Efficacy sources for preservice teachers.

Abstract

Research shows that teachers' beliefs about their efficacy play a powerful role in teaching outcomes. This study was conducted to provide preservice teachers with opportunities to develop and increase efficacy beliefs through classroom experiences. Preservice teachers were provided with two sources of efficacy: vicarious experiences and verbal persuasion. Data obtained from the preservice teachers via feedback indicated development and increase of efficacy beliefs.

Introduction

Teachers' sense of efficacy plays a major role in the actual teaching process and is based on beliefs about personal teaching proficiency, through the amount of time, effort, and persistence invested in the process. Teachers' beliefs about personal efficacy ate mostly developed when teachers enter the teaching force; however, it is advantageous for preservice teachers to establish and develop a sense of efficacy prior to entering the workforce. Research shows that teacher efficacy is most malleable early in the learning process (Bandura, 1977, 1997). The level of one's competence will influence one's functioning when teaching in classroom context. Research shows that if teachers gain experience their effectiveness will increase also (Martin, Crossland, and Johnson, 2001). Since teacher efficacy and teaching outcomes are related, ir is important to consider how teacher efficacy might be developed and increased.

Applied to the teaching process among the sources of efficacy identified by Bandura (1977, 1997), vicarious experiences (observing others teach) and verbal persuasion (intellectual resources) do not require direct teaching experience. These two sources of efficacy are most important for preservice teachers since their teaching experiences come late in their coursework. The student teaching experience, for preservice teachers, is not sufficient to develop and establish strong teaching efficacy beliefs that would enable them to act confidently and at maximum potential once certified. Tasan (2001) shows that "lack of adequate preparation, either in teaching methodologies or in subject matter content, will certainly be reflected in lower feelings of efficacy." For this reason it is very important that teacher preparation programs provide a diversity of experiences in teaching where preservice teachers have the opportunity to apply the content learned in required courses. We suggest that preservice teachers' efficacy beliefs would benefit from teacher preparation programs that provide earlier and additional opportunities for vicarious experiences and verbal persuasion.

Conceptual framework for teacher efficacy

One major conceptual framework concerning teacher efficacy comes from the work of Rotter (1966), who defines teacher efficacy as the extent to which teachers believe that they could control the reinforcement of their actions, and if this control of reinforcement comes from within themselves or from the environment. Rotter (1966) found that teachers with a high level of efficacy believed that they could control, or have a strong influence on student achievement and motivation. Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, (1977) define teacher efficacy as "the extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect student performance" (p. 137). Similarly, Woolfok-Hoy & Tshannen-Moran (2002), as well as Guskey & Passaro (1994) define teacher efficacy as "teachers' belief or conviction that they can influence how well students learn, even those who may be difficult or unmotivated" (p. 4). A second conceptual framework in defining teacher efficacy grew out of the work of Bandura (1977, 1986, 1997). Bandura (1986) defines efficacy as a person's response to the question "Do I have the ability to organize and execute the actions necessary to accomplish a specific task at a desired level?" Related to this question, Bandura states the outcome expectancy question as, "If I accomplish the task at that level, what are the likely consequences?" The outcome question takes in consideration the means-ends relationships. For example, an efficacy expectation is the teacher's conviction that he or she can orchestrate the necessary actions to perform a given task, while outcome expectancy is his or her estimate of the likely consequences of performing that task at the expected level of competence (Bandura, 1986). For teacher efficacy, the outcomes are in fact judgments about the requirements of the teaching task.

In his work Bandura (1977, 1997) specifies that self-efficacy is distinct from other conceptions of self, such as self-concept, self-worth, and self-esteem, in that it is specific to a particular task. Gist and Mitchell (1992) clarify the concept of self-efficacy, stating that "self-esteem usually is considered to be a trait reflecting an individual's characteristic affective evaluation of self (e.g., feelings of self-worth or self-liking). By contrast, self-efficacy is a judgment about task capability that is not inherently evaluative" (p. 185). Thus, self-efficacy refers to self-perceptions of competence and not to the actual level of competence.

