World Applied Sciences Journal 14 (Learning Innovation and Intervention for Diverse Learners): 28-33, 2011
ISSN 1818-4952
© IDOSI Publications, 2011
Teaching Efficacy among College Student-Teachers of Diverse Background
1
Syed Mohammad Syed Abdullah, 1Ahmad Zamri Khairani, 1Nordin Abd. Razak,
1
Jamalsafri Saibon and 2Azlinda Mohd. Ariff
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia
2
Centre of Excellence for Education and Learner Diversity, Faculty of Education,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
1
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to investigate teaching efficacy among a group of college studentteachers. Data were collected using a 12-item questionnaire with a sample size of 442 student-teachers.
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the degree of teaching efficacy, while differences among relevant
groups were analyzed using an independent sample t-test and ANOVA. The use of bivariate correlations
enables the study to explore the relationship between teaching efficacy, cumulative grade point average (CGPA)
and teaching practice grades. Findings indicate that the majority of respondents have a high level of teaching
efficacy. Most student-teachers are efficacious in instructional strategies followed by in student engagement
and classroom management. Student-teachers who enter through diploma qualification have shown
significantly higher teaching efficacy compared to matriculation or STPM holders. The study reports no
significant gender difference in teaching efficacy. Contrary to popular belief, CGPA, not teaching efficacy, is
significantly correlated with teaching practice grades. Several implications, as well as suggestions for future
research, are also discussed.
Key words: Student-teachers
Teaching efficacy
Classroom management
INTRODUCTION
Student engagement
capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student
engagement and learning, even among those students
who may be difficult or unmotivated [5]. Through
literature, the construct has established itself as highly
important. Teaching efficacy is a predictor of variables
such as student motivation [6] teaching commitment [7,8].
Highly efficacious teacher are more likely to use studentcentered learning strategies, while teachers with low
efficacy tend to use teacher-centered strategies [9,10].
Seminal reviews on the impact of teaching efficacy by
[11,13], have reported that teachers with high efficacy are
(1) more likely to get involved in teaching; (2) express
satisfaction with the profession; (3) produce greater
effort and motivation; (4) take on extra roles in school;
and (4) show more likely to be retained. Therefore, one
might speculate that these positive impacts may lead to
higher student achievement as documented by [14].
Investigations pertinent to teaching efficacy of studentteachers are important based on two foundations. Firstly,
teaching efficacy is also related to many variables in
The teacher education program is an important stage
in teacher development since it provides student-teachers
with knowledge of their subject matters, as well as equips
them with pedagogical knowledge Teacher education
revolves around issues including course content and
structure and the appropriate use of instructional
strategies. Literature also suggests the need to address
teaching belief, or what it means to teach [1]. Teaching
beliefs are important variable that influence instructional
practice [2]. However, a major difficulty in the study of
beliefs is related to its broad and multifaceted definition.
Various aspects of teaching beliefs have been discussed,
including opinions, attitudes, preconceptions, personal
epistemologies, perspectives, conceptions, principles of
practice and orientations as well as motivation, selfconcept and self-esteem [3,4].
One of the most widely discussed construct of beliefs
is teacher efficacy, or the judgment of his or her
Corresponding Author:
Instructional strategies
Syed Mohamad Syed Abdullah, School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden,
Penang, Malaysia. Tel: +60193710005, E-mail: syedmohamad@usm.my.
28
World Appl. Sci. J., 14 (Learning Innovation and Intervention for Diverse Learners): 28-33, 2011
education. Teachers' efficacy correlates with both
an increased level of job satisfaction [15] and
burnout [16,17] Secondly, as mentioned by Bandura [5]
and later by [18], teaching efficacy beliefs are easily
established at early stages of the teacher training
program. When a set of beliefs has been developed
from the initial experiences, conceptions, opinions and
perspectives, they are quite permanent and difficult to
change [19].
A considerable amount of studies have been done to
investigate the development of teaching efficacy among
student-teachers [20,22]. Nevertheless, in Malaysia,
research on teaching efficacy of student-teachers is at a
relatively early stage. In line with the increasing number
of prospective teachers, assessment of teaching efficacy
among student-teachers would provide necessary input
towards providing meaningful teacher education
programs that in turn, enhance the quality of new
teachers. Hence, the purpose of this exploratory study is
to investigate the level of teaching efficacy among
student-teachers at Universiti Sains Malaysia. More
specifically, the objectives of the study are to: 1) assess
the level of teaching efficacy among the student-teachers;
2) explain relationships as well as differences in personal
factors such as gender, entry background and program
enrolled with teaching efficacy; and 3) examine
relationships between teaching efficacy and achievement.
