
56. Zulkosky, K. (2009). Self‐efficacy: a Concept Analysis. Colorado: Blackwell Publishing .
57. National Education Ministry. (2013). Ilkogretim kurumlari (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. siniflar) ogretim programi. [Primary education (elementary and middle schools) science course (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 grades) curriculums] Ankara: MEB Yayinevi.
58. Nurmalasari, R., Kade, A., & Kamaluddin, K. (2014). Pengaruh model learning cycle tipe 7e terhadap pemahaman konsep fisika siswa kelas VII smp negeri 19 palu. Ejurnal Pendidikan Fisika Tadulako, 1(2), 18-23.
59. Oh, P. S., & Yager, R. E. (2004). Development of constructivist science classrooms and changes in student attitudes toward science learning. Science Education International, 15(2), 105–113.
60. Ozalp, I. (2006). A study of implementing the technique or caricature in science environmental education. (Master thesis). Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.
61. Ozbek, G., Celik, H., Ulukok, S., & Sari, U. (2012). 5E ve 7E Ogretim Modellerinin Fen Okur-Yazarligi Uzerine Etkisi [5e and 7e instructional models effect on science literacy]. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 1(3), 183- 194.
62. Ozmen, H. (2004). Some student misconceptions in chemistry: A literature review of chemical bonding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 147-159.
63. Paramita, D. M. W., Sudhita, I. W. R., & Dibia, I. K. (2013). Pengaruh model pembelajaran siklus belajar 7e terhadap hasil belajar ipa pada siswa kelas IV di gugus V kecamatan sukasada. MIMBAR PGSD, 1.
64. Polyiem, T., Nuangchalerm, P., & Wongchantra, P. (2011). Learning achievement, science process skills, and moral reasoning of ninth grade students leaned by 7e learning cycle and socioscientific issue-based learning. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(10), 257-564.
65. Pressley, M. & Harris, K. R. (1994). Increasing the quality of educational intervention research. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 191-208. doi: 10.1007/BF02213181
66. Sarac, H. (2015). The effect of multimedia supported applications designed according to 7e model on students' learning products at fifth grade science course "changing states of matter" unit. (Doctoral dissertation). Dumlupinar University, Kutahya, Turkeyi
67. Semerci, C., & Batdi, V. (2015). A Meta-Analysis of Constructivist Learning Approach on Learners’ Academic Achievements, Retention and Attitudes. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(2), 171- 180.
68. Shaheen, M. N. U. K., & Kayani, M. M. (2015). Improving students’ achievement in biology using 7e instructional model: an experimental study. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 471.
69. Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students' learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252-275.
70. Sadoglu, G. P., & Akdeniz, A. R. (2015). Effect of designed materials according to 7E learning model on success of high school students in modern physics. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 3(5), 96-129.
71. Taguiam, A. (2015). The effect of 7e learning cycle approach on students’ conception on changes in matter, energy and time. Proceedings Journal of Interdisciplinary Research.
72. Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research: A simplified methodology. Work-Learning Research, 1-9.
73. Tobin, K. G. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale, CA: Erlbaum.
74. Toraman, C., & Demir, E. (2016). The effect of constructivism on attitudes towards lessons: A meta–analysis study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 62, 115-142. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2016.62.8
75. Toroslu, S. C. (2011). Effect of 7e learning model integrated with real-life context based instructions on students’ conceptual achievement misconceptions and science skills about “energy”. (Ph. D. Thesis). The central thesis of Higher Education Institutions. (279742).
76. Yenice, E. (2014). The effect of 7e model of the constructivist approach to the success of students’ about meiosis and mitosis division and permanence of their knowledge. (Master Thesis). The central thesis of Higher Education Institutions. (354519).
77. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007– No.033). http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/REL_2007033.pdf