The distinction between self-esteem and self-efficacy is important since individuals tend to overestimate or underestimate their actual abilities. These under or overestimations of one's abilities may have consequences on the actions people choose, and also on the amount of effort and persistence they exert in their actions. Over or underestimating capabilities also may influence the modality in which individuals use their skills. Bandura (1986) identifies teacher efficacy as a type of self-efficacy that he explains as a cognitive process in which teachers construct beliefs about their capacity to perform at a given level of attainment. The constructed beliefs influence how much effort teachers put forth, and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles. Teachers' sense of efficacy has a strong positive effect not only on student performance but also on the percent of goals achieved, on the amount of teacher change, and on the continued use of project methods and materials after the project ended. Further, Gibson & Dembo (1984) have proposed and found evidence that the level of efficacy affects the amount of effort a teacher will expend in a teaching situation and the persistence shown in the face of obstacles. Greater efficacy was related to more positive attitudes about teaching as well as a high level of confidence in teaching abilities (Guskey, 1984).

In the process of defining teacher efficacy, researchers define two separate concepts that take into account the effect of external and internal factors, contributing to teacher efficacy. The first concept, labeled general teaching efficacy (GTE), is related to teachers' beliefs about the power of external factors (Ashton, Olejnik, Crocker, & McAuliffe, 1982). The second concept, labeled personal teaching efficacy (PTE), is related to teachers' statement about the efficacy of their own teaching, reflecting confidence that they have adequate training or experience to develop strategies for overcoming obstacles to student learning. Personal teaching efficacy is more specific and individual than a belief about what teachers in general can accomplish. The sum of the two items is called teacher efficacy (TE), a construct that is related to internally controlled results of teaching, and reveals the extent to which a teacher believes that the consequences of teaching were in the hands of the teacher (Ashton, Olejnik, Crocker, & McAuliffe, 1982). Thus, a teacher will experience and develop teacher efficacy once he or she is in the process of teaching. Given that teacher efficacy impacts teaching outcomes, one area that needs attention is related to the sources of teacher efficacy that preservice teachers could benefit from and the modalities to develop and increase teacher efficacy before they start teaching.

Sources of efficacy

Bandura (1986, 1997) postulates four sources of efficacy beliefs: mastery experiences, physiological and emotional states, vicarious experiences, and social persuasion. These four sources according to Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy (1998) contribute to both the analysis of the teaching task and to self-perceptions of teaching competence, but in different ways. Efficacy beliefs increase after successful experience in difficult tasks. A person's perceptions that a performance has been successful raises efficacy beliefs, developing the expectation that performance will be proficient in the future. The perception that one's performance has been a failure lowers efficacy beliefs, which will develop the expectation that future performances will also lead to failure. Teachers with a strong sense of efficacy are open to new ideas and more willing to experiment with new methods to better meet the needs of their students (Berman et al., 1977; Guskey, 1988, Stein & Wang, 1988), also they tend to exhibit greater levels of planning and organization (Allinder, 1994). Betiefs of self-efficacy affect the effort teachers put into teaching, the goals they set, and their level of aspiration. Active experience-based learning and the use of multiple modalities in teaching preservice teachers where students have an opportunity to experience problem-solving activities and assignments that give them choices to experience future teaching strategies is shown to increase personal efficacy and teacher efficacy beliefs (Shore, 2004; Woolfok-Hoy & Tshannen-Moran, 2002).

Self-perception can be accomplished only through personal experience. Consequently, preservice teachers will gain mastery experience only later in their coursework in the practice of student teaching and once they graduate and effectively teach. When preservice teachers do teach effectively, they will experience physiological and emotional cues, the second source of teacher efficacy listed by Bandura (1986). Arousal in moderate levels can improve performance, which in the end will have the effect of an increased self-efficacy. Since extreme high arousal can interfere and be detrimental for efficacy outcomes, the emotional cues need to be moderate in order to not interfere with the teaching process. Because preservice teachers' mastery experiences occur later in their education, the last two sources of efficacy, vicarious experiences and verbal persuasions, are particularly important in establishing efficacy early. Vicarious experiences come from watching others teach, listening to other teachers' stories about teaching, and also from professional literature. Through observation, successful teachers become models that demonstrate the message that teaching is a manageable experience. This message can help increase personal confidence in teaching and beliefs of self-efficacy in preservice teachers. By observing successful teaching models, preservice teachers can develop the belief that they can be also successful teachers (Bandura, 1977, Schunk, 1989).

