Teachers' Self-Efficacy and Their Perceptions of Principals' Transformational Leadership Practices
IMPACT OF TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL SELF-EFFICACY ON THE ...
171
i IMPACT OF TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL SELF-EFFICACY ON THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF GOVERNMENT SECONDARY SCHOOLS STUDENTS By ZOHRA BEGUM PhD SCHOLAR Roll No: 20074 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, HAZARA UNIVERSITY MANSEHRA, PAKISTAN 2020
Transcript of IMPACT OF TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL SELF-EFFICACY ON THE ...
i
IMPACT OF TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL SELF-EFFICACY
ON THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF
GOVERNMENT SECONDARY
SCHOOLS STUDENTS
By
ZOHRA BEGUM
PhD SCHOLAR
Roll No: 20074
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, HAZARA UNIVERSITY
MANSEHRA, PAKISTAN
2020
ii
IMPACT OF TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL SELF-EFFICACY
ON THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF
GOVERNMENT SECONDARY
SCHOOLS STUDENTS
By
ZOHRA BEGUM
PhD SCHOLAR
Roll No: 20074
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education at the Department of Education,
Hazara University Mansehra, Pakistan 2020
iii
iv
Dedicated
To
My Father ‘Daji’
&
My Mother ‘Ammi’
For their life long support in any endeavor that I have
ever aspired for.
v
Author’s Declaration
I, Zohra Begum D/O Sadullah, Roll number 20074 student of PhD at the Department of
Education, Hazara University Manshera Pakistan do hereby solemnly declare that the thesis
titled PhD thesis titled, “Impact of Teachers’ Professional Self-Efficacy on the Academic
Achievement of Government Secondary School Students”, submitted in partial fulfillment
of PhD degree in Education is my original work, except where otherwise acknowledged in
the text, and has not been submitted or published earlier or shall not in future, be submitted
by me for obtaining any other degree from this or any other university or institution,
Dated: Zohra Begum
vi
FORWARDING SHEET
The thesis titled “Impact of Teachers’ Professional Self-Efficacy on the Academic
Achievement of Government Secondary School Students” submitted by Miss Zohra
Begum, Roll No.20074 in partial fulfillment of PhD in Education has been completed under
my supervision. I am satisfied with the quality of her research work.
Dated: ________________________
Prof. Dr.Abdur-Rahman
Supervisor
vii
Plagiarism Undertaking
I solemnly declared that the research work presented in the thesis titled “Impact of Teachers’
Professional Self-Efficacy on the Academic Achievement of Government Secondary
School Students” is solely my research work with no significant contribution from any one
other individual. Small contribution/ help wherever taken has been duly acknowledged and
that complete thesis has been written by me.
I understand the zero-tolerance policy of the HEC and University Hazara University
Mansehra, Pakistan towards plagiarism. Therefore, I as an author of the above titled thesis
declared that no portion of my work has been plagiarized and that any material used in this
research as reference has been properly referenced/ cited.
I undertake that if I am found guilty of any formal plagiarism in the above titled thesis even
after the award of PhD degree, the University reserves the rights to withdraw/revoke my PhD
degree and that HEC and the University has the right to publish my name on the
HEC/University Website on which names of students are placed who submitted plagiarized
thesis.
Student / Author Signature: ___________
Name: Zohra Begum
viii
Certificate of Approval
This is to certify that the research work presented in this thesis, titled “Impact of Teachers’
Professional Self-Efficacy on the Academic Achievement of Government Secondary
School Students” was conducted by Mst. Zohra Begum under the supervision of Prof.
Dr.Abdur-Rahman.
No part of this thesis has been submitted anywhere, else for any other degree. This thesis is
submitted to the Department of Education, Hazara University, Mansehra in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in field of Education, Department
of Education, Hazara University, Mansehra.
Student Name: Zohra Begum Signature: ________________ Examination Committee:
a) External Examiner 1: Prof. Dr.……………… Signature: __________________ ……………………….
b) External Examiner 2:
Prof. Dr. ……………… Signature: __________________
…………………………,
c) Internal Examiner:
Dr. ……………………. Signature: __________________
Assistant Professor,
Department of Education
Supervisor Name: Prof. Dr.Abdur-Rahman Signature: __________________
Name of Chairman: Prof. Dr. Manzoor Hussain Shah Signature: _________________
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
All Glory Be to Allah, who gave the researcher patience, courage, and ability to work
on the thesis. Space limits do not permit me to shell out my thanks to each and every single
person who guided and helped me in writing this thesis. I would start with my family and
especially my loving and caring father who has been the biggest source of motivation for me
throughout my life starting my childhood till now. His prayers and love for me at first and
then his love for education have been working as a lighthouse for me to protect and guide me
through all the tough waves and thus achieve any endeavor in life that I have aspired for.
I want to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor Professor Dr. Abdur-Rahman, Political
Science Department Hazara University Mansehra, for his generosity, faith and superb
assistance from start till end. I would like to extend very special thanks to Assistant Professor,
Dr. Iqbal Majoka, for his unconditional help and remarkable guidance in getting through the
difficult parts of the whole research process. I highly appreciate Mr. Muhammad Farooq Item
Analyst, National Education Assessment System (NEAS) Islamabad for his generous
guidance during the analysis of data for the study. The researcher would also like to
acknowledge the cooperation of Chairmen Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education
(BISE) Peshawar, Mardan, Kohat, D.I.Khan, and Abbottabad for providing the raw data of
secondary level students who appeared in their respective board exams in the year 2012. In
addition, the accomplishment of the study involves the continuous guidance, motivation, and
encouragement from many teachers and I extend my special regards to all the respected
teachers.
This researcher wouldn’t have been able to conduct this research, had Anita Woolfolk Hoy,
Professor Educational Psychology & Philosophy, School of Educational Policy & Leadership
x
at the Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, not allowed to use her instruments for the
collection of data.
Finally, special thanks to all friends and colleagues for their moral support and back up
throughout the life span of thesis.
(ZOHRA BEGUM)
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.No Content Page No
1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem 4
1.2 Objectives of the Study 5
1.3 Research question 5
1.4 Hypotheses of the Study 5
1.5 Significance of the Study 6
1.6 Delimitation of the Study 7
1.7 Limitations of the Study 7
1.8 Operational Definitions of the Key Terms 8
1.8.1 Academic Achievement 8
1.8.2 Teacher Self-Efficacy 8
1.8.3 Government Secondary School 8
1.8.4 Instructional Strategies 8
1.8.5 Classroom Management 8
1.8.6 Student Engagement 8
2 Chapter 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 9
2.1 Conceptual framework of efficacy self-efficacy 9
2.2 Teachers efficacy 10
2.3 Teacher Professional self-efficacy 11
2.3.1 Characteristics of Self-efficacious teachers 12
xii
2.3.2 Historical perspective of Professional self-efficacy of teachers 13
2.3.3 Professional self-efficacy theory 15
2.3.4 Self-efficacy Research in Education settings 16
2.3.5 Self-efficacy and related beliefs 17
2.4 Academic Achievements 19
2.4.1 Achievement and Construct representation 20
2.5 Teacher – student relationship, Academic achievement and self-
efficacy
21
2.6 Teacher commitment and Teacher performance of secondary schools 25
2.7 Factors affecting teacher’s professional self-efficacy and students’
academic achievement
26
2.7.1 Gender 26
2.7.2 Locality 27
2.7.3 Subjects areas 28
2.8 Pedagogical knowledge 30
2.9 Classroom Management 36
2.10 Importance of Classroom management 38
2.11 Factors that affect classroom management 38
2.11.1 New trends in classroom management 39
2.11.2 Classroom management and self-efficacy 40
2.12 Student engagement 41
2.12.1 Categories of student engagement 41
2.12.2 Factors affecting student engagement 44
xiii
2.12.2 .1 Job Dissatisfaction 44
2.12.2.2 Class Size 45
2.12.2.3 Student involvement in teaching learning process 45
2.13 Summary 46
3 Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 52
3.1 Research Design 52
3.2 Population of the study 53
3.3 Sample of the study 53
3.4 Research instrument 54
3.5 Validity 55
3.6 Reliability 55
3.7 Data collection 56
3.8 Data analysis 56
3.9 Statistical techniques applied for hypotheses testing 57
4 Chapter 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 61
4.1 Academic achievement of students related to different categories of
teachers
61
4.2 Level of efficacy and professional self-efficacy of secondary schools
teachers
62
4.3 Comparison of academic achievement of students belonging to
teachers with different categories
64
4.4 Impact of Teacher’s efficacy on students’ academic achievement
within different categories
73
xiv
4.5 Impact of Teacher’s professional self-efficacy on students’ academic
achievement within different categories
79
4.6 Relative impact of Teachers’ efficacy and professional self-efficacy of
different factors on students’ academic achievement
92
4.7 Discussion 93
5 Chapter 5 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
98
5.1 Summary 98
5.2 Findings 100
5.2.1 Academic achievement of students related to different categories
of teachers
100
5.2.2 Level of Efficacy and Professional Self-Efficacy of Secondary
Schools Teachers
100
5.2.3 Comparison of academic achievement of students belonging to
teachers with different Categories
101
5.2.4 Impact of Teachers Efficacy on their students’ academic
achievement within different categories
103
5.2.5 Impact of Teachers Professional Self –Efficacy on their students’
academic achievement within different categories
104
5.2.6 Relative impact of teachers’ efficacy and professional self-
efficacy of different factors on the academic achievement of students
106
5.3 Conclusions 106
5.4 Recommendations for future 110
xv
References
Annexures
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Title of table Page No
Table 3.9.1 Statistical Techniques Used for Hypotheses Testing 57
Table 4.1.1 Academic achievement of students related to different categories of teacher 62
Table 4.2.1 Efficacy of secondary school teachers 63
Table 4.2.2 Professional self-efficacy of secondary school teacher 63
Table 4.3.1 Academic achievement of students belonging to teacher with different locality 64
Table 4.3.2 Academic achievement of students belongs to teacher with different gender 65
Table 4.3.3 Academic achievement of students belonging to teachers with different
subjects
66
Table 4.3.4 Comparison of teachers’ professional self-efficacy with in science and general
subject
67
Table 4.3.5 Comparison of teacher efficacy with in science and general subjects 68
Table 4.3.6 Comparison of professional self-efficacy of male and female teachers 69
Table 4.3.7 Comparison of the efficacy of male and female teachers 70
Table 4.3.8 Location wise comparison of secondary school teacher professional self –
efficacy
71
Table 4.3.9 Location wise comparison of secondary school teacher efficacy 72
Table 4.4.1 Male and female teachers’ efficacy and their students’ academic achievement 73
Table 4.4.2 Male and female teachers personal teaching efficacy and their student
academic achievement
74
xvii
Table 4.4.3 Teachers general teaching efficacy and their students’ academic achievement
of male and female teachers
74
Table 4.4.4 Urban and rural teachers’ efficacy on students’ academic achievement 75
Table 4.4.5 Locality wise teachers personal teaching efficacy and their students’ academic
achievement
76
Table 4.4.6 Locality wise teachers general teaching efficacy and their student academic
achievement
76
Table 4.4.7 Subject wise teachers’ efficacy and their students’ academic achievement 77
Table 4.4.8 Subject wise teachers’ personal teaching efficacy and their students’ academic
achievement
78
Table 4.4.9 Subject wise teachers’ general teaching efficacy and their students’ academic
achievement
79
Table 4.5.1 Male and female teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’
academic achievement
80
Table 4.5.2 Male and female teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their student
engagement on student academic achievement
81
Table 4.5.3 Male and female teachers’ professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies
and their students’ academic achievement
82
Table 4.5. 4 Male and female teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom
management and their students’ academic achievement
83
Table 4.5.5 Urban and rural of teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their academic
achievement
84
xviii
Table 4.5.6 Correlation showing impact of urban and rural teachers’ professional self-
efficacy on students’ academic achievement in student engagement
85
Table 4.5.7 Urban and rural teachers’ professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies
and their students’ academic achievement
86
Table 4.5.8 Urban and rural teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom management
and students’ academic achievement
87
Table 4.5.9 Subject wise teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic
achievement
88
Table 4.5.10 Different subject teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’
academic achievement in student engagement
89
Table 4.5. 11 Subject wise teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic
achievement in instructional strategies
90
Table 4.5.12 Subject wise teachers’ professional self-efficacy and students’ academic
achievement in classroom management
91
Table 4.6. 1 Recreation showing relative impact of different factors (locality, gender and
subjects) on students’ academic achievement
92
Table 4.6. 2 Model Summary 93
xix
ABBREVIATIONS
BISE Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education
CM Classroom Management
DI Khan Dera Ismail Khan
FATA Federally Administered Tribal Area
GGHS Government Girls High School
GGHSS Government Girls Higher Secondary School
GHS Government High School
GHSS Government Higher Secondary School
GTE General Teacher Efficacy
IS Instructional Strategies
PTE Personal Teacher Efficacy
Sc Science
SE Student Engagement
SST Secondary School Teacher
TE Teacher Efficacy
TES Teacher Efficacy Scale
TPE Teacher Professional Efficacy
TSES Teacher Self Efficacy Scale
xx
ABSTRACT
This research focused on the impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy on the
academic achievement of government secondary school students. This study mainly examined
the impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy in three areas of teaching and learning
process. The three focus areas were students’ engagement, teaching instructions, and
classroom management. The study was based on two different frameworks; Teachers’
Efficacy and Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and their relationship with the academic achievement of
secondary school students. Main objectives of the study were i) to assess the academic
achievement of students belonging different categories of teachers. ii) to measure efficacy and
professional self-efficacy of secondary school teachers. iii) to compare the students’ academic
achievement belonging to teachers of different categories (based on gender, locality, and
discipline of study i.e., science and general). iv) to examine the impact of teachers’ efficacy
and teachers’ professional self-efficacy on their students’ academic achievement. v) to
examine the relative impact of gender, locality, and subject areas (science and general), on
efficacy, and professional self- efficacy on their students’ academic achievement. This study
has also two research questions (i) what is the academic achievement of students belonging
to different categories of teachers? (ii) what is the efficacy and professional self-efficacy of
secondary school teachers?
Multi Stage Stratified Random Sample Technique was adopted in order to select the study
sample. Data from a sample of 360 senior school teachers (SSTs) including 216 males and
144 females was collected through published and tested instruments of teachers’ efficacy and
teachers’ self-efficacy. From each sampled school one science teacher and two general
teachers were selected. The students’ achievement data was taken from the concerned Boards
xxi
of Intermediate and Secondary Education of the related district. Independent sample t tests at
0.05 confidence level were applied to find significant mean score differences for independent
variables. The magnitude of correlation between teachers’ performance in terms of their
students’ achievement and efficacy was calculated using Pearson Correlation (at 0.05 and .01
levels of confidence). In addition, variance was found by applying one-way Anova. To find
out the impact of variables on teachers’ performance in terms of the students’ achievement,
regression analysis was carried out. The study found a significant impact of teachers’ efficacy
and teachers’ professional self-efficacy on the academic achievement of secondary students
with respect to location, gender, and subject. Additionally, a significant correlation between
teachers’ self-efficacy/efficacy and teachers’ performance in terms of their students’
achievement was also found. Hence, it was concluded that teachers’ self-efficacy/efficacy is
vital to the academic achievement of students. Thus, it becomes necessary to incorporate such
modules into teachers’ trainings that will add to their professional self-efficacy in order to
enhance students’ learning in terms of their academic achievement.
i
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Education in 21st century has become a high-stake game in which teachers and
administrators alike are heavily inspected for students’ achievement. Perhaps none feels the
pressure of this inspection more than teachers. Teachers have an immense impact on the
learning process of students; basically, teachers are vital for successes or failure of an
education system thus the more competent the teachers are; the more effective education
system will be. If the teachers are competent, they will directly impact students’ performance.
Teachers’ competency is based on self-efficacy (belief on his abilities). The efficacious
teachers always introduce different teaching methods which improve the students’ abilities of
critical thinking, decision making and creativity etc.
This study is chosen with the intention to uncover the hidden skills of teachers’
professional self-efficacy as most of them are having these skills but they are unaware of it
which directly affect students’ performance. Keeping in view the situation, this study is
designed to know the impact of teachers’ professional efficacy on the academic achievements
of government secondary schools’ students. This study will also highlight different aspects of
teachers’ professional self-efficacy which can directly or indirectly affect the students’
academic achievement.
Guskey (1994) stated the “Teacher’s beliefs and practices are ultimately at the heart of
students’ success” (p.67). Teacher professional efficacy, the expectation that one possesses
the talent and abilities to bring about student learning, is central to school reform. Motivation,
a building block of teacher professional efficacy, influences teacher: (a) performance, (b)
commitment, and (c) retention. Furthermore, it is with this motivation, filtered through the
2
levels of professional efficacy, that teachers determine what type of an impact they will have
on students. Gordon (2001) concluded that teacher professional efficacy was linked directly
to students’ achievement.