Table 1: Distribution of Participants according to Programs
Program
Frequency
Percentage
Special Education
16
3.6
Education (Science)
24
5.4
Education (Arts)
27
6.1
Preschool Education
31
7.0
Education
45
10.2
Diploma in Education
51
11.6
Arts (Education)
109
24.7
Science (Education)
139
31.4
442
100.0
Bachelor of Education [Preschool] with Honors
(Preschool
Education), Bachelor of Education
[Special Education] with Honors (Special Education),
Bachelor of Education [TESOL] with Honors (Education)
and the Graduate Diploma in Education (Diploma in
Education).
Instrument: A structured questionnaire adapted from [10]
is employed to collect information on the teaching
efficacy of the student-teachers at the 10th to 12th week of
their teaching practice. The questionnaire consists of 12
items measuring 3 teaching efficacy sub-constructs,
namely the efficacy in classroom management (4 items),
students’ engagement (5 items) and instructional
strategies (3 items). However, Item 4 (students’
engagement) is found to have a negative item-total
correlation and was thus dropped from further analyses.
Overall, internal consistency estimated for the instrument
is = 0.78.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research Design: Based on the objectives, the study
adopted a quantitative research paradigm using 4-point
Likert-scale survey method to gauge student-teachers’
response towards teaching efficacy construct. The design
provides meaningful analysis of the response since
comparable information from everyone taking the survey
is ensured.
Data Analysis: The present study employed both
descriptive and inferential statistics. Mean and standard
deviation were used to describe level of overall teaching
efficacy as well as the sub-constructs. The inferential
statistics, namely, independent sample t-test and analysis
of variance (ANOVA) were employed to determine
difference between related groups mentioned in the
finding section. In addition, bivariate correlations were
calculated to explore the relationship between teaching
efficacy and academic achievement.
Sample: Of the 723 student-teachers who underwent the
teaching practice, a total of 442 (61.13%) student-teachers
(male = 79, female = 363) from the School of Educational
Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia were sampled. As
depicted in Table 1 below, the student-teachers embark in
8 different programs, namely the Bachelor of Education
(Science) with Honors [B. Ed. (Hons)] [Education
(Science)], Bachelor of Education (Arts) with Honors [B.
Ed. (Hons)] [Education (Arts)], Bachelor of Arts
(Education) with Honors [B. A. (Ed.) (Hons.)] [Arts
(Education)], Bachelor of Science (Education) with
Honors [B. Sc. (Ed.) Hons.)] [Science (Education)],
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Teaching Efficacy Levels of the Participants: In
general, the student-teachers have shown a high level of
teaching efficacy (M = 3.02, SD = 0.32). The finding is in
line with previous studies conducted by and [23] and [19].
[24] responds to this by suggesting two possible reasons.
29
World Appl. Sci. J., 14 (Learning Innovation and Intervention for Diverse Learners): 28-33, 2011
Table 2: Teaching Efficacy Sub-constructs
Item No.
3
1
8
5
9
2
12
6
10
11
7
Sub-construct/Item
Mean
SD
Classroom Management
Control class discipline
Able to handle the most difficult students
Ensure smoothness of class activities
Make expectations clear to students
Student Engagement
Inculcate values among students
Help students to think critically
Foster students’ creativity
Bring out the best in students
Instructional Strategies
Measure students’ comprehension of what has been taught
Construct good questions to student
Deal with difficult questions from students
2.91
2.44
2.97
3.08
3.15
3.01
2.61
3.13
3.18
3.29
3.14
3.08
3.11
3.22
0.40
0.81
0.55
0.59
0.56
0.37
0.68
0.47
0.51
0.50
0.39
0.45
0.46
0.55
Fig. 1: Teaching Efficacy across Programs
The student-teachers may already feel efficacious and
their experiences during the teaching practice serve as a
confirmation about their ability to teach. However, it is
also possible that the student-teachers may have inflated
their ability to teach. Their efficacy remains inflated over
time during the period of teaching practice because of the
support they receive from their colleagues, lecturers or
cooperating teachers. However, it is also important to
note that when support wanes and real teaching begins,
the teaching efficacy is on the decline [20, 19]. Teachers
may start to believe that they no longer have control over
their students’ learning [25].
