How Efficacious are They? A Study of Malaysian Novice Vocational
Teachers Sense of Efficacy
Ab. Rahim Bakar
Faculty of Educational Studies, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
abrahimbakar@yahoo.com
Shamsiah Mohamed
Faculty of Science, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
shamsiah@yahoo.com
Noor Syamilah Zakaria
Faculty of Educational Studies, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
noorsyamilah@gmail.com
Abstract: The purpose of this investigation was to determine, by way of Teacher SelfEfficacy Scale (TSES), Malaysian vocational novice teachers’ sense of efficacy in terms of
student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management. The participants of
the study were 95 vocational teachers with no more than three years of experience. Findings
indicated that the majority of the respondents had a high level of perceived efficacy (M=3.84,
SD. = 0.44). They were highly efficacious in terms of student engagement (M= 3.76, S.D=
0.74), instructional strategies (M= 3.92, S.D= 0. 44), classroom management (M=3.85, S.D=
0. 59). Novice teachers’ attitude toward teaching profession was moderate (M= 3.38, S.D=
0.26). The finding indicates a significant correlation between teaching efficacy and teachers’
attitudes (r=.319, p<.05). A significant correlation was also found between age and efficacy
(r=0.35, p=.001). No significant correlation was found between gender and efficacy (r pb= .165, p=0.11) and decision to choose teaching as profession (r=.088, p=0.47).
Introduction
Santano, Reid, Mayer, and Singh (2012) asserted that ‘quality’ education is dependent on teachers –
the single most important school-based factor in students’ success. The quality of teachers plays a significant
role in influencing and predicting student’s academic achievement (Owings et al., 2006). High quality
teaching is not dependent on teachers’ content knowledge alone, but also on what teachers do in the
classroom, as well as the confidence with which they do it. In short, they must be efficacious in their
teaching. Efficacy is their belief of what they can do (Bandura, 2007), an expression of confidence in doing a
specific task. Bandura (1997) opined that efficacy beliefs are difficult to change once they are formed. Thus,
knowing teachers’ efficacy beliefs at an early stage, during the formative years in the profession can enable
supervisors and mentors to help develop their self-efficacy and assist them in becoming better teachers.
Studies have shown a strong correlation between teachers’ sense of efficacy, students’ achievement and
teacher retention. Caprara et al. (2006) found that teachers’ sense of efficacy is associated with job
commitment and job satisfaction. Betoret (2006) confirmed this, showing that teachers with low self-efficacy
face greater difficulty in teaching and higher level of stress, which can lead to poor rapport with students and
lower levels of effectiveness (Abel & Sewel, 1999; Kokkinos, 2007). Research by Klassen et al. (2009) and
Skaalvaik & Skaalavik (2007, 2010) showed that teachers with low self-efficacy were less satisfied with their
jobs and suffered higher rates of burnout, which directly and negatively impacts motivation and job
performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton 2001; Hakanen et al., 2006; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007).
Ebmeier (2003) and Bogler & Somech (2004) found that a higher sense of efficacy was a significant
predictor of higher job commitment, which leads to greater engagement in the school organization (Somech
and Bogler, 2002). Thus, high self-efficacy is crucial in ensuring that teachers do a better job in educating
students.
Objectives of the study
This study aimed to determine the sense of efficacy of novice Malaysian vocational teachers and the
relationship between efficacy beliefs, gender, and attitudes toward teaching profession.
Methodology
Sample and sampling
We adopted a descriptive correlation research method for the study. To solicit data, we mailed
questionnaires to a randomly selected sample of 546 novice secondary school teachers. For the purpose of
this paper, we extracted the 95 teachers who teach vocational and technical subjects. Male teachers
comprised 40% (n=38) and female teachers comprised 60% (n=57) of the sample. Their ages ranged between
23 and 36 years (Mean= 27.71 years; SD. =3.03).
