and rude reality of everyday classroom life (Veenman, 1984)they discover that educational system is not the sole source for students’ behavior and they are affected by other environmental factors. As a result their GTE decreases in the course of time. However, these claims were questioned by Huang et al (2007) who discovered that both GTE and PTE were higher for experienced teachers. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007) and Chan (2008) attempted to find the difference between the efficacy of novice and experienced practicing teachers. They found that experienced teachers had significantly higher efficacy than their novice counterparts. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007) tried to explain this difference based on the sources of efficacy. More over they found that verbal persuasion significantly predicted novice teachers’ sense of efficacy because teachers who are struggling in their early years tend to lean heavily on the support of their colleagues. Experienced teachers, on the contrary were more likely to take advantage of the strongest source of efficacy.(mastery experience) since they have passed enough time in the career to experience success in their professional lives. As it seems there’s no general agreement on the relationship between teacher’s experience and their efficacy beliefs. (Moradkhani, 2007)another reasons might be that different researchers have utilized various instruments to measure teachers’ sense of efficacy. (Dembo, 1984)Moreover, they have followed different statistical procedures like Pearson product correlation (Chacon, 2005) or parametric tests (Hoy, 2007).yet another reason might be that they have had different cut-off points for dividing novice and experienced teachers (Chan, 2008) (Haung, 2007) . These problems are exacerbated within the realm of English teaching since it suffers from the scarcity of research in this regard.
2.2.3 Teacher Self-Efficacy Inventories
Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) listed major scales to measure teacher self-efficacy used by researchers. There were only four scales developed based on Rotter’s theory, none dated beyond 1982, and none enjoying wide acceptance. However, they listed nine scales, six of which developed based on the theory of locus of control and three based on Bandura’s theory (1977), some of which very popular, but almost all of which suffering from factor analysis problems (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). In this section, major instruments to measure teachers self-efficacy are introduced and the reasons for selecting one of them are rationalized.
184.108.40.206 The Ashton Vignettes
Ashton and her colleagues (Ashton, Buhr, & Crocker, 1984; cited in Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) developed a series of vignettes that described a situation that teaches might encounter, and asked them to judge how effective they could have been in handling the situations. The aim of developing the inventory was to state that self-efficacy was context specific. The inventory did not receive wide acceptance and only one research has been located that has employed the inventory (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Consequently, the inventory was not used in this research.
220.127.116.11 Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES)
In the early 1980s, Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed a Likert-type scale with 30 items, called Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) based on Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory. Each item was assessed on a scale of 6 points, ranging from “completely agree” to “completely disagree” with the item. Initial factor analysis showed the existence of two factors that made up 30% of the variance of the scores obtained (Cruz & Arias, 2007). Gibson and Dembo presumed that these factors corresponded to the two examples of expectancies identified in Bandura’s socio-cognitive theory: perceived self-efficacy and outcome expectations (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; Brouwers & Tomic, 2003). In Bandura’s theory, perceived self-efficacy “refers to a person’s specific conviction to manage the activities necessary for a specific task to be accomplished” (Cruz & Arias, 2007, p. 642), while “outcome expectation describes an individual’s estimation of the possible consequences of carrying out an action at the expected level of competence” (Cruz & Arias, 2007, p. 642). Consequently, Gibson and Dembo called the first factor “personal teacher efficacy”, which was identified with perceived self-efficacy. The second factor was called general teaching efficacy, considering that it corresponded with outcome expectations. “Subsequent studies have shown that some of the items included in the original study loaded both factors in such a way that various researchers have used a reduced version with 16 items” (Cruz & Arias, 2007, p. 643). According to Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001), “the lack of clarity about the meaning of the two factors and the instability of the factor structure make this instrument problematic for researchers” (p. 789).