Teachers with low professional efficacy attribute failures and even successes to
external factors, which they believe are greater than themselves (Allinder, 1995). As
challenges occur, low professional efficacy teachers blame students for their inadequacies and
set low expectations for students who may not immediately or intrinsically arise to meet the
academic standard.
High teacher professional efficacy is linked to openness to change and its accompanying
challenges Gavora (2010). Generally, teachers who believe strongly in their ability to bring
about student learning, have higher expectations which, in turn produce higher students’
achievement. Collective teacher professional efficacy is related to the perceptions of the
teaching faculty to increase students’ achievement.
Henson (2001) recognized that highly efficacious teachers tend to be more organized,
display greater skills of instruction, questioning, explaining, providing feedback to students
having difficulties, and maintaining students on task. Low professional efficacy teachers, on
the other hand, display a more custodial than humanistic approach to classroom management,
spend significantly more time in group work as opposed to whole group instruction, feel
angered and threatened by misbehavior, and experience difficulty in maintaining students on
task.
This self-perception, called self-professional efficacy, plays a pivotal role in how
teachers select assignments and activities, shaping their efforts and perseverance when
addressing certain challenges, and even in their emotional response to difficult situations.
3
Self-professional efficacy ultimately accounts for a cognitive construct that mediates between
knowledge and action. Along with other variables, this determines the success of the actions
themselves (Hussain, Ali, Khan, Ramzan & Qadeer, 2011).
Teachers’ professional self-efficacy is a judgment of their capabilities to bring about
desired outcomes of students’ engagement and learning, even among difficult or unmotivated
students (Cagle,1998). A more contemporary definition for professional self-efficacy could
be confidence of someone in his or her capacity in performing professional tasks.
Researchers have investigated the impact of teacher’s professional self-efficacy on
their students’ academic achievement with reference to gender differences, locality and
subjects taught. However, most of the researchers have come to a vague conclusion about
finding any remarkable impact of professional self-efficacy of teachers on students’
achievement with respect to gender locality and subjects. Additionally, they have provided
reasons in their research which dictate that this area must be further investigated to come to
the solid and firm conclusion. In short, it can be said that this area is still open to further
investigations. After examining various definitions of professional self-efficacy of teachers
and an overview of literature on the impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy level on
their students’ achievement, it is clear that this is one of the most important issues among the
various issues in education. The literature shows that students of highly efficacious teachers
have higher levels of positive attitude, improved attendance, quality of learning and better
academic achievement (Guskey, 1994). According to Terry (2008), teachers’ professional
self-efficacy is particularly important for secondary school students. Secondary education is
now considered as a corner stone of the educational system in any country. Secondary school
level is also having the same importance in Pakistan, but unfortunately it has been facing
4
many problems regarding students’ achievement. This topic is chosen to find out whether
professional efficacy of school teachers has implications for academic gains, improved
academic achievements, quality of learning, and positive attitude about school.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Every student starts first informal learning from the lap of mother. When this child
starts school for formal learning, it is the teacher who replaces the mother and thus teacher is
the one who is responsible for formal learning of the student onward. Although there are
several factors that can contribute the quality of learning and level of achievement of students.
However, the literature also provides lot of evidence on the strong involvement of teachers’
professional self-efficacy in this regard. In Pakistani Government schools’ students’
achievement at every stage in general and especially at secondary school level is a big
question. Students are getting poorer day by day and this is evident from their SSC annual
results. The question that clicks the mind is that why does a student show low achievement in
presence of qualified teachers selected through a standard criterion? This study was selected
with the sense that teacher’s efficacy has great impact on the students’ academic achievement
and the same has been supported by various researches. The researcher tried to investigate
through this study, the relationship between teachers’ professional self- efficacy in certain
areas of teaching and learning processes during the class such as teaching instruction, class
room management, students’ engagement and students’ academic achievement at the same
time.
5
1.2 Objectives of the Study
Following are the objectives of the study:
1. To assess the academic achievement of students belonging different categories of
teachers.
2. To measure efficacy and professional self-efficacy of secondary school teachers.
3. To compare the students’ academic achievement belonging to teachers of different
categories (based on gender, locality, and discipline of study i.e. science and
general).
4. To examine the impact of teachers’ efficacy and teachers’ professional self-efficacy
on their students’ academic achievement
5. To examine the relative impact of gender, locality, and subject areas (science and
general), on efficacy, and professional self- efficacy on their students’ academic
achievement.
1.3 Research Questions
For achieving first and second objective following research questions were addressed
1. What is the academic achievement of students belonging to different
categories of teachers?
2. What is the efficacy and professional self-efficacy of secondary school
teachers?
1.4 Hypotheses of the Study
For achieving objectives following null hypothesis were tested:
H01: there is no significant difference between academic achievement of students belonging
to different categories of teachers (genders, localities and subject).
6
H02: There is no significant impact of teachers’ efficacy on students’ academic achievement
within different categories.
H03: There is no significant impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy on students’
academic achievement within different categories.
H04: Different factors (teachers’ efficacy, professional self-efficacy, gender, location and
subject areas) have no significant impact on students’ academic achievement.
1.5 Significance of the Study
Professionally efficacious teachers can better motivate their students thus helping to
boost academic out comes even among difficult students. Teachers with high professional
efficacy can bring about positive changes in students’ learning, motivation, and behavior.
Research literature shows that efficacious teachers are found to be ambitious and that they try
various teaching strategies with their students. They are open to accept mistakes from students
and work on the improvement of students via positive criticism. They always try to implement
positive classroom management strategies and maintain positive outlook when teaching
difficult students (Henson, 2001). This emphasizes the positive role of teachers’ professional
self-efficacy in the better-quality learning outcomes among secondary school students.
In Pakistan, teaching learning process is mainly focused to develop the cognitive skills
of students. The reason behind is that most of the training curricula overlook other
competencies like professional efficacy, which are directly related to the effective teaching
learning process.
This study is significant in the sense that it will explore the impact of teachers’
professional self-efficacy on students’ academic achievement in secondary schools of
Pakistan. This study will provide a base line to support work on teachers’ professional self-
7
efficacy to improve teaching and learning processes at secondary school level. The outcomes
of this study will be equally important for policy makers, educational administrators, and other
stakeholders of the secondary level education system in Pakistan. Moreover, the consultants
who design the teachers’ training courses and programs could consider the results of this study
to cater to the needs of the students as well as the millennium goals set in the new education
policy.
1.6 Delimitations of the Study
Due to time constrain and limited resources, this study was delimited to: (i.) secondary
schools of five Districts Mardan, Abbottabad, Mansehra, Peshawar, Kohat and D.I Khan of
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. (ii)the students of 10th class session (2013-14), and their
respective teachers.
1.7 Limitations of the Study
The sample of students and teachers considered in this research belonged to different
Examination Boards which assessed the students using different assessment tools (papers).
There may be a difference in exam papers of different Examination Boards in terms of
difficulty level, reliability and other characteristics. This possible difference in measurement
in teachers’ performance might have affected the findings of this study.
In this study, the teachers of general and Science groups have been compared for self-
efficacy and their performance in term of academic achievement of their students. Usually,
more capable students are given the choice to opt science subjects. So, there is a possibility
that this\ generic difference might have affected the results of this study.
8
1.8 Operational Definitions of the Key Terms
1.8.1 Academic Achievement
Students’ Academic achievement defines students’ learning outcomes which explains
the level to which a student has achieved their learning goals.
1.8.2 Teacher Self-Efficacy
Teacher’s self- efficacy is teacher believes in his or her self that he or she can influence
students’ behavior and academic achievement.
1.8.3 Government Secondary School
Government secondary school means a school established by Government under
section 5 of the Act that provide free secondary education to the students aged 11 to 16.
1.8.4 Instructional Strategies
Instructional strategies are techniques teachers use during their teaching process to
help students become independent, strategic learners.
1.8.5 Classroom Management
Classroom management refers to those skills and techniques that teachers use to keep
students disciplined, organized, orderly, focused and attentive.
1.8.6 Student Engagement
Student engagement is the technique which teachers use during teaching learning
process to keep their students on task, attentive and academically productive throughout a
class.
9
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This study was conducted to identify the impact of teacher professional self-efficacy
on the academic achievement of the secondary school students of the government sector. And
this chapter deals with the related work and research results of similar studies. It also focuses
on different aspects of the study. Additionally, this chapter explains the constructs of the study
under consideration.
2.1 Conceptual Framework of efficacy Self-Efficacy
The study took teacher professional self-efficacy as the explanatory variable of interest
(independent variable) that was influencing students’ academic achievement (dependent
variable). The conceptual framework of this study is based on (Bandura & Albert, 1977) and
Hu and Bentler (1999) social cognitive theories and researches carried out related to teachers’
self-efficacy. The Teleologism theory implies duty and moral obligation inherent in one’s
actions to perform an act because that act fulfills one’s professional obligations along with
ethical code of conduct as well as cultural and religious dictations. In other words, one should
do to others, what one would like others to do to him/her. Hu and Bentler (1999) Deontologist
theory presupposes that people should follow the obligations to one’s individually or to
society because upholding one’s duty is what is considered ethically correct. It is possible by
analyzing an ethical dilemma, meaning that a person should adhere to their obligations and
duties under the core values of the code of conduct, and being committed, and having a
positive perception. Bandura and Albert (1977) as an expert of cognitive theory in social
10
setup, states that people are competent in human activity that operates in “triadic” reciprocal
causation process. The triad stems from behavior, environmental influences and interpersonal
factors. These three inter-related forces result from affective, cognitive and biological
processes and impact the actions they will take as well as what people believe about
themselves. The teacher efficacy related research explored that teachers’ certain beliefs and
biases can affect ways the students are treated in their presence or feelings about students.
Teachers’ beliefs and efficacy influence what they do in the classroom. Teachers’ actions are
generally based on their belief system, which can affect their students and their classroom
practices. External factors like content of the subject, diverse nature of students and family
influence, and local guidelines can affect teachers’ beliefs (Maxton, 1996; Cagle,1998;
Henson, 2001; Gordon, 2001; George & Aronson, 2003; Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004;
Scharlach, 2008).
2.2 Teachers’ Efficacy
Hoy (2000) defined the term ‘teacher’s efficacy’ as teachers’ confidence to promote
students’ learning. It is about teachers’ beliefs in their capacities to shape and accomplish
course of action necessary to bring about anticipated results in terms of students’ learning
outcomes (Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy, 1990). Gavora (2010) explained teachers’ efficacy as
having two major dimensions i.e. Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) and General Teaching
Efficacy (GTE). Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) refers to a teacher’s overall sense of
effectiveness of his/her teaching. It represents a teacher’s belief in his/her competencies to
assist students’ learning. On the other hand, General Teaching Efficacy is about the teaching
as a profession itself and not about the person who is teaching. Gavora (2010) explained
General Teaching efficacy to be the confidence that teaching as an activity or form of
11
education in an organizational setup has its positive effects on students’ learning even in
presence of external factors like lack of motivation and unsupportive home environments etc.
2.3 Teachers’ Professional Self- Efficacy
Self-efficacy is one’s belief in his/her ability to succeed in new or certain situations.
One’s sense of self-efficacy influences his/her approach to challenges and goals. one’s belief
in his/her capabilities to succeed or fail when confronted with a challenge is the motive of
self-efficacy. Those who believe that they are capable of performing well have strong self-
efficacy. They do not avoid challenges but more likely they view challenges as something to
be mastered. Professional self-Efficacy influences a teacher’s feelings about his or her ability
to do their job. Ross (2001) defined teachers’ professional self-efficacy as the extent to which
teachers believe their efforts will positively affect their students’ academic achievement.
Gordon (2001) says that, “Teacher efficacy is sometimes considered to be an indicator or
prediction of teaching effectiveness” (p. 5). Professional Self-efficacy can be seen through
teacher’s ability and esteem to affect and influence for positive change in the classroom
(Osborne, 2002). Self-efficacy is manifest by the response a person gives when asked, how
well can you perform that task? Highly professional and effective teachers, courageously face
their tasks and are very confident in their ability to do that job well. They have the ability to
continuously turn those difficult situations into successful results in the most difficult
situations (Gordon, 2001; Scharlach, 2008). Henson (2001) defines teacher professional self-
efficacy as a teacher’s “judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of
student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or
unmotivated” (p. 7). The literature on teachers’ self-efficacy explored that teachers having
high professional self-efficacy are able to change students’ opinion about themselves, school
12
and learning by accepting challenging roles with the confidence and ability. Teachers
possessing high self-efficacy cultivate a strong desire within their student to learn for desired
achievements. Pedagogical strategies of professionally efficacious teachers help their students
to become motivated, focused on learning, and academically successful (Adu, Tadu, & Eze,
2012). Philosophy of teachers’ efficacy revolves around humanistic and a custodial level of
efficacy. At humanistic level, professionally highly efficacious teacher has the beliefs that
students are accepting and trustful for their learning and he empowers his/her students to work
harder as well as take more responsibility for their actions. At custodial level, a high
efficacious teacher emphasizes the maintenance of order and distrusts the students are
considering them as irresponsible and untrustworthy and in need of firmness, strictness, and
punishment (Gordon, 2001). The term Teacher professional self-efficacy used in this study
refers to the confidence that the teachers have regarding their teaching skills and subject
specific knowledge to teach their students effectively, even under difficult circumstances and
thus gain the respect of each student.
2.3.1 Characteristics of Self-Efficacious Teacher
Bandura (2001) have the view that human behavior is an ever-changing process.
According to research studies of Scharlach (2008) and Henson (2001) some of the common
characteristics of efficacious teachers are:
• Better organizer
• Compliance to struggle for new ideas to meet students’ needs.
• Positive criticism on students’ mistakes
• Positive and effective towards teaching
• Never refers to special education services for students,
13
• Able to execute positive attitude in classroom through better management
strategies
A teacher can be successful in teaching his/her students regardless of ethnic
background, gender, race or location having above said qualities. These qualities are evidence
of teacher’s higher efficaciousness. This efficacy is linked to their ability to work harder
under difficult circumstances to ensure students’ high achievements as well as motivation.
These efficacious teachers bring changes in students’ learning motivation, and behavior
(Gordon, 2001, and Hoy &Woolfolk 1993).
2.3.2 Historical Perspective of Professional Self- Efficacy of Teachers
Different concepts and ideas of same phenomenon or theory form construct. The
construct teacher efficacy roots from the late seventies of nineteenth century’s studies. These
studies have foundation on the view that self-efficacy of teachers is positively related to
achievements of their students (Denham & Michael, 1981). Teacher efficacy construct is two
dimensional; one dimension explores teachers’ teaching that is perceived as the power of
teaching to achieve desired and objective results, and second dimension is teachers’ own
teaching efficacy that is perceived as their belief in their own ability to achieve that desired
results. Teachers having high level of professional self-efficacy have a strong purpose and
academic orientation (Kinzie & Delcourt, 1991; Dembo & Gibson, 1985). Such teachers feel
a personal accomplishment, a positive attitude about teaching, set high expectations for
students, use different strategies for achieving objectives, they believe that they can influence
student learning; and feel responsibility for improving student learning (Ashton, 1984).
Efficacious teachers recognize themselves sole responsible for students’ results, consequently
self-efficacious teachers support and motivate students in achieving their goals and spend
14
more time on student learning (Bandura, 1993). The research literature in the field of
education and psychology related to pre-service teacher and professional efficacy indicates
that more often academic programs start from very high level of teachers’ professional
efficacy (Lanier, 1984; Narang, 1990; Walker, 1992). This may be because both students and
teachers already spend much of their lives in classroom practices and observation during their
coursework (Lanier, 1984). Narang (1990) is of the view that newly appointed teachers have
more positive belief in their teaching skills than prospective teachers. According to Walker
(1992) statement that “pre-service teachers may indeed have an unrealistic view, often
bordering on overconfidence, about their ability to become effective teachers". However,
research evidences the instability of these beliefs. Martin (1989) studied various levels of
efficacy of prospective teachers during their professional education at various points and
concluded that efficacy beliefs begin early in their education programs. Adams (1982)
believed that pre-service teachers are more concerned with external issues and less concerned
with self. Housego (1992) stated that a teacher can increase belief in his/her personal power
but belief in the power of his/her teaching may be decreased. Pigge and Marso (1990) explored
pre-service teachers, gradually, by developing a positive attitude about their effectiveness and
found them to become more concerned with their students. Positive changes in efficacy levels
may be one aspect of young novice teachers so it is important that majority of young teachers
should remain in their teaching profession. Metz (1986) believes that young novice teachers
in search of teaching jobs need to develop and carry out helpful teaching skills in addition to
their desire or disposition for this profession. An understanding of fluctuation of professional
efficacy with self-evaluation and experience has many potential uses and may be applied
specifically for both in-service and pre-service teacher education.