Instrumentation
Novice teachers’ confidences in executing instructional tasks were assessed using Teacher Sense of
Efficacy Scale (TSES) by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001). It consists of 24 items, assessed
along a 9-point continuum, as most studies on teachers’ sense of efficacy. However, to ensure a higher
response rate, we used a 5-point continuum, similar to Poulo (2007), Guo et al. (2011), and Bakar et al.
(2008). The scale includes 8 items for efficacy for instructional strategies, 8 items for efficacy for classroom
management, and 8 items for efficacy for student engagement. The reliability estimate of the full scale was
0.94.
Findings
Results showed that the total mean value for teaching efficacy of Malaysian novice teachers was high
(Mean = 3.84; SD = 0.44). Specifically, teachers held high efficacy beliefs in terms of student engagement
(Mean = 3.82; SD = 0.478), instructional strategies (Mean = 3.94; SD = 0.44), and classroom management
(Mean = 3.86; SD = 0.61) (see Table 1). Also, the teachers’ attitude toward the teaching profession was
moderate (Mean=3.38; SD = 0.29), indicating a significant correlation between teaching efficacy and
teachers’ attitude toward the profession (r = .319, p < .05). A significant correlation was also found between
age and efficacy (r=0.35, p=.001). No significant correlation was found between gender and efficacy (r pb= .165, p=0.11).
Table 1: Means and standard deviations of teacher sense of efficacy
Items of scale
General efficacy
Student engagement
How confident are you to get through to the most difficult students
How confident are you to help students think critically
How confident are you to motivate students who show low interest in
school work
How confident are you to get students to believe they can do well in
Mean
3.84
3.76
3.70
3.78
3.84
SD.
.44
.45
.73
.69
.72
3.72
.77
school work
How confident are you to help your students value learning
How confident are you to foster student creativity
How confident are you to improve the understanding of a student who is
failing
How confident are you to assist families in helping their children do well
in school
Instructional strategy
How confident are you to respond to difficult questions from your
students
How confident are you to gauge student comprehension of what you
have taught
How confident are you to craft good question for your students
How confident are you to adjust your lessons to the proper level for
individual student
How confident are you to use a variety of assessment strategies
How confident are you to provide an alternative explanation or an
example when students are confused
How confident are you to implement alternative strategies in your
classroom
How confident are you to provide appropriate challenges for very
capable students
Classroom management
How confident are you to control disruptive behaviour in the classroom
How confident are you to make your expectations clear about student
behavior
How confident are you to establish routines to keep activities running
smoothly
How confident are you to get children to follow classroom rules
How confident are you to establish a classroom management system
with each group of student
How confident are you to calm a student who is disruptive and noisy
How confident are you to keep few problem students from ruining an
entire lesson
How confident are you to respond to defiant student
3.87
3.83
3.85
.53
.72
.61
3.46
.78
3.92
4.00
.44
.68
3.99
.52
3.96
3.86
.62
.59
3.70
4.05
.69
.59
3.87
.62
3.97
.66
3.85
3.91
3.83
.59
.69
.71
3.84
.72
3.93
3.99
.70
.76
3.81
3.87
.69
.75
3.64
.80
Scale: 1 (not at all confident) to 5 (highly confident)
Discussion and conclusion
Ryan and Cooper (2010) noted that each year, new teachers walk into their classrooms with energy,
high hopes, and rose-colored glasses, only to face unexpected problems that cause them to give up on
teaching or radically lower their perceptions of their capabilities as teachers. They are faced with
expectations which they are not able to handle, not because they do not have the skills and knowledge, but
because they lack the confidence required of them.
Our study showed that novice vocational teachers in Malaysia have the confidence to face the
challenges of teaching. Additionally, teachers’ age was related to teacher efficacy, but their year of teaching
experiences was not linked to efficacy beliefs. This could be due to their level of maturity, whereby a more
mature teacher felt more confident in performing the teaching tasks. The non-existence of correlation
between experience and efficacy contradict the findings of many studies, but may be a result of the fact that
we focused on novice teachers and our sample offered very limited variance in terms of teaching experience.
