sphericity and linearity. The assumption of normality was met. Table 4.2 presents the results.

Table 4.2

Univariate and Multivariate Normality Tests

Variable

Skewness

Critical

Value

Kurtosis

Critical

Value

Class Management

-.687

-7.450

-.042

-.227

Instructional Strategies

-.613

-6.649

.047

.255

Engagement

-.300

-3.250

-.457

-2.481

Critical

.238

2.577

.521

2.823

Metacognitive

-.479

-5.199

-.326

-1.767

Affective

-.089

-.964

-.447

-2.422

Cognitive

.213

2.315

-.485

-2.630

Practical

-.054

-.584

-.088

-.477

Multivariate (Mardia Test)

5.273

5.539

As displayed in Table 4.2 the values of skewness and kurtosis were lower than critical values. Moreover the multivariate normality was also met. The Mardia value of 5.27 was lower than its critical value. The assumption of linearity will be discussed when reporting the results of the Pearson product correlations and regression.

Having the assumptions checked and met, the researcher embarked on testing the null hypotheses of the study employing a series of correlational and regression analyses which will follow.

4.5 The First Null Hypothesis

The first null hypothesis of the study stated that, there is no significant relationship between EFL teachers’ reflection and their self- efficacy.

As the data was normally distributed, the Pearson product correlation was run, as shown in Table 4.3

Table 4.3

Pearson product correlation; Reflection with Self-Efficacy

Reflection

Self-Efficacy

Pearson product correlation

.403**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

706

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The results indicated that there was a significant relationship between EFL teachers’ reflection and their self- efficacy (r (704) = .403, p .05). The correlation index represented a moderate to large effect size. Thus the third null-hypothesis of the study was rejected.

Figure 4.1 shows the Scatter Plot which probes the assumptions of linearity and sphericity. The assumption of linearity was met because the spread of dots did not show a rising-and-falling pattern. The spread of dots did not show a funnel shape, i.e. narrow at one end and wide on the other end. Thus it can be concluded that the sphericity assumption was also met.

Figure 4.1 Reflection with Self-Efficacy

4.6 The Second Null Hypothesis

The second null hypothesis of the study stated that there is no significant relationship between novice EFL teachers’ reflection and their self- efficacy.

The results of the Pearson product correlations (Table 4.4) indicated that there was a significant relationship between novice EFL teachers’ reflection and their self- efficacy (r (321) =.419, p .05, it represented a moderate to large effect size. Thus the second null-hypothesis was rejected.

Table 4.4

Pearson product correlation; Reflection with Self-Efficacy (Novice Teachers)

Reflection

Self-Efficacy

Pearson product correlation

.419**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

323

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Figure 4.2 probes the assumptions of linearity and sphericity. The assumption of linearity was met because the spread of dots did not show a rising-and-falling pattern. The spread of dots did not show a funnel shape, i.e. narrow at one end and wide on the other end. Thus it can be concluded that the sphericity assumption was also met.

Figure 4.2 Reflection with Self-Efficacy (Novice Teachers)

4.7 The Third Null Hypothesis

The third null hypothesis of the study stated that there is no significant relationship between experienced EFL teachers’ reflection and their self- efficacy.

The results of the Pearson product correlations (Table 4.5) indicated that there was a significant relationship between experienced EFL teachers’ reflection and their self- efficacy (r (381) = .398, p .05, it represented a moderate to large effect size. Thus the third null-hypothesis was rejected.

Table 4.5

Pearson product correlation; Reflection with Self-Efficacy (Experienced Teachers)

Reflection

Self-Efficacy

Pearson product correlation

.398**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

383

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Fig 4.3 probes the assumptions of linearity and sphericity. The assumption of linearity was met because the spread of dots did not show a rising-and-falling pattern. The spread of dots did not show a funnel shape, i.e. narrow at one end and wide on the other end. Thus it can be concluded that the sphericity assumption was also met.

Figure 4.3: Reflection with Self-Efficacy (Experienced Teachers)

4.8 The Fourth Null Hypothesis

The fourth null hypothesis of the study stated there is no significant relationship among the components of reflection and self-efficacy of EFL teachers.