The fourth source of efficacy according to Bandura (1986, 1997) is verbal persuasion. Verbal persuasion is a source of information about the process of teaching as well as a source of encouragement and feedback about a teacher's performance. Coursework, professional workshops, and feedback from supervisors, other teachers, and colleagues are all sources of verbal persuasion. Kallenbach and Viens (2002) mention that there is a need in education for "active, authentic, problem-based approaches and performance based real world assessments." Teaching preservice teachers classroom teaching and management skills through direct application creates a productive environment which is supportive of critical thinking and problem solving skills (Kallenbach & Viens, 2002), this in consequence will improve their sense of teacher general and personal efficacy (Freytag, 2001; Parker and Guarino, 2001). Preservice teachers frequently encounter a "reality shock" when they enter the teaching force (Weinstein, 1988). Research shows a decrease in teaching efficacy after the first year of teaching (Gordon & Debus, 2002; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) since, during the first year of teaching, teachers first encounter "tough" experiences of life as a teacher. Thus, it is imperative that preservice teachers be provided with at least the two most important efficacy sources for preservice teachers, namely, vicarious experiences and verbal persuasion.

The study and results

An educational psychology undergraduate senior level course was developed for preservice teachers at a southwestern university. Students participated in lectures (covering topics such as classroom observation, teacher's attitude assessment, teaching process, and classroom assessment), while participating in classroom observations of a first year engineering course. The rationale for choosing the engineering course was due to the fact that the class had a large number of students (approximately 550) and it was taught by an experienced faculty in one large lecture (who also taught in collaboration the preservice teachers' course), and two additional meetings per week in 15 smaller sections taught by a variety of faculty with diverse teaching styles. The goal of the study was to (1) provide preservice teachers with different sources of efficacy; (2) provide their feedback to engineering faculty in order to define and improve their sense of teaching efficacy, and (3) suggest improvements to the process of teaching the engineering course.

Each preservice teacher completed a minimum of five engineering classroom observations in the large lecture section, and also in small sections. They had the opportunity to give their feedback through observation logs after each observed classroom session, a final written essay at the end of the coursework, through in-person meetings with the engineering faculty who taught the large lecture, and also through a videotaped interview at the end of semester conducted by a faculty from a different department who was not involved in the process of teaching the course.

From all of these means of classroom experiences preservice teachers reported an increase in beliefs about their efficacy as teachers. They articulated that observing other instructors teaching was valuable and mentioned that they would like to have increased opportunities to observe teachers at work asa means to experience and evaluate firsthand the various forms of pedagogy they learn about in their teacher preparation courses. Preservice teachers indicated in their observation logs that, in the large section of the engineering course, the instructor expertly handled the large group of students, delivered dynamic and interesting lectures, used PowerPoint masterfully, exhibited good time management skills, and maintained a positive level of teacher-student interaction. These opportunities helped them build and increase their pedagogical skills, their confidence, and also increased their sense of efficacy as future teachers. They also stated that verbal persuasion in form of topics covered in the educational psychology course guided their classroom observation tasks, making them aware of different issues that may arise in the teaching process and improved their perceptions of personal teaching skills. In their final essays preservice teachers indicated that they could learn different methods of teaching from experienced teachers' skills and mistakes.

Comments from the videotaped interviews of the preservice teachers indicated that they found the collaborative experience between the education and engineering courses very useful in assisting them in their own future pedagogy. Observational comments made by the preservice teachers of the small engineering sections were many and, unlike the feedback on the main lectures, included a vast number of suggestions for pedagogical improvement. Many of the preservice teachers indicated suggestions regarding teacher-student interaction, student involvement in group discussions, lack of discipline and student accountability, poor time management, the need for a hands-on example before group work is initiated, and more competitive group work. Preservice teachers had the opportunity to compare the different teaching styles and their effectiveness. They reported that they feel more confident concerning future teaching tasks, and that they have a deeper understanding about what it means to be a teacher. Preservice teachers' feedback helped engineering teachers to improve their teaching skills and the engineering course. The entire process was beneficial for both preservice teachers and teaching faculty since both cohorts of teachers had the opportunity to develop and improve their sense of efficacy as developing teachers.