15
2.3.3 Professional Self-Efficacy Theory
An influential intrinsic factor of one’s professional self-efficacy refers to own beliefs
about “one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required managing
prospective situations (Bandura, 1995). Self-efficacy theory is based on the belief that
people’s actions and decisions are based on their own expectations and self-imposed standards
rather than others’ desires or directives. The teacher’s belief commonly referred to as teacher
professional self-efficacy is based on his/her belief that he possesses the ability to influence
all students’ learning and achievement although they may be considered unmotivated and
difficult. One’s thought process and behavior are controlled by his/her “self-system”. This
“self-system” allows him to exercise control, to some extent, for all their actions because
information-processing model of early cognitive science conceptualized the mind as a
computational device which manipulated abstract symbols (Newell & Simon, 1972). In
contrast, people perceive and encode features of their physical and social environments
heavily mediated through self-process (Bandura, 1993). Pajares (1996a) described self-system
as being comprised of “one’s cognitive and affective structures and includes the ability to
symbolize, learn from others, plan alternative strategies, regulate one’s own behavior, and
engage in self-reflection.” Self-efficacy has originated from the “self-system” which
developed over time through experience (Bandura & Albert, 1997). Self-efficacy belief plays
a significant role in determining how people motivate themselves, think, and then ultimately
act. Highly self-efficacious people do not worry about the amount of stress experienced in
challenging situations. They visualize successful scenarios during planning the course of
action (Landino & Owen, 1988). Self-efficacy beliefs of people increase their capabilities in
engaging themselves in tasks that they consider feasible. Thus, according to Bandura’s theory
16
of triadic reciprocal causation, individuals are both “products and producers of their
motivation, their respective environments, and their behaviors” (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2003,
p.126).
2.3.4 Self-Efficacy Research in Education Settings
In the educational scenario, self-efficacy is largely based on its established link to
teacher behaviors and student achievement (Pajares, 1996a; Tschannen- Moran & Hoy, 2007).
For example, Gibson and Dembo (1984) found that low self-efficacy is associated with
individualized instruction and critiquing students whereas high self-efficacy of teacher is
associated with group-oriented instruction with supportive behaviors.
Builmahn and Young (1982) stated that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes influence
performance of their students and affect their own teaching practices. Krows (1999) stated
that many teacher education institutions emphasized on teacher beliefs as they have
significant impact on teachers’ classroom behaviors. Therefore, one of the purposes of their
teacher training programs is to improve their student teachers’ attitude and beliefs about
teaching-learning process. A few institutions, explicitly, attempt to influence teachers’
attitude and beliefs about their teaching methods and their models of student learning. Some
teacher education programs attempt to strengthen teachers’ self-related beliefs regarding
teaching. However, in this case, the effectiveness of teacher education programs is based on
teachers’ initial beliefs and beliefs that they developed throughout their educational program
(Krows, 1999). Therefore, it is important to emphasize on understanding the novice teachers’
beliefs about their teaching capability before going into the real classroom to perform specific
competences.
17
Some researchers have studied teachers’ behaviors, student academic performance
and teachers’ interactions with students during classroom instruction (Koth, Bradshaw, &
Leaf, 2008; Montague & Rinaldi, 2001; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Wright, Giammarino, &
Parad, 1986). Some researchers explored that teacher beliefs and practices can be used to
predict students’ academic performance (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone., 2006;
Pianta, LaParo, Payne, Cox, & Bradley., 2002). Within Classroom, there has been found a
positive association between teachers’ beliefs, classroom interactions, students’ academic
success and teachers’ instructional practices (Koth et al., 2008; Mashburn, Pianta, Hamre,
Downer, Barbarin, Bryant, Burchinal, Early & Howes, 2008; Caprara et.al, 2006; Pianta et
al., 2002). Hamre and Pianta (2001) found that teacher shapes student’s experiences in school
in addition to the role of teaching academic skills and students react to their relationships with
their teachers based on this learnt experience. Students are more motivated to succeed if they
recognize that they have positive and close relationship with teacher. Teacher provides
opportunities for students to achieve their required activity level, provide behavioral support
to form peer relations, teach communication and coping skills.
2.3.5 Self-Efficacy and Related Beliefs
Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers differ psychometrically and conceptually from closely
related constructs such as, self-concept, apparent control, and outcome expectations. Bandura
(1986) drew the conceptual similarity between self-efficacy, academics, and outcome
expectancies based on psychometric research on language achievement aspects of reading and
writing. Mashburn et al., (2008) assessed self-efficacy as distinguished capability to perform
language aspects of writing, reading and various activities, and outcome expectancies in terms
of social pursuits, citizenship, family life, attaining various outcomes in employment, and
18
education. They explored that self-efficacy was a major predictor of language aspects of
reading and writing achievements. Self-concept and self-efficacy are closest constructs. Self-
concept is self-descriptive construct that is based on self-knowledge and self-evaluative
feelings (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985). Phenomenologist Rogers (1951) stated that self-concept
is awareness of one’s self-esteem reactions to his/her self-perception, but self-belief may or
may not relate to students’ academic performance (Wylie, 1968). Jersild (1954) stated that
self-concept is “a composite of thought and feelings, which constitute a person’s awareness
of his individual existence, conception of who he is and his feeling about his characteristics,
qualities and properties”. Similarly, Comb and Snygg (1959) explored that how an individual
behaves and what he thinks is largely based on his own concepts about him/herself and his/her
abilities. Yenagi (2006) conducted a study and found that self-concept is significantly
different between intellectually non-gifted and gifted groups. Sood (2006) examined and
explored that high academic self-concept is strongly correlated with high achievement.
Academic domain-specific self-concept measures emphasize the reactions of self-esteem
through self-evaluative questions, such as “How good I am in Mathematics?". On the other
hand, self-efficacy emphasizes entirely on expectations related to task-specific performance,
such as “How certainly I can solve this question?” Therefore task-specific reactions are often
correlated with future performance expectations and there is emergent data that, self-efficacy
measures offer predictive advantages when a task is familiar and can be specified precisely
although self-efficacy beliefs are correlated with domain-specific self-concepts, For example,
Pajares and Miller (1994) found that math self-concept is less predictive of problem solving
than math self-efficacy. Thus, in regression equations of self-concept and self-efficacy beliefs,
self-efficacy beliefs exhibit validity discriminately by independently predicting future
19
academic achievement. Pajares (1996a) found that the productiveness of self-efficacy is a
function of both their specificity and correspondence to a skill. Rotter (1966) stated that self-
efficacy is closely associated with the construct, perceived control. Perceived control refers
to expectation about whether outcomes are controlled by external forces or by one’s behavior.
It is theorized that self-directed courses of action should be supported and directed by an
internal locus of control. Locus-of-control is neither content domain nor task specific but
refers to general beliefs about the externality or internality of causality. Smith (1989) found
that self-efficacy did predict improvements in academic performance in highly self-anxious
students who undergone intensive coping skills training program. In summary, measures of
self-efficacy, conceptually are of distinguished validity in predicting a variety of academic
outcomes along with closely associated constructs such as self-concept, outcome
expectancies, and perceived control.
2.4 Academic Achievement
There is no agreed upon definition of achievement due to its nature. In literature,
achievement is synonymous to accomplishment, something successfully done or completed,
ability, attainment, performance, proficiency, or skill. Crow and Crow (1969), defined
“Academic achievement as the extent to which a learner is profiting from instructions in a
given area of learning i.e., achievement is reflected by the extent to which skill or knowledge
has been imparted to him”. Achievement, in simple words is, “something accomplished, as
through great effort, skill, perseverance, or courage” (p.29). On the basis of students’
academic achievement, in developing countries, parents not only pass judgments about the
schools and teachers but also rank them (Goddard, Hoy & Hoy,2000). Factors like location,
gender, parental motivation, parental socioeconomic status, qualities of intake, age of the
20
school, and adequacy of human, material, physical and financial resources affects students’
achievement. Some factors like parental motivation has positive while some factors have
negative effect on students’ academic performance
2.4.1 Achievement and Construct Representation
In this highly competitive world, student’s academic achievement has become an
index of his/her future. The most important goal of an educational process is academic
achievement. This competency may be due to intellectual or nonintellectual variables.
Achievement encompass from simple to complex experiments. Therefore achievement, at the
experimental level, is referred to as knowledge representation, learning, or acquisition. This
acquisition, sometimes depends on theoretical biases (Pickens, 2010). In educational or
psychometrics fields’ reference to a cognitive process, achievement is exemplified by the
extent of conclusion required on the part of the student to give a response explicit in the
measurement tool. Up to early 60’s usually achievement was viewed as students’ reproduction
of declarative knowledge of basic facts. Very little reference was made to possible cognitive
processes because it was thought that these basic facts were necessary to build further abstract
rules (Hativa and Goodyear 2001). Usually complexity of inference was not required from
the student. Although it is true that basic facts are necessary for abstract reasoning.
Behaviorists are based on “programmed instruction” did not accept abstract processes in the
way we do today. Cognitive psychology declared achievement as unobservable psychological
process instead of the study of behavior. In cognitive psychology achievement means study
of memory storage and its retrieval because achievement is a construct that shows different
stages of knowledge acquisition. The achievement, as end product, is the knowledge in
response to mental models built after practices over a long time. According to Hamre and
21
Hamre and Pianta (2001) vision of cognitive development plays a vital role in reasoning and
knowledge acquisition. For a reasoning task and knowledge acquisition, individual has to
integrate external knowledge and background. Consuming limited resources. Academic
achievement is an important means during which learner learns about their competencies,
talents, and abilities which are central part of developing career aspirations (Henson 2001).
This stems from the fact that every person is expected to perform well in all cultures.
2.5 Teacher-Student Relationship, Academic Achievement and Self-
Efficacy
Some researchers have studied behaviors and interactions of both students and
teachers in teaching-learning process in classrooms and student academic performance (Koth,
et al., 2008; Montague & Rinaldi, 2001; Hamre & Pianta, 2001;Wright, et al, 1986) while
some researchers examined teaching practices and teacher beliefs to predict academic
performance of students (Caprara et al., 2006; Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995). ).Within
Classroom there is positive association between students’ academic success and teacher
instructional practices, classroom interactions and teacher beliefs (Koth et al., 2008;
Mashburn et al., 2008; Caprara et al., 2006; Pianta et al., 2002). Hamre and Pianta (2001)
explored that student’s reaction in response to teachers’ relationship is based on student
experiences shaped by the teacher in school in addition to teaching-learning process. If
students perceive that they have close and positive relations with teacher, they are more
motivated to succeed. Teacher provides opportunities for students to achieve their required
activity level, provide behavioral support to form peer relations, teach communication skills,
and teach coping skills.
22
Mashburn et al, (2008) studied that schools appointed same teachers who create strong
teacher-student relationships to help the students improve their learning over time. Toste,
Heath and Dallaire, (2010) recommended that such type of relationship is necessary and
significant for students’ academic success. Students negate the overall negative experiences
if they felt a strong mutual relationship with their teacher in the school (Toste et al., 2010).
Cooke (2011) has explored that students show different and significant outcomes in school if
they have positive and mutual teacher-student relationship experiences. Such type of
relationship provided a common ground to teacher in order to guide, help, direct students and
monitor students’ behavior (Pickens, 2010). Terry (2008) has the view that for most of the
students a fundamental question ‘Does my teacher like me?’ is the best predictor of student’s
achievement. Lenhart (2010) explored that there is a relationship between students’ learning
scores and teacher pedagogical content knowledge. Norton (2013) studied that teachers must
have confidence in their specific subject area to retain self-efficacy in a classroom. Ignat and
Clipa (2010) self-efficacious teacher think they can do with their abilities in certain conditions
in order to reach desirable objectives and according to Friedman (2000) teachers with low
sense of self-efficacy, making them less confident in their ability to make a difference
professionally as he/she perceive issues such as student mischief in a less controllable manner
than those with a high sense of self-efficacy. Success or failure on specific tasks or feedback
greatly impacts teachers’ self-efficacy. Teachers’ self-efficacy impacts not only students’
personality but students’ achievement in tremendous ways (Schunk, 2012).
Bandura (1986) studied motivation, and phobias linked with self-efficacy concepts
and explored that, individuals’ ideas and self-perceptions are products of their derivations
from their interactions with their environments. Bandura and Albert (1977) refers to this as
23
“perceived self-efficacy” that effects self-determination and academic achievement. Ross
(2001) explored a positive relationship between teacher efficacy and academic performance
and similar relationship between teacher efficacy and working conditions. Milner (2002)
states that efficacious teachers participate in peer coaching, team teaching, mentoring and
interact more frequently with peer coaches and assumed a stronger role in school decision
making. He also found a negative impact on efficacy when poor teachers receive job
promotions and continues to decline till teachers believe that performance evaluations are not
related to the actual work they do in their classrooms. Adediwura and Bada (2007) noted the
effect of teachers’ knowledge, attitude and teaching skills on students’ academic performance
of students of secondary schools in Nigeria. The study of Adediwura and Bada (2007)
explored significant relationship between students’ academic performance and their
perception about teachers’ knowledge of subject matter, attitude towards work and teaching
skills. Allinder (1995) found that efficacious teachers set more audacious goals than their
counterparts with lower teaching efficacy. Smylie (1996) explored positive relationship
between teachers’ sincerity that student learning outcomes are strengthened by effective
instruction and their teaching efficacy. Similarly, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001)
supported Smylie (1996) by noting that efficacious teachers are more likely to try new
instructional strategies than the teachers with low teaching efficacy. Goddard (2002) claimed
that faculties with collective efficacy have a positive effect on the students’ academic
performance. In short, teachers who possess stronger perceptions of self-efficacy tend to
persistence, enthusiasm, and confidence. Teachers having high self-efficacy show warmth
and responsiveness to all students, especially those with lower academic abilities. Teachers
with strong self-efficacy rely more heavily on their own judgments, motivation, self-
24
reflection, capability, experience rather than on the principal for guidance regarding the
learning atmosphere. Teachers’ self-efficacy and perceived efficacy has a positive effect on
students’ performance and achievement in the classroom (Akinsola, 2008; Ashton & Webb,
1986; Tracz & Gibson, 1986; Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). According
to Bandura (1997), “The task of creating learning environments, conducive to development
of cognitive competencies rests heavily on the talents and self-efficacy of teachers” (p. 240).
Moreover, learning environments the teacher’s ability to carry out certain actions that will
result in a desired outcome. Efficacious teacher believes him or her ability to influence the
choice of activities to complete the tasks when facing obstacles. Additionally, professional
development of teachers impacts their efficacy when the acquired knowledge and skills are
significant to the classroom situation by creating motivation to engage students in learning
environment for a much greater time (Gibson & Dembo; 1984, Ashton & Webb, 1986).
According to Dembo and Gibson (1985) personal teaching efficacy and teaching efficacy are
two distinct dimensions of self-efficacy. Personal teaching efficacy (PTE) refers to teacher’s
personal beliefs about the necessary skills and capability to improve student learning even
with the most difficult or unmotivated students. On the other hand, teaching efficacy refers to
beliefs about external factors such as home environment, socioeconomic status, stimulate
improvement, teacher’s ability to bring about change or parental involvement beyond the
teacher’s control because most of a students’ performance and motivation depends on his/her
home environment. Gibson and Dembo (1984) identified teaching efficacy correspondence to
Bandura’s outcome expectancy concept. Rural or small schools shave the potential to limit
teachers’ teaching self-efficacy. Lack of materials and professional development
opportunities keep teachers from maximizing their professional self–efficacy because such
25
factors contribute to rural or small school inequalities and potentially hold back teachers from
meeting their maximum self-efficacy potential (Certo & Fox, 2002). A positive relationship
has been identified between teacher efficacy and their students’ self-esteem, motivation, self-
direction and attitudes about school. According to Ross (2001) those teachers who reflect
upon their impact by their beliefs and practices on student learning have a tendency to take
responsibility for student academic performance and student learning outcomes because such
teachers accept sole responsibility for students’ deficiencies in learning rather than blame
environmental factors, such as limited English proficiency. Ross (2001), argued that
efficacious teachers’ ability is acquired, rather than an innate trait towards students’ social
development in terms of their classroom success.