Dellinger et al. (2008) state the shortcomings of TES as follows:
1. Lack of conceptualization of teacher efficacy or teacher self-efficacy that is firmly grounded in self-efficacy theory (see Dellinger, 2005; Pajares, 1992);
2. Various and discordant operational definitions of the construct including confusion with stable self-constructs such as self-esteem, locus of control, self-concept, and outcome expectancy (see Bandura, 1997, 1995b, 1993 ; Denzine et al., 2005 ; Pajares, 1992 ; Tschannen Moran et al., 1998);
3. Confounding of extraneous factors (see Brouwers & Tomic, 2003; Deemer & Minke, 1999; Guskey & Passaro, 1994);
4. Lack of consideration of specificity and generality of task behavior (see Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; Wheatley, 2005);
5. Failure to consider the context or situation specific nature of efficacy beliefs (see Deemer & Minke, 1999; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk, 2000; Pajares, 1992); and
6. Failure to conceptualize, measure, and analyze teacher self-efficacy in terms of the multidimensional task requirements of teaching (see Bandura, 1993, 1997; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). (p. 755)
Following their criticism on TES, they conclude that “newer, improved attempts to measure teacher efficacy, such as the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Mora n & Hoy, 2001) [TSES, see the following section] have addressed most of the issues listed above” (Dellinger et al., 2008, p. 755).
18.104.22.168 Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)
Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) developed their own self-efficacy scale and named it Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES). However, later they prefered the term teachers’ sense of efficacy to refer to Bandura’s self-efficacy (Shaughnessy, 2004), and accordingly, changed the name of their scale to Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES). The inventory has two versions: long form with 24 and short form with 12 items.
Tested on a sample of 410 male and female participants, including both pre-service and in-service teachers, factor analysis yielded in three moderately correlated factors: Efficacy in Student Engagement, Efficacy in Instructional Strategies, and Efficacy in Classroom Management. Regarding the construct validity of the inventory, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) report that it was positively related to the previously constructed self-efficacy inventories. The developers report an internal consistency reliability of a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .90 for overall reliability. In addition, the developers report an alpha of .81 for Efficacy in Student Engagement, .86 for Efficacy in Instructional Strategies, and .86 for Efficacy in Classroom Management.
Ever since its development, TSES has enjoyed profound acceptance among researchers and is becoming a standard instrument in the field of teacher education (Ross & Bruce, 2007). It is also used widely in the teacher education context in Iran (Rastegar & Memarpour, 2009; Moa?an & Ghanizadeh, 2009). Some of the researches employing the scale include Ross and Bruce (2007); Tsigilis, Grammatikopoulos, and Kouste
lios (2007); Poulou (2007); Cheung, (2006). In their study entitled “Professional Development Effects on Teacher Efficacy: Results of Randomized Field Trial”, Ross and Bruce (2007) state that:
We used the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale because it is becoming a standard instrument in the field and has had high reliability in previous administrations. Evidence shows concurrent validity with the Rand items and Gibson and Dembo (1984) scales …, and it is faithful to the prevailing conception of teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). (p. 53)
In this study, TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) was used to measure the participants’ self-efficacy. The questionnaire has been appended as Appendix A.
2.3 Reflective Teaching
Many educators believe that reflection is very hard to define, as different educators sometimes mean different things by reflection (Yayli, 2009; Akbari, Behzadpoor, & Dadvand, 2010; Farrell, 2004; Hatton & Smith, 1995). In the articles on different aspects of reflection that proliferate rapidly in the literature, many definitions have been proposed. The following definition, however, seems to be capturing the complexity of the concept more successfully:
Reflection is a process, both individual and collaborative, involving experience and uncertainty. It is comprised of identifying questions and key elements of a matter that has emerged as significant, then taking one’s thoughts into dialogue with oneself and with others. One evaluates insights gained from that process with reference to: (1) additional perspectives, (2) one’s own values, experiences, and beliefs, and (3) the larger context within which the questions are raised. Through reflection, one reaches newfound clarity, on which one bases changes in action or disposition. New questions naturally arise, and the process spirals onward. (Jay & Johnson, 2002, p.