The first years of teaching are important for the development of teacher efficacy (Woolfolk Hoy and Spero,
2005) and are critical to the long development of self-confidence. As noted by de la Torre Crus and Arias
(2007), experienced teachers had a higher impression of self-efficacy than prospective teachers. And Cheung
(2008) and Yeo et al. (2008) both showed a correlation between teaching experience and teacher efficacy.
We know that once new teachers enter teaching profession, they are given a full load of responsibilities
similar to experienced teachers. They are expected to be fully operational on the first day of teaching, but
administrators should realize that they need guidance and support from experienced teachers. Teachers’
confidence has to be developed very early in their career; if possible, even prior to entering the teaching
profession. Although the present study showed that beginning teachers held high self-efficacy beliefs, there is
still room for improvement. As noted by Friedman and Kass (2002) teacher effectiveness is in part
determined by teacher efficacy, thus teachers need to be guided and coached to improve their levels of
efficacy throughout their teaching career.
Another important aspect highlighted by our research is the correlation beterrn teachers’ attitudes
toward the teaching profession and their sense of efficacy. Teachers’ positive attitudes can enable positive
change to occur in classroom. Since this study showed teachers’ attitudes were at a moderate level, schools
need to find ways to improve teachers’ attitudes toward teaching. Teachers with positive attitudes feel more
confident in performing the teaching tasks assigned to them. These findings corroborate and expand upon
those of Watson (1999), who argued that teacher belief influences their performance in the classroom. The
integration of technology in the classroom (for instance) is very much influenced by the beliefs teachers hold
about the benefit of it, as noted in Empirica (2006).
References
Abel, M. H., & Sewell, J. (1999). Stress and burnout in rural and urban secondary school teachers. The
Journal of Educational Research, 92, 287–293.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2007). Much ado over a faulty conception of perceived self-efficacy grounded in faulty
experimentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(6), 641–658.
Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among secondary school
teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology,26, 519–539.
Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational
commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 20, 277–289.
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, 44, 473–490.
Cheung, H., Y. (2008). The measurement of teacher efficacy: Hong Kong primary in-service teachers.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 32, 435-451.
De la Torre Cruz, M. J. & Arias, P. F. C. (2007). Comparative analysis of expectancies of efficacy in inservice and prospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 641-652.
Ebmeier, H. (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment: An investigation of a
path model. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(2), 110–114.
Empirica (2006). Benchmarking access and use of ICT in European schools 2006. Final Report from Head
Teacher and Classroom Teacher Surveys in 27 European countries. Germany: European Commission.
Friedman, I. A., & Kass. E. (2002). Teacher self–efficacy: A classroom–organization conceptualization.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 675–686. doi: 10.1016/S0742–051X(02)00027–6
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli,W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers.
Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495-513.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance
relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y., & Eorgiou, T. (2009).
Exploring the validity of the Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 34, 67–76.
Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality, and burnout in primary school teachers. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77, 229–243.
Owings, W., Kaplan,L., Nunnay, J., Marzano, R., Myran, S., & Blackburn, D. (2006). Teacher quality and
troops to teachers: A national study with implications for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 102-131.
Santoro, N., Reid, J, Mayer, D & Singh, M. (2012). Producing ‘quality’ teachers: the role of teacher
professional standards. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 1-3
Ryan, K., & Cooper, J. M. (2010). Those who can, teach. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain
factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99, 611-625.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy, that's the question: Burnout and work
engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping: An International
Journal, 20(2), 177-196.
Skaalvik E. M. &, Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059-1069.
Somech, A., & Bogler, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational
and professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 555–577.
Watson, G. (1999). Barriers to the integration on the Internet into teaching and learning: Professional
development. Paper presented at the Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operation Technoogies.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teaching efficacy during early years of teaching: A
comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356.
Yeo, L. S., Ang, R., P., Chong, W. H., & Huan, V. S. (2008). Teacher Efficacy In the Context of Teaching
Low Achieving Students. Current Psychology, 27(3), 192-204.