2.6 Teachers’ Commitment and Teacher Performance of Secondary Schools
To education researchers, the degree of teacher’s commitment is one of the most
important aspects of the students’ performance and quality of school. Commitment is referred
to as the degree of affective and positive bond between the teacher and the school rather than
passive type of loyalty where teachers stay with their jobs, but are not really involved in their
work. Teachers’ commitment reflects their degree of internal motivation, enthusiasm, and job
satisfaction. It reflects teachers derive from teaching and the degree of efficacy and
effectiveness they achieve in their jobs. To this effect, teacher commitment has been identified
as the most critical but important factor for the future success of students and secondary
schools in terms of their performance. Cheng (1993) has the view that committed teachers
perform well and their ability to innovate and to integrate new ideas into their own practice
has an important influence on students’ achievement and their attitudes toward achieving
educational goals. Acom (2007) argues that cooperation, voluntarism, and belongingness are
26
significantly different from others in terms of being commitment drivers and this is the case
in private secondary school also. Ejuu (2005) empirically report that there is no significant
difference in self-esteem, an integral part of self-efficacy, among the male and female teachers
in secondary schools in Uganda, but commitment as an important factor in teacher
performance (Namutebi, 2006; Mutchler, 2005).
2.7 Factors Affecting Teachers’ Professional Self-Efficacy and Students’
Academic Achievement
2.7.1 Gender
Researchers have suggested a beneficial relationship between teacher gender and
achievement, especially for girls (UNESCO 2000). A recent UNESCO and advocacy brief
(UNESCO 2006) argue in favor of hiring more female teachers in developing countries, and
states that doing so will have two positive outcomes. Their presence will lead to an important
in both girls’ enrolment and girls’ learning achievement. Large sample-based study in the
US shows that those students who taught by woman perform better than those taught by man
(While 2005). In accordance with Krieg, based on finding from the Southern and Eastern
African Consortium for Monitoring Education Quality (SACMEQ), a recent UNESCO
Education for All report notes that woman teachers have appositive effect on students’
achievement (UNESCO 2005). Similarly, a study from Pakistan (UNESCO 2000) finds that
children in female teachers’ classrooms tend to perform better. Singer (1996) found the female
teachers at the elementary level were more enthusiastic about committed to teaching than their
male counterparts. Morris (2004) found that female elementary school teachers have more
positive attitude towards teaching profession and this directly impact students’ performance
while (2005) found elementary students learn best from female teachers. Marsh, Martin, and
27
Cheng (2008) found the gender of a teacher had no impact on student achievement at the
middle and high-level schools. Students that had female teachers performed the same as
students with male teachers. Other researchers have found no relationship between teachers’
gender and student outcome, for instance, Driessen (2007) found that teacher gender has no
effect on student’s achievement.
2.7.2 Locality
Ajayi (1988) found in his study a significant difference in academic achievement of
students of urban and rural teachers. According to him location where schools are established
have effect on students’ performance. He further concluded that academic performance of
students must have been related with facilities allowed to urban schools and the same were
not available in rural setup. Omisade (1985) also observed a positive relationship between
location of schools and student’s performance in examination in Oyo State. He concluded that
students of in urban area performed better in examination then students belonging to rural
areas. Making a critical analysis of locational factor, Hallak (2007) pointed out that qualified
teachers refuse appointment in isolated villages and this is indicated a common issue in rural
areas schools. In the words of Adepoju (2001) he observed that teachers with higher training
are posted to large cities. This and more other studies conducted on the variation in the quality
of teachers in urban schools compared to those in rural are affect students’ academic
achievement. More specifically in the developing county context, a UNESCO-sponsored
study country (Bangladesh, Nepal, India and Pakistan) on female teachers in rural primary
schools found that female teachers were perceived as more effective in earlier grades by
administrators, children also saw them as more open and comfortable to interact with than
male teachers (UNESCO 2000). From the review of literature on locational influence on
28
students’ performance are not same. Findings of various researches indicated that urban
students perform better in examination whoever other found that students belonging to rural
areas (in spite of all issues) perform better. Many of researchers claim that no such setup (rural
or urban) can claim superiority over the other because their students’ performance is same
(Owoeye- Joseph & yara, 2010).
2.7.3 Subjects Areas
Traditionally the science subjects (including mathematics, physics, and chemistry
information technology) have been perceived as a difficult subject, while conversely the areas
subjects (including languages, art, humanities subjects such as history) consider as an easy
subject at school level (Macinnes, 1998). Marsh et al., (2008) found students outperformed in
science field as compared to arts subjects. These subjects include reading, mathematics and
science. Whitehead (1996) has also explained the traditional perspective that it might be
expected that those students who are weak in their studies would prefer arts subjects and
intelligent students might opt for sciences, Epsiten, Elwood, Hey, & Maw (1998), found a
significant difference in achievement score of students in science subject and humanities
subjects. In his study he found that those students who belong to the science subject teachers
achieved high score in physics and mathematics subject and on the other hand students of arts
subjects’ teachers performed significantly better in verbal aptitude, English language.
Teacher Efficacy for Instructional Strategies
In the teaching profession, teacher’s content knowledge is first and foremost. A major
aspect of a highly-qualified teacher is to be knowledgeable and competent in content of the
subject taught i.e. Teachers must prove that they have sufficient subject knowledge of the
subject they teach. Angela (2013) explored that lack of subject knowledge leads to
29
dissatisfaction and teaching difficulties because teachers’ subject knowledge can strongly
influence students’ learning by developing professional activities for improving students’
performance (Hill, Rowan and Ball, 2005). Thomas (2009) conducted a study by classifying
teachers as certified, uncertified, or alternatively certified. The academic credentials of the
first-year teachers were compared. Researchers calculated teachers’ effectiveness, student
achievement, and student background factors by using a regression formula. They found that
there is little average difference in impact of certified, uncertified and alternatively certified
teachers on academic achievement.
The study explored that content knowledge or the lack thereof has no significant
impact on student achievement while oppositely, Hill et al., (2005) found that content
knowledge and courses taken during training have contributed to student achievement. They
also found that degrees and courses taken have more impact on teachers’ teaching at the
secondary level than the elementary level. Bailey (1999) measured classroom goals,
strategies, and credentials, and found that teachers having graduate degree in mathematics,
graduate/undergraduate degree with minors in mathematics, and graduate/undergraduate
degree with no minor/major in mathematics showed strongest, appropriate, and lowest
mathematical background level respectively. More importantly, teachers without mathematics
content knowledge reported lower levels of vigilance to teach mathematics than math content
teachers with sufficient math background. Colbeck, Cabrera & Marine (2002) also explored
similar results like Bailey (1999). These studies concluded that content knowledge is
positively correlated with effective teaching Colbeck et al., (2002). Marsh et al., (2008)
explored that content knowledge of a teacher is not the only thing needed to teach students
effectively. Thomas (2009) explored that student outcomes are not consistently related to
30
teachers’ content knowledge Howard (2001) has the view that content knowledge is only one
thing for justifying that a teacher is highly-qualified.
2.8 Pedagogical Knowledge
Shavelson and Stern (2006) stated that majority of teachers are competent in their
subject matter but may not be competent in transferring their knowledge to their students
effectively i.e. they did not know the way that makes their knowledge accessible to their
students. Having pedagogical knowledge is the way to convey ideas and the subject matter
knowledge so that students are able to understand them. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2002) has
the opinion that pedagogical knowledge is process of learning that a teacher possesses or
teachers’ belief about their teaching that influences learners’ learning. This process includes
teaching strategies; time and classroom management skills; problem solving techniques,
ability to plan and prepare materials; implementation, and different assessment strategies like
questioning, bouncing, one-minute paper, one sentence summary, midpoint assessment,
muddiest point, telling neighbors etc. Howard (2001) concluded that pedagogical knowledge
is essential for teacher to teaching effectively. Schmidt, Cogan, and Houang (2011) believed
that pedagogical knowledge can be changed throughout in educational fieldwork and
pedagogical knowledge can be learnt from these fieldworks through classroom. Shoukat and
Iqbal (2012) showed that throughout undergraduate study fieldwork and coursework is
influenced greatly by pedagogical knowledge. Pedagogical knowledge can be improved by
experience. Bess (1996) studied the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical knowledge
and their experience. Singer (1996) found that the experienced teachers apparently have more
pedagogical knowledge than less experienced or beginner level teachers. This study also
explored that fieldwork and teaching courses are supportive in developing teachers’
31
pedagogical knowledge and immense experience is necessary to make it more useful and
specialized. Schon (2005) conducted two studies and surprisingly found that more years of
experience indicated a lower pedagogical knowledge in regard to higher-order thinking and
teachers’ pedagogical knowledge following a professional development course. Schmidt et
al., (2011) explored that teachers’ subject belief showed increased pedagogical knowledge.
Pedagogical knowledge is the knowledge of effectively teaching in all scenarios. Courses
offered in teacher education programs and certification courses improve teachers’ knowledge
about their effectiveness and these programs and practices help teachers improve their
pedagogy knowledge just as content classes that help to develop content knowledge. Lenhart
(2010) studied that there is a positive correlation between student learning in the area of
measurement and geometry and teacher pedagogical content knowledge.
The beliefs that teachers hold about their way of teaching influence their instructional
decisions and their thoughts (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Decisions regarding instruction
influence teachers’ planning of learning experiences for learners and hence learner’s ability
to avail opportunity to learn. Various research studies have proved that teachers’ decisions
regarding instruction depend on their teaching experience and gender (Ross, 2001). It is also
important to quote that teachers’ teaching practices also depend on their beliefs regarding
school contextual variables (Shulman, 1987). During teacher training, training should be
designed in such a way that teachers are able to understand characteristics, contextual factors
and beliefs that have shown potential influence on the students’ learning outcomes. Moreover,
teachers should involve in exploring the relationships between these variables. Some of these
characteristics and beliefs may have combine greater effects on instructional practices than
they individually have on teachers’ instructional practices and hence on students’ learning
32
opportunities. For example, the combination of teacher factors such as low efficacious
teachers but more structured in their approach and lacking the experience to teach students in
low socioeconomic areas may have greater implications than the teachers’ simply lacking
certificate by the supervisor the teaching experience for student learning. Hence, it is central
to focus teachers’ beliefs in wider angle, to examine the relationships in terms of students
learning and students’ learning outcomes.
Teachers’ expectations regarding students’ academic performance are curriculum-
specific future-oriented judgments. These teachers’ expectations are the teachers’ judgments
about the level of students’ academic progress they believe achieved by the end of course.
When researchers investigate teachers’ specific expectations about curriculum, they often
related them to writing, numeracy, geometry, reading specific curriculum area etc. (Bailey,
1999). Teacher expectations are vital relationship because teacher has varied expectations
about different students in the classroom. Sometime teachers have low expectations,
sometime high and some time at class level for all their students. Bailey (1999) has the view
that low and high expectation beliefs of teachers discriminate them. Teachers with high
expectation believed that students should work in flexible ability and mixed groups. Choices,
clear learning goals, and challenging learning experiences should be given to students about
the activities they completed. On the other hand, low expectation teachers believed that strict
ability group students learnt best. Teacher planned quite distinct activities for all students.
The teachers with low expectation believed that he has to decide about how, when and what
students should learn, and with whom. These divergent beliefs resulted in very varied
instructional environments for students in the classroom (Shulman, 1987). Teacher
expectations are not same i.e. not equally low or high for all their students. Teachers with
33
high expectation expect that all their students have to make significant academic gains while
teachers with low expectation do not expect that their students have to make significant gains
after the end of year. Hill, et al (2005) have the view that class level expectations are more
important for student outcomes than individual level expectations. Norton (2013) has the view
that students learning does not depend on student characteristics but depends on the teacher
characteristics. Postareff and Lindblom (2008) conducted meta-analyses of studies related to
expectations of naturalistic teacher and they explored that at class level teacher expectations
largely effects students’ achievement in reading and a little effect for low expectation teachers.
Efficacious teacher is goal orientated which structure their interaction with students,
instruction within classrooms, and motivates (Kaplan 2009), Performance goal orientation
teachers, formally, more focus on assessing students’ ability to achieve goal while mastery
goal orientation teachers, generally, focus on students learning and consider students learning
an active process in which students are totally involved in their learning and focused on
understandings of acquiring skills (Postareff, Lindblom-Ylanne, & Nevgi, 2007).
In teacher viewpoint, teacher expectations indicate their believes about the students to
achieve something and efficacy of teacher indicate students’ needs to do to imagined
something and teacher goal orientation indicate structure of assessments and classroom
lessons in order for students to reach their goals. A teacher with high expectations has
confidence that s/he can make a large difference to their learning for all students within the
classroom (teacher-efficacy) to result in larger, discriminated and significant student gains
(Saban, 2007).
Landio (1988) revealed a strong positive correlation between language proficiency
and teachers sense of efficacy. Efficacious teachers directly influence their instructional
34
practices. Efficacious teachers felt confident about their abilities and enjoy teaching willingly.
S/he implements new and innovative practices and use different new tasks d to affect student
learning. Norton (2013) showed that teachers’ efficacy for instructional strategies was higher
than his/her efficacy for classroom management and students’ engagement.
There is, as well, association between the goal orientated teachers’ beliefs and their
observed practices. Krows (1999) found that low mastery beliefs teachers consider learning
individualized process achieved by learners only listening to the teacher and passively
following instructions. Low mastery beliefs teachers consider student-teacher interaction as
wastage of time rather than helpful. They do not encourage students during learning process
to share answers or collaborate. Students’ status was recognized by only obeying and
following teachers’ procedures. They do not care about their achieving success and
performance on tasks. In contrast high mastery beliefs teachers always give much weightage
for developing students’ understanding and improvement by collaborating and sharing
answers and questions because they considered mistakes as source of information for
improving students learning. Conversations and interaction with students were considered as
constructive, supportive, and focused on improvement in learning. Students were encouraged
to work together actively and participate in class. Students get back feedback for their task
and activities rather than for procedures to be followed. Thus, it can be seen that teacher
practice are influenced by teacher beliefs.
In summary, researches indicate that teachers may change or modify their instructional
practices according to their beliefs and a few teachers’ characteristics appear to be associated
with distinct beliefs. For example, teachers’ teaching experience and teachers’ gender
associated with differential teacher beliefs. Ross (2001) second these results by exploring
35
that more teaching experienced teacher tended to be more efficacious teacher. Similar results
are explored by different study in different countries of the world that higher levels of teacher
efficacy attributed to their teaching experience (Calderhead, 1991; Darling-Hammond 2000;
König, 2011). Similarly, Postareff and Lindblom (2008) have explored that no differences in
teacher efficacy by gender but Ross (2001) has the view that teacher efficacy was low in males
than in females.
Shulman, (1987) found that teachers’ beliefs also influenced by the school context for
example, class level allotted to the teacher and socioeconomic status of the school been shown
to relate to practices and teachers’ specific beliefs. Ross (2001) explored that elementary
school teachers showed higher and consistent teacher efficacy than secondary school teachers.
Further, Shulman (1987) stated that teachers working in low socioeconomic schools had lower
expectations for the success of their students while teachers working in middle class schools
had, comparatively, high expectations. Postareff and Lindblom (2008) explored that teachers
in the beginning of their job in primary school appeared to have higher expectations of their
students while teachers who spent some time or middle in the job of primary school appeared
to have lower expectations of their students. Darling-Hammond (2000) found that the culture of
the school determined instructional practices of teachers in secondary classrooms. In schools
with competitive culture, teachers’ instructional practices in focused on demonstrating ability
consequently students become more performance oriented while in school supportive culture
teachers focus their instructional practices for students to mastery in learning. Further,
confident teachers showing confidence in their teaching abilities, show high levels of personal
efficacy to focus on mastery practices and student learning by creating classroom
36
environments. However, the same link was not found between teachers’ performance
practices and their personal efficacy.
Further, government funded at a higher rate the schools in low socioeconomic areas
than schools in high socioeconomic areas. It means that almost all schools are equally well-
resourced. This scenario motivates many experienced and high-quality experienced teachers
in choosing to teach in low socioeconomic areas.
2.9 Classroom Management
Classroom management is often understood as important and necessary techniques for
disciplining misbehavior of individual students (Chism, Lees & Evenbeck 2002). Crow and
Crow (1969) stated that classroom management and student misbehavior are important
problems for all teachers irrespective of their teaching experience but disciplining individual
students’ misbehavior is not only the overall goal for classroom management (Obidah and
Manheim, 2001). Discipline is only a very small part among many key aspects of
management. In the early third decade of nineteenth century, teachers have reported that
student misbehavior and classroom management are most demanding issues for experienced
teachers. Classroom management still remains the most frustrating issue for new teachers
although many improvements have been seen in classroom teaching in previous many decades
(Colback et al. 2002). Classroom management has many dimensions. One dimension related
to a teacher’s ability to stimulate student cooperation by engaging students in learning,
balancing the menial tasks of the classroom, and keeping order in the classroom
(Bandura.1997). Research shows that teachers’ classroom management effected by off task
activities, classroom procedural matters, discipline situations, and transitions between
activities (Adeyemo, 2005). Acom (2007) has the view that classroom management is a
37
dichotomous element based on behavioral management and instructional management. These
two dichotomous elements are necessarily interwoven for students and teachers to form a
healthy classroom atmosphere. Behavioral management related to management of learning
situations such as non interest of teaching material, interruption of teacher, cheating,
collective answers, not participating, preparing the assignments during the lesson, slowness
in completing work, not completing the assignments, and reading another subject during the
lesson (Begley, 2007). Behaviors related to behavioral management include: non interest of
classroom cleanliness, using a cell phone, changing sitting locations, side talks, eating in the
classroom, issuing annoying voices, joking during the lesson, lying, theft, too many requests,
occupation in side matters, stubbornness, laughing without reason, pretending of sickness,
bullying and assaulting other students, and many other like these (Obidah & Manheim 2001).