With regards to the sub-construct, the studentteachers were most efficacious where instructional
strategies are concerned (M = 3.14, SD = 0.39) followed by
students’ engagement (M = 3.01, SD = 0.37). Their level of
teaching efficacy shows the lowest in the domain of
classroom management (M = 2.91, SD = 0.40). The
findings show some similarities as well as differences from
a local study conducted by [26] on Science studentteachers. They have calibrated the sub-constructs (in
descending order) as student engagement, instructional
strategies and classroom management. For comparison, a
study by [27] on Art student-teachers has reported a
distinct instructional strategies-classroom managementstudent engagement pattern. The inconclusive results
provide more evidence of teaching efficacy as a situationspecific, as well as cultural-specific, construct.
Teaching Efficacy Across Programs: Throughout the
different programs, as depicted in Figure 1 below, the
majority of trainees followed the instructional strategies30
World Appl. Sci. J., 14 (Learning Innovation and Intervention for Diverse Learners): 28-33, 2011
student engagement-classroom management pattern
found in this study, except for those in the programs of
Preschool Education (student engagement-instructional
strategies-classroom management) and Special Education
(student
engagement-classroom
managementinstructional strategies). Since they are involved with
totally different students from those handled by studentteachers from other undergraduates programs, the
findings have opened valuable opportunities for
researchers to explore more on the teaching efficacy of
trainees enrolling in these programs. In addition, more
information can also be sought from the Special Education
student-teachers since they have a very high level of
teaching efficacy when dealing with less fortunate and
less-able students.
Meanwhile, the student-teachers of the Diploma of
Education program have displayed the highest level of
teaching efficacy as compared to those from other
programs. This is not unexpected because unlike those
from other programs, all the student-teachers are degree
holders specializing in specific subjects. Hence, they may
feel more competent and confident enough to teach at
school level.
The ANOVA is used to investigate the difference in
teaching efficacy across programs and entry background.
The results show that there is a significant difference in
the overall teaching efficacy across programs, (F(7, 434)
= 3.813, p < 0.05). The post-hoc analysis using Dunnett’s
T3 shows that the significant differences are between (1)
Diploma in Education-Preschool Education, (2) Diploma in
Education-Arts (Education) and (3) Arts (Education)Special Education.
significant difference in teaching efficacy between male
(M = 33.49, SD = 4.14) and female (M = 33.26, SD = 3.40)
student-teachers, t (440) = 0.464, p = 0.643. The results
suggest an agreement with previous studies by [28, 29] as
well as [30]. From the findings, it can also be concluded
that both male and female student-teachers have strong
beliefs on teaching efficacy, thus they have developed
confidence in their ability to influence their students’
learning. The finding is consistent with work by [24] that
student-teachers tend to feel positive about their teaching
experiences. As documented by [31], the majority of the
student-teachers understand that they are capable of their
own actions and therefore, believe strongly in their
efficacy in influencing learning.
With regards to achievement, the study shows that
the female student-teachers have scored a significantly
higher teaching practice grade as compared to their male
counterparts. Culture may well be the reason behind the
finding since in Malaysia, just like many other countries,
teaching has been stereotyped as a profession for females
while their male counterparts have always been viewed as
pursuing technical jobs like engineering or architecture. It
is worth pointing out then that the belief system in the
teaching profession is very much influenced by this
gender stereotype. Female student-teachers tend to be
more comfortable with the job and therefore are more able
to carry out their work fluently. In contrast, during the
teaching practice, male student-teachers may find
themselves in an environment dominated by female
teachers and this may affects their true performance.
Teaching Efficacy and Academic Achievement: Bivariate
correlations are employed to estimate the relationship
between teaching efficacy, teaching practice grade and
CGPA. It is found that female student-teachers perform
significantly better than their male counterparts during the
teaching practice. In addition, even though both CGPA
and teaching practice grades are significantly correlated
(r = 0.269, p = 0.50), no significant relationship is found
between the teaching practice grade and teaching efficacy
(r = -0.036, p =.50) and between CGPA and teaching
efficacy (r = -0.057, p = 0.50). The result is consistent with
the study carried out by [28] involving Turkish
Mathematics student-teachers.