Table 4.6 displays the relationships between the components of reflection and self-efficacy of EFL teachers.

Table 4.6

Pearson product correlation; Components of Reflection with Self-Efficacy

Self-Efficacy

Practical

Pearson product correlation

.271**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

706

Cognitive

Pearson product correlation

.372**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

706

Affective

Pearson product correlation

.281**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

706

Metacognitive

Pearson product correlation

.350**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

706

Critical

Pearson product correlation

.108**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.004

N

706

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Based on these results it was proved that:

a) Self-efficacy had an almost moderate and significant relationship with practical component of reflection (R (704) = .27, p .05, it represented an almost moderate effect size.

b) Self-efficacy had a moderate and significant relationship with cognitive component of reflection (R (704) = .37, p .05, it represented a moderate effect size.

c) Self-efficacy had an almost moderate and significant relationship with affective component of reflection (R (704) = .28, p .05, it represented an almost moderate effect size.

d) Self-efficacy had a moderate and significant relationship with meta-cognitive component of reflection (R (704) = .35, p .05, it represented a moderate effect size.

e) Self-efficacy had a weak but significant relationship with critical component of reflection (R (704) = .10, p .05, it represented a weak effect size.

Figure 4.4 displays the relationships between the components of reflection and self-efficacy. The vertical spread of dots indicates that any given score on components of reflection corresponds with majority scores on self-efficacy; hence violation of the assumptions of linearity and sphericity. These results suggested that the significant relationships displayed in Table 5 were due to the large sample size. Thus it can be claimed that the fourth null-hypothesis could not be rejected.

Figure 4.4 Components of Reflection with Self-Efficacy

4.9 The Fifth Null Hypothesis

The fifth null hypothesis of the study stated that there is no significant relationship among the components of reflection and self-efficacy of novice EFL teachers.

Table 4.7 displays the relationships between the components of reflection and self-e

fficacy of novice EFL teachers.

Table 4.7

Pearson product correlation; Components of Reflection with Self-Efficacy (Novice Teachers)

Self-Efficacy

Practical

Pearson product correlation

.253**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

323

Cognitive

Pearson product correlation

.369**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

323

Affective

Pearson product correlation

.338**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

323

Metacognitive

Pearson product correlation

.379**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N

323

Critical

Pearson product correlation

.115*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.039

N

323

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Based on these results it can be concluded that:

a) Self-efficacy had an almost moderate and significant relationship with practical component of reflection (R (321) = .25, P .05, it represented an almost moderate effect size.

b) Self-efficacy had a moderate and significant relationship with cognitive component of reflection (R (321) = .36, P .05, it represented a moderate effect size.

c) Self-efficacy had a moderate and significant relationship with affective component of reflection (R (321) = .33, P .05, it represented a moderate effect size.

d) Self-efficacy had a moderate and significant relationship with metacognitive component of reflection (R (321) = .37, P .05, it represented a moderate effect size.

e) Self-efficacy had a weak but significant relationship with critical component of reflection (R (321) = .11, P .05, it represented a weak effect size.

Figure 4.5displays the relationships between the components of reflection and self-efficacy for the novice teachers. The vertical spread of dots indicates that any given score on components of reflection corresponds with majority scores on self-efficacy; hence violation of the assumptions of linearity and sphericity. These results suggested that the significant relationships displayed in Table 4.6 were due to the large sample size. Thus it can be claimed that the fifth null-hypothesis was supported.

Figure 4.5 Components of Reflection with Self-Efficacy (Novice Teachers)

4.10 The Sixth Null Hypothesis

The sixth null hypothesis of the study stated that there is no significant relationship among the components of reflection and self-efficacy of experienced EFL teachers.

Table 4.8 displays the relationships between the components of reflection and self-efficacy of experienced EFL teachers.

Table 4.8

Pearson product correlation; Components of Reflection with Self-Efficacy (Experienced Teachers)

Self-Efficacy

Practical

Pearson product correlation

.276**

Sig.

متن کامل پایان نامه ها در 40y.ir