Troublemaking classroom behaviors include over activity, laboratory environment, failure of
instruments, inattention, unplanned events, frequent visits of observers in the classrooms and
nonfulfillment of requested resources (Bancluta, 1986). As a manager of the classroom, a
teacher is required to direct students towards learning and to control the learning environment
in order to ensure academic and behavioral achievements among students. One of the
emerging trends of modern educational research especially teacher success in teaching-
learning process regards the influence of teacher self-efficacy regarding his/her classroom
management. Effect of teacher self-efficacy on classroom management is a concept that is
relatively new to the field of education. The current research will examine the prevailing
relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy, teachers’ efficacy and their classroom
management as well as the effects of these relationships on the academic achievement of
students of secondary classes in the province of Khyber PakhthtunKhwa. The definitive
38
purpose of teachers’ self-efficacy and efficacy towards classroom management is to equip
students with the necessary skills to be successful socially and academically by providing a
safe and healthy learning environment (Obidah and Manheim, 2001).
2.10 Importance of Classroom Management
Classroom management has become important feature of teaching-learning process
since last fifty years because without good classroom management, teachers cannot teach
effectively and students cannot learn efficiently (Marzano & Marzano, 2003). Community is
monitoring teachers as well as students’ performance keenly and extreme pressuring teachers
for their students to perform up to the required standards. High stakes testing and strict
accountability held responsible teachers to meet a desired level of academic performance and
up to mark success. This task seems near impossible without a properly managed classroom.
Learning material is one component of classroom management so if teacher cannot ensure
that the students have proper and sufficient learning material, students may not perform up to
the standards or mile stone. Poor classroom management may also lead to increased teachers’
stress, exhaustion and attrition levels and violence or victimization within school students
(Obidan & Manheim-Teel, 2001). The school culture also has a forceful impact on teachers’
classroom management procedures. Classroom bullying and violence is directly linked with
general classroom management. Teachers’ classroom management struggle can minimize this
(Calderhead, 1991).
2.11 Factors that Effect Classroom Management
There is no agreed upon or set strategy that compares good classroom management.
Classroom management requires safe and orderly learning environment by developing
enhancing management skills and strategies because classroom management is complex
39
aspect of teaching and its meanings are different for different teachers and varies for every
classroom situation and based on maintaining routines, planning, enforcing rules and
procedures, and establishing learning environment (Obidah and Manheim, 2001). Teaching
experience of a teacher is the most influential aspect for good classroom management as
various studies have explored that experienced teacher’s face fewer problems regarding
classroom management and poor classroom manager have change the teaching profession
(Calderhead, 1991). Besides experience, organizational culture; school policies, certification
methods, and teacher preparation programs heavily influence the classroom management
abilities of newly inducted teachers.
2.11.1 New Trends in Classroom Management
Globally teachers’ self-efficacy is necessary to survive in a proactive and
constructivist world. Our teacher education institutions have to re-design their teacher training
programs to foster reasonable internal attributions for development of self-efficacy in
prospective teachers (Henson, 2001). Teachers training institutes and teachers training
programs can effectively impact teacher self-efficacy, therefore such institutions should focus
on to inculcate this aspect into training programs for prospective teachers (Knoblauch, &
Woolfolk, 2008). Evertson, (1985) revealed that without self-efficacy induction teachers tend
to revert to traditional interventions and modes of instruction. Inexperienced or newly
inducted teachers often complain about students’’ misbehavior in the classroom due to
insufficient knowledge of classroom management skills and practice of these skills. Teacher
training institutions focusing on classroom management skills can be help inexperienced
teachers improve their skills (Evertson, 1985 & Henson, 2001). Therefore, it is vital to
interweave classroom management into all coursework in the teacher education programs
40
because in cause of classroom management less curriculum teachers may question good
teaching methods. Teachers’ confidence in their ability to manage troublemaking conduct can
develop by special classroom management training programs and this change may lead to an
increase in teachers’ levels of self-efficacy (Roche & Marsh, 2002).
2.11.2 Classroom Management and Self-efficacy
The tasks of teachers are demanding and heavily considered as accountable for
students’ success. Globally, each year, many teachers exhausted and feel unable to carry their
teaching profession. For example, USA teacher burnout has become a topic receiving national
attention. Students may find some disturbing manners of their favorite teachers. Scharlach
(2008) finds that students describe good instruction, personality, and classroom management
as characteristics of ‘good’ teachers. students felt uncomfortable when teacher talk to them
in a reproachful manner, speak too fast, speak in an unvaried tone, and give too many projects
or assignments. Students like teacher who do not get furious unless they misbehaved severely
(Calderhead,1991). They expected to solve the problem of disruptive student or students
without showing angriness with the whole class. All teachers wanted to solve the students’
learning problems. This shows that teachers believed in their capabilities to deal with
challenging situations more than they can do. Sarangapani (2003) found that most of the
teachers express a need to improve their classroom management skills. Milner (2002) explains
that teachers with high self-efficacy are likely to be successful in providing order in the
classroom due to their positive beliefs and less interventionist attitudes toward classroom
management. Both low and high efficacious teachers use rewards but low efficacious teachers
use severe punishments to maintain order in their classrooms. High efficacious teacher may
41
use “positive reinforcement” or “helping strategies” and low efficacious teacher
“punishment” as rewards.
2.12 Student Engagement
Various research studies documented that teachers profoundly affect student
achievement and teachers affect student achievement in different way, the reason is that some
teachers are less effective than others teachers. Shoukat and Iqbal (2012) found that vast
literature recommended a high level of student engagement is the basis of effective classroom
instruction by effective teachers. Milner (2002) has the view that relationship between
teachers and students play an important role in determining a students’ level of engagement
in teaching-learning process.
2.12.1 Categories of Student Engagement
Henson (2001) classified students’ engagement research studies into behavioral
engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement categories. Behavioral
engagement covers doing work according to the rules, emotional engagement encompasses
emotions, interest, and values while cognitive engagement includes strategy use, motivation,
and effort to succeed. Behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive
engagement are helpful in understanding student engagement. In student-centered approach,
learning demands that students have to take responsibility for their work rather than teachers
to drive the learning process. Students have to self-engage in learning and teachers controlling
in the learning settings. Teachers motivate learners and minimize his role as the director in
learning. Teachers’ appropriate teaching strategies are useful in encouraging students to take
their learning responsibility rather than teacher to lead the learning process. Shoukat and Iqbal
(2012) have the view that teacher efficacy is associated with student engagement in teaching-
42
learning process. The student engagement and teacher efficacy have an impact on their
commitments, performances and professional retention. Self-efficacious teachers have the
ability to organize appropriate learning activities and help the students especially students
who are struggling. Therefore, efficacious teachers remain committed to their work by
showing better performance. Walker (1992) found that teachers with low self-efficacy show
poor performance than high self-efficacious because they did not use adequate classroom
management approaches and did not implement didactic innovations and teaching methods.
Ashton and Webb (1986) explored that high self-efficacy teachers keep students on task to
achieve learning goals. Schunk (2012) defines teachers’ instructional self-efficacy as
teachers’ beliefs about their capacity to help their students to learn. Ashton and Webb (1986)
said that teachers’ instructional self-efficacy influences classroom activities, effort, and
persistence with students. Teachers’ instructional self-efficacy implies teachers believe in
their abilities to enhance students learning effectively while low self-efficacious teachers may
not prepare their teaching materials effectively (Henson, 2001; Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy,
2001). An effective teacher prepares lessons and comes to the classroom likely show a
positive impact on learning and student engagement than teacher who sees s/he position as
simply a job to be endured. Effective teachers develop students’ learning rather than teach to
earn a salary therefore predictor of student achievement is teacher self-efficacy. Calderhead
(1991) stated that, various research studies in different settings confirm the results that
students of highly efficacious teachers found to have autonomy, motivation a high level of
academic achievement. Highly efficacious teacher is comfortable with new ideas because are
ambitious in their work and. They work at most abilities and show patience while facing
challenges in new conditions and situations because they show interests and influence by their
43
desire to see students successful. Efficacious teachers’ remains do not the practice to punish
students when they make errors or corporal punishment. Punishment of students in learning
process contradicts the findings of most research studies regarding teacher efficacy. Ashton
and Webb (1986) have suggested that beliefs of these teachers were often linked to strict and
harsh punishment procedures, such as sending students out of the classroom, abusing students
verbally and physically. Highly efficacious teachers rarely criticize their students when they
make errors and continue to show interest in all struggling students in their learning by
devoting extra time to assisting students (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Calderhead, 1991)
studied and stated that highly efficacious teacher understanding needs of their students in the
learning environment. Highly efficacious teachers control undesirable classroom behavior
and engage students in learning using various and innovative instructional methods. .
Mashburn et al., (2008) identified following variables of efficacious teacher regarding
students’ engagement;
Wittiness: efficacious teacher observes the class and individuals and continued to
assess while engaged with individual students or small groups.
Overlapping: efficacious teacher remains capture students’ attention by performing
more than one task at a time which helps him/her to conduct the lesson without
disruption.
Signal continuity and momentum during the lesson: efficacious teacher present
content continually in well-planned manner by capturing student attention.
Group alertness and accountability during lessons: efficacious teacher used different
formative assessment strategies that improve students’ sense of responsibility for
learning.
44
Challenge and variety in assignments: efficacious teacher encourage their students and
engage them in diversity of assignments to challenge their cognitive abilities.
Conveying purposefulness: efficacious teacher takes advantage of the allotted
teaching time and encourage students to finish their work in time by evaluating either
students are participating or not.
Teaching appropriate conduct: efficacious teachers communicates an understanding
of what they expected from students. He/she concentrated on important work that
students have to do, and on teaching them how to do their work.
Maintaining attention: efficacious teacher quickly identified confused and non-serious
students in class. He/she changes the tone and pitch of her/his voices during teaching
and move around the class also. He/she changes seating arrangements to engage
confused and non-serious students.
Effective and efficacious teacher focus on students’ expectations, encouraging and
supporting students they demanded and needed and instruct their students to abide by rules
and procedures. According to Schunk (2012) student engagement is a significant predictor of
efficacious teachers’ ability in motivating students, engaging the struggling learner, and
pursuing effective instruction.
2.12.2 Factors Affecting Student Engagement
Different research studies have explained the following factors which affect
students’ engagements during the class
2.12.2.1 Job Dissatisfaction
According to Raisani (1988) dissatisfied teachers display less commitment and greater
risk for leaving the profession. Effective engaging students using effective instructional
strategies, maintaining efficacy, and managing classes is not expected by dissatisfied teacher.
45
2.12.2.2 Class Size
Class size is a significant factor that can affect student performance and engagement.
Overcrowded classes make it difficult for teachers to interact with students regularly. In
overcrowded class teacher with high efficacy even by employing various teaching methods to
engage students in learning, cannot be successful (Henson, 2001).
2.12.2.3 Student involvement in teaching learning process
Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) stated that a number of research studies have explored
consistent relationships between the behaviors or learning of students and characteristics of
teachers and teachers’ sense of efficacy is one of the important characteristics and teachers’
efficacy level predict student achievement. A number of studies have been correlated student
achievement and teachers’ beliefs and his efficacy levels (Ali, 2011; Prieto & Altmaier, 1994;
Shoukat & Iqbal, 2012). Students of efficacious teachers generally outperform than their peers
in other classes. Roche and March (2002) found that teacher efficacy had a major effect on
how teachers made academic predictions about certain students. Low efficacious teacher
demonstrated a bleak outlook on students reading by feeling that inattentive students less
likely to achieve academically as compare to highly efficacious teacher did not identify
inattentive students. Highly efficacious teacher did not predict poorer academic outcomes
based on student characteristics (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Roche and March (2002)
qualitatively studied and found that those teachers of highly performing schools are aware of
the curriculum standards and that they achieve these standards in their classrooms and
consider the standards merely the bare minimum. Teachers of low performing schools feel
that curriculum standards are forced students and it difficult that achieving these standards
timely. Saban (2003) found that efficacious teachers used a wider variety of teaching
techniques, provided additional support for the difficult to teach students and took more
46
responsibility to ensure their students are learning. They teach lower than curriculum
standards because s/he confused about the nature of the standards themselves. Comments of
teachers from high and low performing schools explored that the efficacy levels of the
teachers of high performing schools are higher than the efficacy levels of teachers of low
performing schools and efficacious teachers are more apt to demonstrate a number of
excellent behaviors include experimenting with a variety of teaching material, using varied
methods of instruction, instructional strategies that emphasized creativity, comprehension,
and meaningfulness and seeking out new information on improved teaching methods.
Teachers with high sense of efficacy teachers make every attempt to avoid disengagement.
Marzano and Marzano (2003) stated that efficacious teachers provide timely formative
feedback. These teacher use feedback that is crucial to the continued success and improvement
of students because too much time between the lesson, assessment and the feedback has a
critical effect on students’ achievements.
2.13 Summary
The beliefs are referred to “one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of
action required to manage prospective situations,” The teacher’s belief regarding their own
perspective that he possesses the ability to influence student learning and achievement of all
students, including those students who may be considered unmotivated and difficult is
commonly referred to as teacher self-efficacy. The construct teacher efficacy roots from the
late seventy of nineteenth century’s studies foundation on sense of self-efficacy is positively
related to student achievement (Denham & Michael, 1981). Teacher efficacy construct is two-
dimensional, one dimension relates to teachers’ teaching as general teaching efficacy that
perceived as the power of teaching to achieve desired and objective results, and second
47
dimension is teachers’ own teaching efficacy that is perceived as his/her belief in his/her
personal ability to achieve that desired results. Teachers having high levels of self-efficacy
have a strong peoples and academic orientation (Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Klein, 2011).
Efficacious teachers’ ability in student engagement can be seen by considering how s/he
encourage their students to think critically, motivate students for learning, and how foster
student creativity.
Hoy (2000) defined the term ‘teacher’s efficacy’ as a teacher’s confidence to promote
students’ learning. Gavora (2010) explained teachers’ efficacy as having two major
dimensions i.e. Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) and General Teaching Efficacy (GTE).
Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) refers to a teacher’s overall sense of effectiveness of his/her
teaching. It represents a teacher’s belief in his/her competencies to assist students’ learning.
On the other hand, General Teaching Efficacy is about the teaching as a profession itself and
not about the person who is teaching. Gavora (2010) explained General Teaching efficacy to
be the confidence that teaching as an activity or form of education in an organizational setup
has its positive effects on students’ learning even in presence of external factors like lack of
motivation and unsupportive home environments etc.
Metz (1986) theory presupposes that people should follow the obligations to one’s
individual or society because upholding one’s duty is what is considered ethically correct. It
is possible by analyzing an ethical dilemma, meaning that a person should adhere to their
obligations and duties under the core values of the code of conduct, and being committed, and
having a positive perception. Bandura,and Albert (1977) as an expert of cognitive theory in
social setup, states that that people are competent in human activity that operates in “triadic”
reciprocal causation process. The triad stems from behavior, environmental influences and
48
internal personal factors. These three inter-related forces resulting from affective, cognitive
and biological processes and impact of the actions they will take as well as what people
believe about themselves. The teacher efficacy related research explored that teachers’ certain
beliefs and biases can affect ways the students are treated in their presence or feelings about
students. Teachers’ beliefs and efficacy influence what they do in the classroom. Teachers’
actions are generally based on their belief system, which can affect their students and their
classroom practices. External factors like content of the subject, diverse nature of students
and family influence and local guidelines can affect teacher beliefs. (Cagle, 1998; Henson,
2001; Gordon, 2001; George & Aaronson, 2003; Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004; Scharlach,
2008).
The tasks of teachers are demanding and heavily considered as accountable for
students’ success.) Gordon, 2001 found that students describe good instruction, personality,
and classroom management as characteristics of ‘good’ teachers. Shell, Murphy, and Bruning
(1989) explored that that students felt uncomfortable when teacher talk to them in a
reproachful manner, speak too fast, speak in an unvaried tone, and give too many projects or
assignments. Students like teacher who do not get furious unless they misbehaved severely
Demato (2001) and they expected to solve the problem of disruptive student or students
without showing angriness with the whole class. All teachers wanted to solve the students’
learning problems. This shows that teachers believed in their capabilities to deal with
challenging situations more than they can do. Evertson (1985) found that most of the teachers
express a need to improve their classroom management skills because Henson (2001) explains
that teachers with high self-efficacy are likely to be successful in providing order in the
classroom due to their positive beliefs and less interventionist attitudes toward classroom
49
management. Both low and high efficacious teachers use rewards but low efficacious teachers
use severe punishments to maintain order in their classrooms. High efficacious teacher may
use “positive reinforcement” or “helping strategies” and low efficacious teacher
“punishment” as rewards.