Teaching Efficacy and Entry Background: With regards
to the entry background, the ANOVA shows that there is
a significant difference in teaching efficacy according to
entry background [F (3, 438) = 4.631, p < 0.05)]. The
Diploma of Education student-teachers exhibited
significantly better teaching efficacy as opposed to their
counterparts who undergo matriculation, STPM or
diploma. There is no difference nevertheless, between
student-teachers who enter the teaching programs using
degree or diploma. Similarly, there has been no difference
among the trainees who have undergone matriculation,
STPM or diploma. An additional investigation using the
regression analysis has exhibited that entry background
is a significant predictor to the teaching efficacy score.
CONCLUSION
Results from the present study have highlighted
that the level of teaching efficacy among student-teachers
in Universiti Sains Malaysia is remarkably high.
Teaching Efficacy and Gender Difference: Results from
the independent sample t-test shows that there is no
31
World Appl. Sci. J., 14 (Learning Innovation and Intervention for Diverse Learners): 28-33, 2011
They were most efficacious in instructional strategies
followed by the way they engage the students and in the
aspect of classroom management. The teaching efficacy
score does not vary significantly across the teacher
education programs offered by the university, except
between the Diploma in Education and Preschool
Education, Diploma in Education and Arts (Education) as
well as Arts (Education) and Special Education. The study
also reports that there is a significant difference in
teaching efficacy with respect to student-teachers’ entry
background, in which degree holders have been proven
to be more efficacious compared to the non-degree
holders. There is also a significant difference reported
between arts and science student-teachers. With respect
to gender difference, no significant difference in teaching
efficacy is found between male and female studentteachers. In addition, their cumulative grade point average
is found to be a significant predictor to student-teachers’
performance during their teaching practice, instead of the
teaching efficacy.
This study implies that although the participants
came from diversified backgrounds, the teacher education
program at the Universiti Sains Malaysia is able to
enhance teaching efficacy among its undergraduates.
This is indeed a positive sign that the teacher education
program is on the right track to producing capable and
competent teachers that are ready to teach. Nevertheless,
this study also shows that the female student-teachers
perform better than their male counterparts albeit having
the same efficacy. This observation is essential since the
stereotyping of teaching as a female-dominated
profession experienced in teaching practice is most likely
to be the reality when they enter real teaching. It seems
that male student-teachers have to equip themselves with
other knowledge, skills or abilities in order to compete
with female student-teachers. Therefore, the present
study suggests future research to identifying aspects that
would enable male student-teachers to have more
confidence in their teaching.
Another important implication from the findings is
that student-teachers who have good grades in a
particular subject matter will be more likely to obtain good
grades in their classroom performance, whether he or she
is efficacious otherwise. The additional regression
analysis also exhibits the fact that the cumulative grade
point average is a significant predictor of the teaching
practice grade. Teaching efficacy, meanwhile, is not a
significant predictor. The present study has therefore
provided evidence that a good grasp of the subject matter
is more important than teaching efficacy for classroom
performance. The paper concludes that although the
study has provided some valuable information on
student-teachers’ teaching efficacy in Malaysia, further
studies are suggested enhance the understanding on how
student-teachers see themselves as teachers and how this
view influences them.
REFERENCES
1.
Wilke, R., 2004. How content area influences choice
of instructional methods: an examination of one
component of preservice teacher belief. Unpublished
master’s thesis, the Florida State University,
College of Education, USA.
2. Stuart, C. and D. Thurlow, 2000. Making it their own:
Preservice teachers' experiences, beliefs and
classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education,
51(2): 113-121.
3. Kagan, D.M., 1992. Implications of research on
teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1): 65-90.
4. Pajares, M.F., 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and
educational research: cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62(3): 307-333.
5. Bandura, A., 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of
control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
6. Herman, P., J.L. Meece and B. McCombs, 2000.
April. Teacher experience and teacher efficacy.
Relations to student motivation and achievement.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American
Educational research Association,
New Orleans.
7. Darling-Hammond, L., R. Chung and F. Frelow, 2002.
Variation in teacher preparation: How well do
different pathways prepare teachers to teach?
Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4): 286-302.
8. Johnson, S.M. and S.E. Birkeland, 2003. Pursuing a
“sense of success”: New teachers explain their carrer
decisions. American Education Research Journal,
40(3): 582-617.
9. Kaufman, S.E.R. and B.E. Sawyer, 2004. Primarygrade teachers’ self-efficacy, beliefs, attitudes
towards teaching and discipline and teaching
practice priorities in relation to the responsive
classroom approach. The Elementary School
Journal, 104(4): 321-341.
10. Tschannen-Moran, M. and A. Woolfolk Hoy, 2001.
Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7): 783-805.
32
World Appl. Sci. J., 14 (Learning Innovation and Intervention for Diverse Learners): 28-33, 2011
11. Goddard, R.G., W.K. Hoy and A. Woolfolk Hoy,
2000. Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure and impact on student achievement.
American
Educational
Research
Journal,
37(2): 479-508.
12. Labone, E., 2004. Teacher efficacy: Maturing the
construct
through research in alternative
paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education,
20(4): 341-359.
13. Wheatley, K.F., 2005. The case for reconceptualizing
teacher efficacy research. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21(7): 747-766.
14. Pajares, M.F. and
D.
Schunk,
2001.
Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy,
self-concept and school achievement. In R. Riding
and S. Rayner (Eds.), Perception pp: 239-266.
London: Ablex Publishing.
15. Caprara, G.V., C. Barbaranelli, L. Borgogni and
P. Steca, 2003. Efficacy beliefs as determinants of
teachers' job satisfaction. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95(4): 821-832.
16. Evers, W.J.G., A. Brouwers and W. Tomic, 2002.
Burnout and self-efficacy: a study on teachers'
beliefs when implementing an innovative educational
system in the Netherlands. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 72(2): 227-243.
17. Skaalvik, E.M. and S. Skaalvik, 2007. Dimensions of
teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors,
perceived collective teacher efficacy and teacher
burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99(3): 611-625.
18. Hoy, W.A., 2004. Self-efficacy in college
teaching. Essays on Teaching Excellence: Toward
the Best in the Academy. Fort Collins, CO: The POD
Network.
19. Hoy, W.A. and R.B. Spero, 2005. Changes in
teacher-efficacy during the early years of teaching:
A comparison of four measures. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21(4): 343-356.
20. Cantrell, P., S. Young and A. Moore, 2003.
Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of
preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 14(3): 177-192.
21. Lin, H. and J. Gorell, 2001. Explarotary analysis of
pre-service teachers in Taiwan. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17(5): 623-635.
22. Plourde, L.A., 2002. The influence of student
teaching on preservice elementary teachers' science
self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(4): 245-253.
23. Fortman, C.K. and R. Pontius, 2000. Self-efficacy
during student teaching. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational
Research Association, IL. Chicago.
24. Klobloch, N.A., 2006. Exploring relationship of
teachers’ sense of efficacy in two student teaching
programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(2):
36-47.
25. Ghaith, G. and H. Yaghi, 1997. Relationships among
experience, teacher efficacy and attitudes toward the
implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 13(4): 451-458.
26. Abdul Rahim, B., K. Mohd Majid, J. Rashidi and N.
Lyndon, 2008. Teaching efficacy of Universiti Putra
Malaysia science student-teachers. College Student
Journal, 42(2): 493-508.
27. Garvis, S., 2009. Improving the teaching of the arts:
Pre-service teacher self-efficacy towards arts
education. US-China Education Review, 6(12): 23-28.
28. Cakiroglu, E., 2005. Teacher efficacy and academic
performance. Academic Exchange Quarterly.
Retrieved June 24, 2010 from http://thefreelibrary.
com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=14263686.
29. Main, S. and L. Hammond, 2008. Best Practice or
Most Practiced? Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about
effective behaviour management strategies and
reported self-efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 33(4): 28-39.
30. Tejeda-Delgado, M.D.C., 2009. Teacher efficacy,
tolerance, gender and years of experience and special
education referrals. International Journal of Special
Education, 24(1): 112-119.
31. Bourdoncle, R. and A. Robert, 2000. Primary and
secondary school teachers in France: Changes in
identities and professionalization. Journal of
Education Policy, 15(1): 71-81.
33