to oneself succeed instills self-efficacy beliefs into one’s mind. Social persuasion, the third source strengthening self-efficacy beliefs, removes doubts on one’s capabilities in accomplishing tasks successfully. It is assumed that people exert greater effort on tasks when they are told that they are able to complete them successfully. Milner (2002) found this source of efficacy beliefs stronger than other sources. Bandura introduced physiological and emotional states of people as the last source influencing their self-efficacy. Fatigue, aches, pains and stress have diminishing effect on self-efficacy beliefs, whereas positive feelings and mood have energizing influence.
The abovementioned four sources introduced by Bandura remain the exclusive known initiators of self-efficacy beliefs. Literature on practical ways to make people more self-efficacious is scarce, especially in the field of English teacher education.
The most considerable difference between Bandura’s self-efficacy with teacher efficacy as developed by RAND researchers based on Rotter’s theory is that self-efficacy seems to capture a more practical side of the concept as it deals with outcome expectancy (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). While RAND’s efficacy is an individual’s belief that he or she can organize what is needed to perform a task, “outcome expectancy is the individual’s estimate of the likely consequences of performing that task at the expected level of confidence (Bandura, 1986, cited in Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001, p. 787). As a result, knowledge of self-efficacy can provide incentives or disincentives for a teacher’s given behavior (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
In this research, self-efficacy has been used within the theoretical framework defined by Bandura (1977). The scale employed to measure self-efficacy (TSES) was also developed within the same framework (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
2.2.2 Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Constructs
Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) measured teachers’ self-efficacy in three dimensions: efficacy in student engagement, efficacy in instructional strategies, and efficacy in classroom management.
22.214.171.124 Efficacy in Student Engagement
Student engagement has been defined as a construct that describes students’ motivation to take part in educational activities (Chapman, 2003). Teachers’ ability to affect student engagement and as a result student success can be considered their most important capability, as positive change in students and their success is the ultimate aim of education (Henson, Kogan, & Vacha-Hasse, 2001). Students who are not engaged are described as disaffected. Disaffected students are passive, refrain from trying hard, and surrender easily when facing challenges. They sometimes look bored, depressed, anxious, or even angry about their presence in the classroom (Chapman, 2003).
Milner (2002) stated desirable student outcomes as one of the results effected by teachers’ self-efficacy. Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003), too, found that among other constructs “self-efficacy is one that is key to promoting students’ engagement and learning” (p. 119). Bandura (1997) cited researches that concluded teachers with higher self-efficacy were more successful in engaging students and drawing them out in discussions.
126.96.36.199 Efficacy in Instructional Strategies
Bandura (1997) regards high sense of instructional efficacy an essential part of teacher self-efficacy, as it helps teachers believe that difficult students can be taught through additional effort and proper techniques. He believes that teachers with low sense of instructional efficacy think they can do little with unmotivated students. He states that teachers’ instructional efficacy supports expansion of students’ intrinsic interests and academic self-directedness (Bandura, 1995). According to Bandura (1997), “Teachers who have a high sense of instructional efficacy devote more classroom time to academic activities, provide students who encounter difficulties with the guidance they need to succeed, and praise their academic accomplishments” (p. 241).
Gibson and Dembo (1984) also believe strongly that teachers’ instructional efficacy fosters mastery experiences of their students, and teachers with low instructional efficacy create negative classroom environments that weaken students’ sense of efficacy and cognitive development.
Chambers and Hardy (2005) consider teachers with high sense of instructional efficacy able to experiment with new methods of instruction. According to them, such teachers inquire about improved teaching methods and experiment with instructional materials.
188.8.131.52 Efficacy in Classroom Management
Efficacy in classroom management is defined as “teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to maintain classroom order” (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000, p. 242). Lack of efficacy in classroom management is associated with teacher burnout (Milner, 2002; Brouwers & Tomic, 2000), which is “a psychological syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who work with other people in some capacity” (Maslach, 1993; cited in Brouwers & Tomic, 2000, p. 239).
Efficacy in classroom management might be considered more significant than the other two efficacy constructs (efficacy in student engagement and instructional strategies) as it affects the whole process of teaching and learning. If teachers fail to respond effectively to students when their behavior is disturbing, instructional time is lost for all students. “In a study of over 5,000 American and Canadian teachers, 63% reported student discipline problems as the most stressful factors in their work environment” (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000, p. 239).
Bandura (1997) believes that teachers with low efficacy in classroom management are often under stress and easily agitated by student misbehavior. They hold pessimistic views regarding students ability to improve, and in maintaining discipline resort to penalizing methods. Instead of focusing on students, such teachers pay more attention to the subject matter. If these teachers were given a choice, they would choose another job instead of teaching.
Cruz and Arias (2007) also report teachers with low efficacy in classroom management as holding a more pessimistic view of their students’ motivation, stating that such teachers use punishments in order to involve the students in the task. They report that new teachers’ efficacy in classroom management is generally lower compared to more experienced teachers.
Four sources have been postulated to be influential in shaping self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1977,1995,1998). The first one is enactive or mastery experience. It is the most powerful source of efficacy and is connected with people’s success or failure in doing a task. “Success builds a robust belief in ones’ personal efficacy. Failure undermine it, especially if failure occur before a sense of efficacy is firmly established (Bndura, 1998).Vicarious experience, as the second source of efficacy has to do with the fact that most people try to select models for themselves from among other person. In such case, the success of the chosen model enhance individuals’ sense of efficacy, especially when there are a lot of similarities between the individual and the selected model. The third source of efficacy is called social persuasion which refers to the verbal encouragement people receive from others. If the person who provides verbal persuasion is dependable, individual’s self-efficacy and pertain to peoples’ physical and affective condition during task completion.
When it comes to the academic setting, teacher self-efficacy refers to teachers’ judgment on their abilities to motivate students and improve their achievement. There are so many factors which may influence this psychological construct, but they can be classified under two broad categories; contextual and demographic
As for the first category, it is said that teacher self-efficacy is a kind of context-specific construct (Chacon, 2005)and is shaped whishing a particular environment. It is supposed to be affected by such factors as the principle’s support; they are more likely to have stronger self-efficacy beliefs (Deemer, 2004). In addition people who receive guidance from their colleagues feel more efficacious, regardless of whether it is in the form of supervision (Beudin, 1996).Also the class size may affect teacher efficacy as another contextual factor. For instance , Bejararo(2000)found that students’ gender has no effect on their teacher’s perceived efficacy. Tschannen and Moran discovered that teachers are more likely to be efficacious when they teach younger students.
To sum up, it might be inferred that the context, in which teachers work , including the principal, the colleagues and the students’ characteristics , can affect their self-efficacy beliefs to a great extent.
The literature seems murky as one tries to see the relation between teacher’s experience and their efficacy beliefs. Some of the researchers have come to conclusion that teaching experience has nothing to do with their efficacy level ( (Bejarano, 2000; Chacon, 2005; shaaban, 1999; Howell, 2006; Lee, 1991; Wallick, 2002).They concluded that as teachers enter the profession and gain more experience , their beliefs in their ability to control disturbing factors outside the classroom context known as general teaching efficacy(GTE),decreases, whereas their beliefs in their own ability to teach within the classroom context, called personal teaching efficacy (PTE) improves . Cruz and Arias (2007) attributed the higher GTE for prospective teachers to the support they receive from their tutors and also to the distance from real classroom situations. As these teachers enter the classroom and confront the harsh