Woolfolk and Hoy, (1990) stated that a number of research studies have explored
consistent relationships between the behaviors or learning of students and characteristics of
teachers and teachers’ sense of efficacy is one of the important characteristics. A number of
studies have been correlated student achievement and teachers’ beliefs and his efficacy levels
(Salomon, 1984; Schon, 2005; Shell et al. (1989); Tollerud, 1999). Teachers’ efficacy level
predicts student achievement students of efficacious teachers generally outperform than their
peers in other classes. Stajkovic and Luthans, (1998) found that teacher efficacy had a major
effect on how teachers made academic predictions about certain students. Low efficacious
teacher demonstrated a bleak outlook on students reading by feeling that inattentive students
less likely to achieve academically as compare to highly efficacious teacher did not identify
inattentive students. Highly efficacious teacher did not predict poorer academic outcomes
based on student characteristics (Epsiten, et al. 1998; George and Aronson, 2003). DeChenne
(2010) qualitatively studied and found that those teachers of highly performing schools are
aware of the curriculum standards and that they achieve these standards in their classrooms
and consider the standards merely the bare minimum. Teachers of low performing schools
feel that curriculum standards are forced students and it difficult that achieving these standards
timely. Demato (2001) found that efficacious teachers used a wider variety of teaching
techniques, provided additional support for the difficult to teach students and took more
responsibility to ensure their students are learning. They teach lower than curriculum
50
standards because s/he confused about the nature of the standards themselves. Comments of
teachers from high and low performing schools explored that the efficacy levels of the
teachers of high performing schools are higher than the efficacy levels of teachers of low
performing schools and efficacious teachers are more apt to demonstrate a number of
excellent behaviors include experimenting with a variety of teaching material, using varied
methods of instruction, instructional strategies that emphasized creativity, comprehension,
and meaningfulness and seeking out new information on improved teaching methods.
Teachers with high sense of efficacy teachers make every attempt to avoid disengagement.
Marzano and Marzano (2003) stated that efficacious teachers provide timely formative
feedback. These teacher use feedback that is crucial to the continued success and improvement
of students because too much time between the lesson, assessment and the feedback has a
critical effect on students’ achievements.
Efficacious teachers’ ability in instructional strategies can be consider by how he
responds to difficult questions posed by students, how teachers gauge student comprehension,
and how teachers are able to adjust lessons to the appropriate level for individual students.
Self-efficacy beliefs play a considerable role in shaping the personality of individual by, how
people think, motivates them, and ultimately acts. People with high self-efficacy beliefs will
visualize successful scenarios when planning courses of action, increase the difficulty and
specificity of task-related goals, and decrease the amount of stress experienced in challenging
situations (Bandura, 1993).Efficacious teachers’ ability in student engagement can be seen by
considering her/his ability to control disruptive behavior in the classroom, how well teachers
can establish routines to foster student compliance, and how well teachers can make
expectations clear about student behavior (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy 2007). There is a
51
positive relationship between efficacious teachers’ ability in student engagement and student
academic achievement. There is a positive relationship between efficacious teachers’ ability
in instructional strategies and student academic achievement. There is a positive relationship
between efficacious teachers’ ability in classroom management and student academic
achievement. There is a positive relationship between total years of teaching experience of
efficacious teachers and student academic achievement.
Efficacious teachers’ ability in student engagement can be seen by considering how
s/he encourage their students to think critically, motivate students for learning, and how foster
student creativity. Efficacious teachers’ ability in instructional strategies can be consider by
how s/he respond to difficult questions posed by students, how teachers gauge student
comprehension, and how teachers are able to adjust lessons to the appropriate level for
individual students. Efficacious teachers’ ability in student engagement can be seen by
considering her/his ability to control disruptive behavior in the classroom, how well teachers
can establish routines to foster student compliance, and how well teachers can make
expectations clear about student behavior (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy 2001). There is a
positive relationship between efficacious teachers’ ability in student engagement and student
academic achievement. There is a positive relationship between efficacious teachers’ ability
in instructional strategies and student academic achievement. There is a positive relationship
between efficacious teachers’ ability in classroom management and student academic
achievement. There is a positive relationship between total years of teaching experience of
efficacious teachers and student academic achievement.
52
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research study aimed to identify the impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy
on students’ academic achievement at secondary school level. The objectives also include the
exploration of differences among two types of schools’ teachers (science and general) in
teachers’ professional efficacy and teacher efficacy. Additionally, this study also tries to
examine the relative impact of gender, location and different subject areas (science and
general) on teachers’ professional efficacy and teacher efficacy. This chapter describes
research design, research instruments used, sampling rationale, selected sample and the
method implemented to carry out the study.
3.1 Research Design
The research design adopted in this research is co-relational descriptive survey in
nature. The design comprises an identification of three types of correlations; first, it examines
the impact of secondary school teachers’ professional efficacy (in terms of student
engagement) and student academic achievement. Secondly, it explores the impact of
secondary school teachers’ professional-efficacy (in terms of instructional strategies) and
student academic achievement. Thirdly, it finds the impact of secondary school teachers’
professional-efficacy (in terms of classroom management) and student academic
achievement. Differences in teachers’ professional efficacy and teachers’ efficacy with
respect to genders, location, and subject (science and general) are also explored. Science and
general teachers from male and female Government Secondary Schools of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa Province have been selected as part of this study.
53
3.2 Population of the Study
Total numbers of High and Higher Secondary Schools (Boys and Girls) in the
selected six districts were 1667. Total Secondary Schools Teachers (SSTs) general (Male
and Female) were 4974 and total Secondary Schools Teachers (SSTs) Science (Male and
Female) were 1574. Total number of students (Science and general) appeared in SSC exam
(10th grade) boys and girls were 97,460 in the selected six districts (EMIS, 2013-14) who
formulated the total population of the study.
3.3 Sample of the Study
Multi Stage Stratified Random Sample Technique was used for constituted sample of
the present study. Among the selected six districts twenty (20) high and higher Secondary
Schools from each district were randomly selected. Each cluster of twenty (20) schools
comprised of twelve (12) male and eight (8) female schools. From each selected school three
Senior School Teachers (SST), one Science and two generals were selected by using random
sampling. SST Science included in the sample were those who taught Biology, Chemistry,
and Physics. There were two types of general teachers included in the sample; ‘general teacher
one’, who taught Mathematics, General Science, and Pakistan Studies, while ‘general teacher
two’ taught English, Urdu and Islamic Studies/ Home economics to their students in this
research study. Thus, a total of three hundred and sixty (360) teachers have (216 male and
144 female) constituted the proposed sample under study. All 10th grade students being taught
by the selected teachers in the academic year 2013-14 were also included in the sample of
study.
54
3.4 Research Instruments
Three instruments were used for this research. Data were collected from sampled
teachers using two questionnaires i.e. Teacher Efficacy Scale and Teacher Self Efficacy Scale.
In addition, result sheets of sampled students from concerned Boards of Intermediate and
Secondary Education were also used.
The researcher used the original versions of both questionnaires i.e. Teachers’
Efficacy Scale (TES) and the Teachers’ Self Efficacy Scale (TSES) prepared by Anita
Woolfolk Hoy, Professor Educational Psychology & Philosophy, School of Educational
Policy & Leadership, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Proper permissions to use
the original scales were obtained through email from Anita Woolfolk Hoy. The original scales
were translated into national language (Urdu) for the better understanding of sampled teachers
with her permission. Translation of the questionnaires into Urdu was initially carried out by
the language experts. The Urdu versions were translated back into English to see if they
maintain their originality. Both version of the research instruments was presented to six
experts in the relevant field. They were requested to review the research tools in the light of
research objectives and theory and practice of the relevant field. The experts suggested some
changes in the statements and indicated duplication of context at some points. The research
instrument was refined and improved in the light of feedback from the experts.
Two research instruments were used in this research; Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES)
and Teacher Self Efficacy Scale (TSES). Here is a detailed description of the two scales. The
TES structured around two dimensions i.e. Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) and General
Teaching Efficacy (GTE). Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) represents a teacher’s belief in
his/her skills and capabilities to help students’ learning achievement. It shows the teachers’
55
overall sense of his/her teaching effectiveness. Fourteen (14) items represent personal
teaching efficacy. General Teaching Efficacy (GTE) represents the belief that teaching has
positive effect on students in the light of external factors like lack of motivation, non-
supportive home environment etc. There are eight (8) items in the instrument that measure
general teaching efficacy.
Teacher Self Efficacy Scale (TSES) provides a measure of teachers’ self-perceived
capability that they can contribute to students’ learning achievement. Self-Efficacy is about
self-knowing. Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Scale has three domains such as instructional
strategies, classroom management and student’s engagement. Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Scale
is comprised of 24 items each based on 5-point Likert scale. These 24 items represent the 3
domains i.e. 13 items represent instructional strategies, 6 items belong to classroom
management and 5 items describe students’ engagement.
3.5 Validity
Efficacy and self-efficacy scales should have face validity. They should measure what
they purport to measure, that is, perceived capability to produce given attainments. But they
should also have discriminative and predictive validity. The construct of self-efficacy is
embedded in a theory that explains a network of relationships among various factors.
Construct validation is a process of hypothesis testing. People who score high on self-efficacy
should differ in distinct ways from those who score low in ways specified by the theory.
Verifications of predicted effects provide support for the construct’s validity.
3.6 Reliability
The pre testing helps to indicate mistakes in the process of data collection. For pilot
testing, both instruments were administered to the 30 teachers (10 from science subjects and
56
20 from general subjects) that were the part of population but not included in the sample of
the study. Time for completion of questionnaire was noted and the points which needed
clarification for understanding of the respondents were also highlighted. In the light of
feedback from pilot testing, both the research instruments were further improved and made
appropriate under the guidance of the supervisor.
Reliability places an upper limit on the maximum possible correlation that can be
obtained between variables. Internal consistency reliabilities should be computed using
Cronbach’s alpha. If the reliability coefficients are low, discard or rewrite the items with low
correlates. Including only a few items will limit the alpha level. Increase the number of items.
For finding the reliability of research instrument, the reliability co-efficient Chronbach
Alpha was calculated. Its values for Teachers efficacy scale was found to be 0.731, and for
Teachers self-efficacy scale it was found to be 0.803.
3.7 Data Collection
Researcher visited each and every school to collect the primary data on teachers’
efficacy and teachers’ self-efficacy from the sampled teachers via the selected research
instruments. To measure the impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy on students’
achievement, results sheets of selected students from corresponding Boards of Intermediate
and Secondary Education were used as secondary data.
3.8 Data Analysis
Collected data was analyzed using SPSS 15 software. To test the stated hypotheses
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, Linear Regression Model, Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) and Independent Sample t-test were used. In addition, an alpha (p) level
of 0.05 and 0.01 was used in all hypothesis’s tests.
57
The performance score of a teacher was calculated using GPA formula devised by the Govt. of
Punjab (1996) for the calculation of teacher performance. The formula is as:
GPA= (A+ × 10 + A × 7 +B ×5 +C × 3 + D × 2 +E ×1) × 10 ÷ (Total Number of Students)
Where A+= Number of students with A+ grade; A= Number of students with A grade; B=
Number of students with B grade; C= Number of students with C grade; D= Number of students with
D grade; and E= Number of students with E grade.
3.9 Statistical Techniques Applied for Hypotheses Testing
The following statistical techniques were applied to hypotheses for testing purpose:
Table 3.9.1:
Statistical Techniques Used for Hypotheses Testing S.
No
Hypotheses Statements Statistics Applied
1 Secondary School Teachers have high
professional self-efficacy.
Independent Sample t-test
Formula used
2 Secondary school teacher of different
categories (gender wise, locality wise and
subject wise) have no significant difference
Independent Sample t-test (two tailed)
and ANOVA
58
S.
No
Hypotheses Statements Statistics Applied
in term of their student academic
achievement.
3 There is no significant correlation between
teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their
performance in terms their students’
achievement.
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
Coefficient
4 There is no significant correlation between
professional self-efficacy and performance
in terms their students’ achievement for the
male and female teachers.
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
Coefficient
59
S.
No
Hypotheses Statements Statistics Applied
5 There is no significant correlation between
professional self-efficacy and performance
in terms their students’ achievement for the
teachers from urban and rural area.
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
Coefficient
6 There is no significant correlation between
professional self-efficacy and performance
in terms their students’ achievement for the
teachers from science and arts discipline.
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
Coefficient
7 There are no significant predictors of
secondary schools’ teachers’ professional
Regression
60
S.
No
Hypotheses Statements Statistics Applied
self-efficacy as well as their students’
academic achievement.
61
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter deals with the analysis of data collected from teachers and students. The
teacher efficacy and professional self-efficacy questionnaires were piloted before
administration to the sample of the study and it was reviewed by the experts and approved by
the supervisor. The questionnaires were administered to identify the professional self-efficacy
level of secondary school teachers at Government sector. Secondary schools’ students’
achievement data were collected from six Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education
(BISE). A comparison of means scores was carried out to measure differences. The data were
analyzed by applying independent sample t-test and one sample t-test at 0.05 level of
confidence to measure significant mean score differences for independent variables. To
calculate the magnitude of correlation between student’s achievement and teacher’s efficacy
and between efficacy sub scales Pearson correlation were applied (at0.05 level of confidence).
Linear Regression model was also use to find the relationship between teacher professional
self- efficacy/teacher, efficacy and teacher performance in term of their students’
achievement.
4.1 Academic Achievement of Students Related to Different Categories
of Teachers
Students’ academic achievement was measured by using the result score of BISE in
science and general subjects, i.e. Science subjects included Biology, Chemistry, and Physics
and general subjects included English, Mathematics, Urdu, General Science, Pakistan Studies,
and Islamic Studies (in case of male students)/ Home economics (in case of female students).
62
Table 4.1. 1
Academic achievement of students related to different categories of teachers
Variable Category N Assumed
Mean
Calculated
Mean
SD t P
Students’
academic
achievement
Science teacher 120 15 11.19 6.111 30.068 0.000
General teacher one 120 15 10.00 6.378 17.179 0.000
General teacher two 120 15 7.84 7.032 12.228 0.000
Total teacher 360 15 9.68 6.647 27.638 0.000
Table 4.1.1 shows that overall calculated mean of students’ academic achievement was
9.68>15, mean score of students belonging to science teacher was 11.19>15, general teacher
one was 10.00>15 and general teacher two was 7.84>15. In all cases calculated mean is lower
than the assumed mean (p<0.05), thus students belonging to all the three categories of teachers
have relatively low academic achievement and this result is statistically significant at p<0.05.
4.2 Level of Efficacy and Professional Self-Efficacy of Secondary
Schools Teachers
Teachers’ professional self-efficacy was measured by using two rating scales i.e.
Efficacy scale (covering general and personal teacher efficacy), and professional self-efficacy
scale (covering classroom management, teaching instruction, and student engagement) with
different categories of teachers i.e. subjects, gender and locality. The data obtained through
these scales have been analyzed in underlying tables.
63
Table 4.2. 1
Efficacy of secondary school teachers
Aspect of TE N Assumed
Mean
Calculated
Mean
SD t-
value
p-
value
GTE 360 24 26.86 4.689 103.58 0.000
PTE 360 42 51.63 6.120 151.83 0.000
Table 4.2.1 indicates that the calculated mean score of general and personal teaching efficacy
of secondary schools teachers are greater than assumed mean score of general teaching
efficacy (26.86>24 and p<0.05) and personal teaching efficacy (51.63>42 and p<0.05) , thus
the teachers of secondary schools were highly efficacious.
Table 4.2.2
Professional self-efficacy of secondary school teachers
Aspect of Professional SE N Assumed
Mean
Calculated
Mean
SD t-value p-value
Student Engagement 360 24
30.44 3.895 148.08 0.00
Instructional strategies 360 24
24.19 3.587 106.275 0.00
Classroom Management 360 24
27.11 3.891 131.998 0.00
Table 4.2.2 indicates that the calculated mean score of three dimensions of teachers’
professional self-efficacy i.e. students’ engagement, instructional strategies and classroom
management and greater than assumed mean score. For student engagement (30.44>24 and
p<0.05), instructional strategies (24.19.>24 and p<0.05) and classroom management
64
(27.11.>24 and p<0.05) for all dimensions calculated mean is significantly higher than the
assumed mean, thus secondary school teachers were professionally highly efficacious.
4.3 Comparison of Academic Achievement of Students Belonging to
Teachers with Different Categories
Data was collected from teachers having different categories i.e. gender, location, and
subject area. The efficacy and professional self-efficacy of these teachers has been compared
in the following tables.