Preservice teachers enrolled this course being exposed to verbal persuasion and vicarious experiences had unique and richer experiences than those preservice teachers who were not enrolled this course. All feedback provided throughout and at the end of course shows that preservice teachers report that they developed and increased their beliefs about their teaching efficacy. Our findings support results by Henson (2001), that teacher participation in professional research helped increase teachers' general and personal efficacy. Research concerning self-efficacy (Chambers, 2003; Gordon, 2001) shows that teacher self-efficacy for preservice teachers does not depend on the length of student teaching experience if the quality of their course experiences is comparable, preservice teachers who have higher self-efficacy display more humanistic, less interventionist, classroom management strategies.

The study is limited to results obtained only from the group of preservice teachers who were registered to this course. We did not compare outcomes with possible feedback from preservice teachers who were not registered to this course. Since the course is offered again we intend to gather statements from both groups of preservice teachers and compare feedback concerning teacher efficacy.

Conclusions

Teacher efficacy is defined as "teacher's belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context" (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Woolfok-Hoy & Tshannen-Moran, 2002). Given that teacher efficacy develops in the process of teaching, two of the four sources of efficacy mentioned by Bandura (1986) are most appropriate and helpful for preservice teachers in the process of developing and increasing the sense of efficacy, namely vicarious experience and verbal persuasion.

A course was developed where preservice teachers had the opportunity of vicarious experience and verbal persuasion as sources of teacher efficacy development. Interpretations of qualitative data gathered from preservice teachers indicate a large increase in the beliefs of efficacy resulting from the opportunities provided to preservice teachers throughout the course. Our suggestion is that teacher preparation programs should offer more opportunities to develop and increase teacher efficacy in preservice teachers before completion of coursework, and even before preservice teachers' student teaching experience.

References

Ashton, P. T., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L. & McAuliffe, M. (1982, April). Measurement problems in the study of teachers' sense of efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A., (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal Programs supporting educational change. Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation (Report No. R-1589/7-HEW) Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 140 432).

Chambers, S. M. (2003, February). The impact of length of student teaching on the self-efficacy and classroom orientation of pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational research Association, San Antonio, TX.

Freytag, C. E. (2001, February). Teacher efficacy and inclusion: the impact of preservice experiences on beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Gibson, S. & Dembo, M., (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.

Gordon, L. M. (2001). High teacher efficacy asa marker of teacher effectiveness in the domain of classroom management. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the California Council on Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.

Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Educational psychology, 72, 483-511.

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63-69

Guskey, T. R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245-259.

Guskey, T., & Passaro, P. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643.

Henson, R. (2001, November). The effect of participation in teacher research professional development on teacher efficacy and empowerment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Little Rock, AR.

Kallenbach, S., & Viens, J. (2002). Open to interpretation: Multiple intelligences theory in adult literacy education (NSCALL Report 21). Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.

Martin, B. N., Crossland, B., & Johnson, J. A. (2001, November). Is there a connection: Teacher empowerment, teachers' sense of responsibility, and student success? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Little rock, AR.

Parker, M. J., & Guarino, A. J. (2001). A comparison of the efficacy levels of preservice, internship, and inservice teachers. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 461647.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames and R. Ames (Eds.) Research on motivation in education. Vol. 3, Goals and Cognitions (pp. 13-44). San Diego: Academic.

Shore, J. R. (2004). Teacher Education and Multiple Intelligences: A Case Study of Multiple Intelligences and Teacher Efficacy in Two Teacher Preparation Courses. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 112-139.

Stein, M. K., & Wang, M.C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171-187.

Tasan, A. p. (2001, April). Teacher efficacy and diversity: Implications for teacher training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association. Seattle, WA.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education. 17, 783-805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.

Weinstein, C. S. (1988). Preservice teachers' expectations about the first year of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 31-40.

Woolfok-Hoy, A., & Tshannen-Moran, M. (2002, April). Cultivating teacher efficacy: The effects of context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Zsuzsanna Szabo, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, Reid Bailey, University of Arizona Robin Ward, University of Arizona

Zsuzsanna Szabo, Ph. D., is Assistant Professor in the School of Education, at Southern Illinois University, Reid Bailey, Ph. D., is Assistant Professor in the College of Engineering, and Robin Ward, Ph. D. is Assistant Professor in the College of Education, University of Arizona