Table 4.3.1
Academic achievement of students belonging to teachers with different
locality
Variables Category N Mean SD t-value p-value
Students’ academic
achievement
Urban teacher 180 622 101.133
5.586
0.000 Rural teacher 180 604 94.287
Table 4.3.1 shows mean difference of academic achievement of students belonging to teachers
with different locality. The mean of students’ academic achievement belonging to urban
teachers was 622 and students’ academic achievement of rural teachers was 604.The value of
t (5.586) is significant at p<0.05 level of significance, the mean score of students’ academic
achievement belonging to urban teachers was greater as compared to the students’ academic
achievement of rural teachers, which indicated that academic achievement of students
belonging to urban teachers’ was greater than the academic achievement of students’
belonging to rural teachers.. Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference between
the academic achievement of students belonging to urban and rural teachers,” was rejected.
65
Table 4.3.2
Academic achievement of students belonging to teachers with different
gender
Variables Category N Mean SD t-value p-value
Students’
academic
achievement
Male teacher 216 585 93.408
21.909
0.000 Female teacher 144 654 90.441
Table 4.3.2 shows mean difference of academic achievement of students belonging to teachers
with gender. The mean of students’ academic achievement belonging to male teachers was
585 and students of female teachers was 654.The value of t (21.909) is significant at p<0.05
level of significance, the mean score of students’ academic achievement belonging to female
teachers was greater as compared to the students’ academic achievement of male teachers.
Which indicated that academic achievement of students belonging to female teachers was
greater than the students of male teachers. Hence the hypothesis that “there is no significant
difference between the academic achievement of students belonging to male and female
teachers,” was rejected.
66
Table 4.3.3
Academic achievement of students belonging to teachers with different
subjects
Variables Category N Mean SD t-value p-value
Students’
academic
achievement
Science teachers 120 649.28 96.329
23.954
0.000 General teachers 240 576.47 85.740
Table 4.3.3 shows mean difference of academic achievement of students belonging to teachers
with different subjects. The mean of students’ academic achievement of science teachers was
649.28 and students’ academic achievement of general teachers was 576.47. The value of t
(23.954) is significant at p<0.05 level of significance, the mean score of students’ academic
achievement of science teachers was higher as compared to the students’ academic
achievement of general teachers, which indicated that academic achievement of students
belonging to science teachers was greater than the students’ academic achievement of general
teachers. Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference between the academic
achievements of students belonging to teachers of different subject,” was rejected.
67
Table 4.3. 4
Comparison of teachers’ professional self-efficacy with in science and
general subjects
Aspect Teacher Group
Name
N M SD t-value p-value
Class room
management
Science 120 26.96 3.886
0.961
0.337 General 240 27.37 3.901
Students
engagement
Science 120 30.35 3.679
0.599
0.550 General 240 30.60 4.262
Instructional
strategies
Science 120 19.98 3.531
0.979
0.328 General 240 20.36 3.685
Total teachers’
professional self-
efficacy
Science 120 81.31 9.596
1.105
0.270 General 240 82.50 10.078
Table 4.3.4 shows the comparison of the science teachers and general teacher with
professional self-efficacy and its different aspects. Statistical values for professional self-
efficacy in classroom management (t=0.961, p>0.05), in students’ engagement (t=0.599,
p>0.05) and in instructional strategies (t=979, p> 0.05) indicate that there is no significant
difference between science teachers and general teachers regarding professional self-efficacy
in classroom management, student’s engagement, and instructional strategies. Similarly, there
is no significant difference (t=1.105, p>0.05) between science teachers and general teachers
regarding total teachers’ professional self-efficacy.
68
Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference between professional self-efficacy of
science teachers and general teachers” has been accepted.
Table 4.3. 5
Comparison of teachers’ efficacy with in science and general subjects
Aspect Teacher Group
Name
N M SD t-value p-value
Personal teaching
Efficacy
Science 120 53.75 5.499
.158
0.874 General 240 53.87 7.549
General teaching
efficacy
Science 120 34.290 3.470 .328 0.743
General 240 34.149 4.479
Total teaching efficacy Science 120 99.79 11.318 .198 0.843
General 240 100.05 12.956
Table 4.3.5 shows the comparison of the science teachers and general teachers with efficacy
and its different aspects. Statistical values for personal teaching efficacy (t=.158, p>0.05) and
general teaching efficacy (t=.328, p>0.05) indicate that there is no significant difference
between science teachers and general teachers regarding personal teaching efficacy and
general teaching efficacy. Similarly, there is no significant difference (t=.198, p>0.05)
between science teachers and general teachers subjects regarding total teacher efficacy.
Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference between efficacy of science teachers
and general teachers” was accepted.
69
Table 4.3. 6
Comparison of professional self-efficacy of male and female teachers
Aspect Teacher
Group Name
N M SD t-value Df p-value
Class room
management
Male 216 26.69 4.217
2.525
358
0.012 Female 144 27.74 3.252
Students
engagement
Male 216 30.49 3.924
.302
358
0.763 Female 144 30.36 3.863
Instructional
strategies
Male 216 20.40 3.776
1.831
358
0.068 Female 144 19.69 3.246
Total teachers’
professional
efficacy
Male 216 81.56 10.610
.417
358
0.677 Female 144 82.00 8.384
Table 4.3.6 shows the comparison of the male and female teachers with their professional
self-efficacy and its different aspects. Statistical values for professional self-efficacy in
classroom management (t=2.525, p>0.05), professional self-efficacy in students engagement
(t=.302, p>0.05), and professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies (t=1.831, p> 0.05)
indicate that there is no significant difference between male teachers and female teachers
regarding professional self-efficacy in classroom management, students engagement, and
instructional strategies. Similarly, there is no significant difference (t=.417, p>0.05) between
male teachers and female teachers regarding total professional self-efficacy.
70
Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference between professional self-efficacy of
male teachers and female science teachers” was accepted.
Table 4.3. 7
Comparison of the efficacy of male and female teachers
Aspect Teacher Group
Name
N Mean SD t-value p-value
Personal
teaching
efficacy
Male 216 52.93 6.118 3.135 0.002
Female 144 55.16 6.397
General
teaching
efficacy
Male 216 33.68 3.969 3.381 0.001
Female 144 35.09 3.543
Total teachers’
efficacy
Male 216 98.31 11.110 3.115 0.002
Female 144 102.26 12.712
Table 4.3.7 shows the comparison of the male and female teachers regarding efficacy and its
different aspects. Statistical values for personal teaching efficacy (t=3.135, p>0.05) and
general teaching efficacy (t=3.381, p>0.05) which indicate that there is no significant
difference between male and female teachers regarding personal teaching efficacy and general
teaching efficacy Similarly, there is no significant difference (t=3.115, p>0.05) between male
teachers and female teachers regarding total teacher efficacy. Hence the hypothesis “there is
no significant difference between efficacy of male and female teachers” was accepted.
71
Table 4.3. 8
Location wise comparison of secondary school teachers’ professional self-
efficacy.
Aspect Teacher
Group Name
N M SD t-value Df p-value
Class room
management
Urban 180 26.89 3.971
1.503
358
0.134 Rural 180 27.55 3.702
Students
engagement
Urban 180 30.42 3.879
.133
358
0.894 Rural 180 30.48 3.942
Instructional
strategies
Urban 180 20.10 3.879
.127
358
0.899 Rural 180 20.15 3.942
Total teachers’
professional efficacy
Urban 180 81.47 9.717
.728
358
0.467 Rural 180 82.27 9.908
Table 4.3.8 shows the comparison of the urban teachers and rural teachers regarding
professional self-efficacy of teachers and its different aspects. Statistical values for teachers
professional self-efficacy in classroom management (t=1.503, p>0.05), teachers professional
self-efficacy in students engagement (t=.133, p>0.05), and teachers professional self-efficacy
in instructional strategies (t=.127, p> 0.05) indicate that there is no significant difference
between urban teachers and rural teachers regarding their professional self-efficacy in
classroom management, students engagement, and instructional strategies. Similarly, there is
no significant difference (t=.728, p>0.05) between urban teachers and rural teachers regarding
total their professional self-efficacy. Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference
72
between teacher’s professional self-efficacy of urban teachers and rural teachers” has been
accepted.
Table 4.3. 9
Location wise comparison of secondary school teachers’ efficacy
Aspect Teacher
Group Name
N M SD t-value p-value
Personal teaching
efficacy
Urban 180 53.97 5.975 1.206 0.229
Rural 180 55.00 7.282
General teaching
efficacy
Urban 180 34.56 3.442 1.472 0.142
Rural 180 35.25 4.188
Total teachers’
efficacy
Urban 180 99.79 10.723 2.130 0.034
Rural 180 101.77 13.871
Table 4.3.9 shows the comparison of the urban and rural teachers regarding efficacy and its
different aspects. Statistical values for personal teaching efficacy (t=1.206, p>0.05) and
general teaching efficacy (t=1.472, p>0.05) which indicate that there is no significant
difference between urban and rural teachers regarding personal teacher efficacy and general
teacher efficacy similarly, there is no significant difference (t=2.130, p>0.05) between urban
teachers and rural teachers regarding total teacher efficacy. Hence the hypothesis “there is no
significant difference between efficacy of urban and rural teachers” was accepted.
73
4.4 Impact of Teacher’s Efficacy on Students’ Academic Achievement
Within Different Categories
Impact of teachers’ efficacy and its different aspects on their students’ academic
achievement was examined by using teacher efficacy scale (TES) questionnaire with the
student result score at SSC level with different categories of secondary schools’ teachers. This
impact has been shown in the following tables.
Table 4.4. 1
Male and female teachers’ efficacy and their students’ academic
achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement
and teacher efficacy
Male 216 0.262 0.000
Female 144 0.314 0.000
The table 4.4.1 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for male teachers’ efficacy
and students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.262, p<0.05) and female teacher efficacy
and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.314, P<0.05) It means that efficacy
of male and female teachers has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence
the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy on students’
academic achievement of male and female teachers” was rejected.
74
Table 4.4. 2
Male and female teachers’ personal teaching efficacy and students’
academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement
And personal teaching efficacy
Male 216 0.751 0.000
Female 144 0.648 0.000
The table 4.4.2 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for personal teaching
efficacy of male teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.751,
p<0.05) and personal teaching efficacy of female teachers and their students’ academic
achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.648, P<0.05). It means that personal teaching efficacy of male
and female teachers has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the
hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of personal teaching efficacy on students’ academic
achievement of male and female teachers” was rejected.
Table 4.4. 3
Teachers’ general teaching efficacy and their students’ academic achievement of male and female teachers
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement and
teacher general teaching efficacy
Male 216 0.152 0.000
Female 144 0.022 0.000
The table 4.4.3 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for general teaching efficacy
of male teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.152, p<0.05) and
general teaching efficacy of female teachers and their students’ academic achievement
75
(Pearson ‘r’ = 0.022, P<0.05). It means that general teaching efficacy of male and female
teachers has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis,
“there is no significant impact of general teaching efficacy on students’ academic achievement
of male and female teachers” was rejected.
Table 4.4.4
Urban and rural teachers’ efficacy and their students’ academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement
and teacher efficacy
Urban 60 0.370 0.000
Rural 60 0.092 0.319
The table 4.4.4 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for efficacy of urban
teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.370, p<0.05) and efficacy
of rural teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.092, P>0.05). It
means that efficacy of urban teachers has significant impact on students’ academic
achievement, on the other hand and rural teachers has no impact on students’ academic
achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of teachers efficacy on
students’ academic achievement of urban and rural teachers” was partially rejected
76
Table 4.4.5
Locality wise teachers’ personal teaching efficacy and their students’
academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement and
teachers personal teaching efficacy
Urban 60 0.370 0.000
Rural 60 0.400 0.000
The table 4.4.5 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for personal teaching
efficacy of urban teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.370,
p<0.05) and personal teaching efficacy of rural teachers and their students’ academic
achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.400, P<0.05). It means that personal teaching efficacy of urban
and rural teachers has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the
hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of teachers personal teaching efficacy on students’
academic achievement of urban and rural teachers” was rejected.
Table 4.4.6
Locality wise teachers’ general teaching efficacy and their students’
academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement and
teachers general teaching efficacy
Urban 60 0.434
000
Rural 60 0.019 0.770
The table 4.4.6 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for general teaching efficacy
of urban teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.434, p<0.05) and
77
general teaching efficacy of rural teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson
‘r’ = 0.019, P>0.05). It means that general teaching efficacy of urban teachers has significant
impact on their students’ academic achievement. On the other hand rural teachers has no
significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no
significant impact of teachers general teaching efficacy on students’ academic achievement
of urban and rural teachers” was partially rejected.
Table 4.4.7
Subject wise teachers’ efficacy and their students’ academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two-tailed)
Students’ academic
achievement and
teacher efficacy
Science teacher 120 0.761 0.000
General teacher (one) 120 0.789 0.000
General teacher (two) 120 0.713 0.000
The table 4.4.7 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for efficacy of science
teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.761, p<0.05), general
teacher one and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.789, P<0.05) and
general teacher two and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.713, P<0.05).
It means that efficacy of science teacher, general teacher one and general teacher two has
significant impact on their students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is
no significant impact of teachers efficacy on students’ academic achievement of different
subject,” was rejected.
78
Table 4.4.8
Subject wise teachers’ personal teaching efficacy and their students’
academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two-tailed)
Students’ academic
achievement and teacher
personal teaching efficacy
Science teacher 120 0.340 0.000
General teacher one 120 0.482 0.000
General teacher two 120 0.377 0.000
The table 4.4.8 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for personal teaching
efficacy of science teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.340,
p<0.05), general teacher one and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.482,
P<0.05) and general teacher two and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ =
0.377, P<0.05). It means that personal teaching efficacy of science teachers, general teacher
one and general teachers two has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement.
Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of personal teaching efficacy on
students’ academic achievement of different subject teachers” was rejected.
79
Table 4.4. 9
Subject wise teachers’ general teaching efficacy and their students’
academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two-tailed)
Students’ academic
achievement and teachers
general teaching efficacy
Science teacher 120 0.340 0.000
General teacher one 120 0.352 0.000
General teacher two 120 0.674 0.000
The table 4.4.9 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for general teaching efficacy
of science teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.340, p<0.05),
general teacher one and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.352, P<0.05)
and general teacher two and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.674,
P<0.05). It means that general teaching efficacy of science teachers, general teacher one and
general teachers two has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement.
Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of general teaching efficacy on
students’ academic achievement of different subject” was rejected.
4.5 Impact of Teachers’ Professional Self-Efficacy on Students’
Academic Achievement within Different Categories
Impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy and its different aspects on students’
academic achievement was examined by using questionnaire related with teacher professional
self- efficacy scale (TSES) with the student result score at SSC level with different categories
of secondary schools’ teachers. This impact has been shown in the following tables.
80
Table 4.5.1
Male and female teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’
academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement
and Professional self-efficacy
Male 216 0.060 0.378
Female 144 0.000 0.996
The table 4.5.1 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for male teachers’
professional self-efficacy and students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.060, p>0.05)
and professional self-efficacy of female teachers and student’s academic achievement
(Pearson ‘r’ = 0.000, P>0.05) It means that professional self-efficacy of male and female
teachers has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis,
“there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy on students’ academic
achievement of male and female teachers” was accepted.
81
Table 4.5.2
Male and female teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’
engagement on student academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement and
professional self-efficacy in student
engagement
Male 216 0.078 0.253
Female 144 0.067 0.424
The table 4.5.2 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for male teachers’
professional self-efficacy in students engagement and students’ academic achievement
(Pearson ‘r’ = 0.078, p>0.05) and professional self-efficacy in students engagement of female
teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.067, P>0.05) It means that
professional self-efficacy of teachers in students engagement has no significant impact on
students’ academic achievement in terms of male and female teacher. Hence the hypothesis,
“there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy in student’s engagement on
students’ academic achievement of male and female teachers” was accepted.
82
Table 4.5.3
Male and female teachers’ professional self-efficacy in instructional
strategies and their students’ academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement and
professional self-efficacy in instructional
strategies
Male 216 0.869 0.000
Female 144 0.882 0.000
The table 4.5.3 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for male teachers’
professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies and students’ academic achievement
(Pearson ‘r’ = 0.869, p>0.05) and professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies of
female teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.882, P>0.05). It
means that professional self-efficacy of teachers in instructional strategies has no significant
impact on students’ academic achievement in case of male and female teacher. Hence the
hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy in
instructional strategies on students’ academic achievement of male and female teachers” was
accepted
83
Table 4.5. 4
Male and female teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom
management and their students’ academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement and
professional self-efficacy in Classroom
Management
Male 216 0.135 0.048
Female 144 0.174 0.037
The table 4.5.4 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for male teachers’
professional self-efficacy in classroom management and students’ academic achievement
(Pearson ‘r’ = 0.135, p>0.05) and professional self-efficacy in classroom management of
female teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.174, P>0.05). It
means that professional self-efficacy of teachers in classroom management has no significant
impact on students’ academic achievement in case of male and female teacher. Hence the
hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy in classroom
management on students’ academic achievement of male and female teachers” was accepted.
84
Table 4.5.5
Urban and rural of teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their academic
achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement
and Professional self-efficacy
Urban 60 0.028 0.668
Rural 60 0.222 0.015
The table 4.5.5 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for urban teachers’
professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.028,
p>0.05) and professional self-efficacy of rural teachers and their students’ academic
achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.222, P<0.05) It means that professional self-efficacy of urban
and rural teachers has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the
hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy on students’ academic
achievement of urban and rural teachers” was accepted.
85
Table 4.5.6
Correlation showing impact of urban and rural teachers’ professional self-
efficacy on students’ academic achievement in student engagement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement and
professional self-efficacy in student
engagement
Urban 60 0.671 0.000
Rural 60 0.029 0.652
The table 4.5.6 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for urban teachers’
professional self-efficacy (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.671, P<0.05) in student engagement and students’
academic achievement and professional self-efficacy in students engagement of rural teachers
and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.029, p>0.05) It means that
professional self-efficacy of urban teachers in students engagement has significant impact on
students’ academic achievement. On the other hand, professional self-efficacy of rural
teachers in students’ engagement has no significant impact on students’ academic
achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-
efficacy in student engagement on students’ academic achievement of urban and rural
teachers” was partially rejected.
86
Table 4.5.7
Urban and rural teachers’ professional self-efficacy in instructional
strategies and their students’ academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement and
professional self-efficacy in
instructional strategies
Urban 60 0.806 0.000
Rural 60 0.893 0.652
The table 4.5.7 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for urban teachers’
professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies and students’ academic achievement
(Pearson ‘r’ = 0.806, P<0.05) and professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies of rural
teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.893, p>0.05). It means
that professional self-efficacy of urban teachers in instructional strategies has significant
impact on students’ academic achievement. However professional self-efficacy of rural
teachers in instructional strategies has no significant impact on students’ academic
achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-
efficacy in instructional strategies on students’ academic achievement of urban and rural
teachers” was partially.
87
Table 4.5.8
Urban and rural teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom
management and students’ academic achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value
Students’ academic achievement and
professional self-efficacy in classroom
management
Urban 60 0.279 0.000
Rural 60 0.716 0.000
The table 4.5.8 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for urban teachers’
professional self-efficacy in classroom management and students’ academic achievement
(Pearson ‘r’ = 0.279, p<0.05) and professional self-efficacy in classroom management of rural
teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.716, P<0.05). It means
that teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom management has significant impact on
students’ academic achievement in case of urban and rural teachers. Hence the hypothesis,
“there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy in classroom management on
students’ academic achievement of urban and rural teachers” was rejected.
88
Table 4.5.9
Subject wise teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic
achievement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two-tailed)
Students’ academic
achievement and
teacher professional
efficacy
Science teacher 120 0.670 0.000
General teacher (one) 120 0.796 0.000
General teacher (two) 120 0.600 0.000
The table 4.5.9 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for different subjects taught
by teacher, the statistics shows that science teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their
students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.670, p<0.05), professional self-efficacy of
general teachers one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.796, P<0.05) and general teachers two professional
self-efficacy and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.600, P<0.05).It means
that teachers’ professional self-efficacy of different subjects has significant impact on
students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of
professional self-efficacy on students’ academic achievement of different subjects’ teachers”
was rejected.
89
Table 4.5.10
Different subject teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’
academic achievement in student engagement
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two- tailed)
Teacher performance and
teacher Professional
efficacy in student
engagement
Science teacher 120 0.601 0.000
General teacher (one) 120 0.589 0.000
General teacher (two) 120 0.859 0.000
The table 4.5.10 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for science teachers’
professional self-efficacy in student engagement and students’ academic achievement
(Pearson ‘r’ = 0.601, p<0.05), professional self-efficacy in student engagement of general
teachers one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.589, p<0.05) professional self-efficacy in student engagement
of general teachers two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.859, P<0.05) and their students’ academic
achievement. It means that teachers’ professional self-efficacy in student engagement has
significant impact on students’ academic achievement in terms of different subject teachers.
Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy in student
engagement on students’ academic achievement of science and general teachers” was
rejected.
90
Table 4.5. 11
Subject wise teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic
achievement in instructional strategies
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two-tailed)
Students’ academic
achievement and teacher
professional efficacy in
Instructional Strategies
Science teacher 120 0.671 0.000
General teacher (one) 120 0.696 0.000
General teacher (two) 120 0.671 0.000
The table 4.5.11 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for science teacher
professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies and students’ academic achievement of
science (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.671, p<0.05), professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies of
general teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.696, p<0.05) professional self-efficacy in instructional
strategies of general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.671, P<0.05) and their students’ academic
achievement. It means that teachers’ professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies has
significant impact on students’ academic achievement in terms of science and general teacher
one and general teacher two. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of
professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies on students’ academic achievement of
science teachers and general teachers” was rejected.
91
Table 4.5.12
Subject wise teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic
achievement in classroom management
Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two-tailed)
Student academic
achievement and
teacher professional
efficacy in classroom
management
Science teacher 120 0.710 0.000
Arts teacher (one) 120 0.692 0.000
Arts teacher (two) 120 0.797 0.000
The table 4.5.12 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for science teachers’
professional self-efficacy in classroom management and students’ academic achievement
(Pearson ‘r’ = 0.710, p<0.05), professional self-efficacy in classroom management of general
teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.692, p<0.05) professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies
of general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.797, P<0.05) and their students’ academic achievement
. It means that teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom management has significant
impact on students’ academic achievement in terms of science and general teachers. Hence
the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy in classroom
management on students’ academic achievement of science teacher and general teachers” was
rejected.
92
4.6 Relative impact of teachers’ efficacy and professional self-efficacy of
different factors on students’ academic achievement
Rogation analysis was applied for finding of relative impact of different factors i.e.
locality, gender and subject area on students’ academic achievement. The results of analysis
are presented and interpreted in the following tables:
Table 4.6. 1
Recreation showing relative impact of different factors (locality, gender and
subjects) on students’ academic achievement
Predictors: Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
T Sig.
B Std. Error Beta B
(Constant) 10.598 4.242 2.499 .013
Teacher Professional
Self Efficacy
.951 .113 .195 8.420 .000
Teacher Efficacy .745 .096 .159 7.768 .000
Location 2.011 1.796 .033 1.120 .264
Gender .512 .778 .009 .658 .511
Subject .839 1.048 .024 .801 .424
A Dependent Variable: Student Achievement
The tables (4.5.1) shows that B-Value regarding the impact of independent variables i.e.
teacher professional self -efficacy, location, gender, and subject on teachers’ performance in
term of student achievement. Statistical values for teacher’s professional self-efficacy
93
(B=.951, t= 8.420, p< 0.05) and teacher efficacy (B=.745, t= 7.786, p<0.05) indicate that
teacher’s professional self-efficacy and teacher’s efficacy have significant impact on the
academic achievement of students. On the other hand, statistical values for location
(B=.2.011, t=1.120, p>0.05), gender (B=0512, t=.658, p>0.05) and subject (B=839, t=.801,
p>0.05) indicate that location, gender and subjects have no significant impact on students’
academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis “different factors (teachers’ professional
efficacy, teachers’ efficacy, locality, gender and subjects)”, was rejected in the teachers’
professional efficacy and teachers’ efficacy and accepted in the case of locality, gender and
subject of teachers.
Table 4.6. 2
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .970(a) .941 .939 7.086
Predictors: (Constant):
Subject, gender, instructional strategies, teacher efficacy, classroom management, teacher
Self efficacy, general teaching efficacy, location, personal teaching efficacy, student
engagement
4.7 Discussion
The main purpose of this research project was to identify impact of professional self-
efficacy on students’ achievement at secondary school level. The researcher has tried to
identify the professional self-efficacy level of the secondary school teachers in three areas i.e.
classroom management, teaching instruction and students engagement at a same time during
teaching learning process and its impact on secondary school students’ achievement. The
94
researcher has tried also to identify the teacher efficacy level in two area personal teaching
efficacy and general teaching efficacy. The both efficacy level variables and student
achievement was taken as dependent variable and gender, location, subject areas (science and
general) taken as independent variable.
The high/ higher secondary schools sample included 120 male and female schools. Students
sample included 2160 boys and 1440 girls. Total 360 sample teachers comprised of 216 male
and 144 females. The study was quantitative (descriptive/survey based) in nature. Two
questionnaires, (i) teacher’s efficacy scale consisted of twenty-two (22) items and teacher
self-efficacy scale comprised of twenty-four (24) items were applied to sample of study.
Sample student’s achievement data were collected from concerned Boards.
The findings of the research study prove that urban teacher’s performance better than
the rural teachers. Sarangapani (2003) provided an excellent analysis and found difference
in performance of rural and urban teachers, according to her rural and urban teachers have
different teaching style and urban teachers use different teaching techniques which effect
their performance in better way. The mean score of female teachers was greater as compared
to male teacher which proved that female teachers are more efficacious than male teachers
and the study conducted by Singer (1996) on female teachers found that female teachers
were more efficacious than male teachers as female teachers spend more time on activities-
based learning such as planning, designing and assessing learning activates. The mean score
of science teachers is higher than general teachers. Genc & Ogan-Bekiroglu (2006) also
pointed out in his study students out performed in science field as compared to arts subjects,
he expressed his view in his study on the effect of using different teaching models on the
learning of science and other subjects at secondary school level of Niger State, he found a
95
significant difference in achievement score of students in science subject and humanities
subjects. In his study he found that those students who belong to the science subject teachers
achieved high score in physics and mathematics subject and on the other hand students of
arts subjects’ teachers performed significantly better in verbal aptitude, English language.
The findings of the research study prove that classroom management, student’s
engagement, Instructional strategies, and total teacher’s professional self-efficacy, the
teachers with science and general discipline had no significant difference. The findings of the
analysis show that the p-value of students’ engagement, Instructional strategies, and total
teachers’ professional efficacy is greater. Hence, in students’ engagement, Instructional
strategies, and total teachers’ professional self-efficacy, the teachers with gender had no
significant difference.
It is proved from the findings of the research study that there is significant correlation
between teachers’ performance and professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies.
There is also significant correlation between teachers’ performance and professional self-
efficacy in classroom management. Significant correlation also exist between teachers
performance and teacher efficacy, between teachers performance and personal teacher
efficacy, between teachers performance and general teacher efficacy, between teachers
performance and professional self-efficacy, between teachers performance and professional
self-efficacy in student engagement, between teachers performance and professional self-
efficacy in instructional strategies, correlation between teachers performance and professional
self-efficacy in classroom management, between teachers performance and teacher efficacy,
between teachers performance and personal teacher efficacy, between teachers performance
and general teacher efficacy, between teachers performance and general teacher efficacy,
96
between teacher performance and subject teacher professional self-efficacy, between teacher
performance and teacher professional efficacy student engagement, between teacher
professional self-efficacy instructional strategies and teacher performance, between teacher
self-efficacy in classroom management and teacher performance, between teacher efficacy
and teacher performance, between teacher performance and personal teacher efficacy ,
between general teacher efficacy and teacher performance.
It is proved from the findings of the research study that there was significant
correlation between teacher professional efficacy regarding instructional strategies and
teacher performance, teacher professional efficacy regarding classroom management and
teacher performance, teacher efficacy and teacher performance and teacher efficacy regarding
personal teacher efficacy and teacher performance. This variable may affect the teacher
performance in term of their achievement of students. This finding is aligned with the studies
Freeman (2008) that that teacher efficacy truly is the heart of school reform, Mojavezi and
Tamiz (2012) that teacher self-efficacy has a positive influence on the students’ motivation
and achievement and Shahzad and Naureen (2017) that self-efficacy has a positive impact on
the students’ academic achievement. There was insignificant between teacher professional
efficacy and teacher performance, teacher professional efficacy regarding student engagement
teacher performance, teacher efficacy regarding general teacher efficacy and teacher
performance. These variables may not affect the teacher performance in term of their
achievement of students. This finding is not aligned with Hassan and Akbar (2019) that
overall 67 % teachers’ self-efficacy effect on students’ academic achievements, including 58
% effect on students’ engagement, 65 % effect on instructional strategies and 60 % effect on
classroom management for the sake of students’ better achievements.
97
Majority of findings support various studies of past conducted by Angela (2013), Adu,
et.al, (2012), Shoukat and Iqbal (2012), Eren (2009), Akinsola (2008), Adediwura and
Bada(2007), Goddard (2002),Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, (2007),, Allinder (1995), Ashton
& Webb, (1986), Tracz & Gibson, (1986), Dembo& Gibson(1985), and Gibson &Dembo,
(1984).
98
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUMMARY
The main purpose of this research project was to identify impact of teachers’
professional self-efficacy on students’ academic achievement at secondary school level. The
researcher has tried to identify the professional self-efficacy level of the secondary school
teachers in three areas i.e. class room management, instructional strategies and student’s
engagement during teaching learning process. The researcher has also tried to identify the
teacher efficacy level in two areas personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy.
The research project is seemed successful in identifying impact of teachers’
professional efficacy on secondary school students’ academic achievement by achieving the
following research objectives: i) To assess the academic achievement of students belonging
different categories of teachers. ii) To measure efficacy and professional self-efficacy of
secondary school teachers. iii) To compare the students’ academic achievement belonging to
teachers of different categories (based on gender, locality, and discipline of study i.e. science
and general). iv) To examine the impact of teachers’ efficacy and teachers’ professional self-
efficacy on their students’ academic achievement. v) To examine the relative impact of
teachers’ gender, locality, and subject areas (science and general), on efficacy, and
professional self- efficacy on their students’ academic achievement. This study has also two
research questions (i) What is the academic achievement of students belonging to different
99
categories of teachers? (ii) What is the efficacy and professional self-efficacy of secondary
school teachers?
Due to time constrain and limited resources, this study was delimited to: (i.) Secondary
schools of six districts i.e. Mardan, Abbotabad, Mansehra, Peshawar, Kohat and D.I Khan of
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. (ii) Students of 10thcalss session (2013-14), and their
respective teachers. Total 360 teachers provided complete response on all variables of the
study. All the public sector secondary schools’ teachers and students of grade 10th of six
districts were the population of the study the population of the study contained of:
1. Total numbers of High and Higher Secondary Schools (Boys and Girls) in
the selected six districts were 1667.
2. Total Secondary Schools Teachers (general) were 4974 and total Secondary
Schools Teachers (Science) were 1574.
3. Total number of students (Science and general) appeared in SSC exam (10th
grade) boys and girls were 97,460 in the selected six districts.
For selecting sample of study Multi Stage Stratified Random Sampling Technique
was used. Two districts were randomly selected from each zone.
1. The high/ higher secondary schools sample included 72 male and 48 female
schools. 20 schools from each district 12 for boys and 8 for girls.
2. Gender wise students sample included 2160 boys and 1440 girls
3. Total sample teachers include 216 male and 144 females
4. Total sampled subject teachers included 120 SST science and 240 SST
general
100
5. Location wise teachers sample included 180 rural schools’ SSTs and 180
urban school SSTs.
To investigate this impact the research used Urdu version of an international
researcher questionnaires. Which were translated in National Language (Urdu) for the better
understanding and proper replay from the sample teachers. These questionnaires were pilot
tested before collection of data on large scale. Research questionnaires were distributed
among teachers (science and general) of secondary schools of six districts. Students’
achievement data was taken from concerned Board of Intermediate and Secondary
Education (BISE).
Data was inserted into SPSS to create tables and graphs for analysis. Formula of
Pearson correlation coefficient, Independent Samples t-test, One Way ANOVA and linear
regression were used, the results were interpreted accordingly.
5.2 Findings
Following finding were drawn by the analysis, interpretation, and inference of data, and
discussed with supervisor.
5.2.1 Academic Achievement of Students Related to Different Categories of Teachers
i. Overall calculated mean score (9.68), science teacher (11.19>15 and p<0.05), general teacher
one (10.00>15 and p<0.05) and general teacher two (7.84>15 and p<0.05) was lower than
assumed mean. The statistical values showed that students belonging to all the three categories
of teachers have low academic achievement. (Table 4.1.1).
5.2.2 Level of Efficacy and Professional Self-Efficacy of Secondary Schools Teachers
i. The calculated mean score of general efficacies (26.86>24 and p<0.05) and personal efficacy
(51.63>42 and p<0.05) of secondary schools’ teachers were greater than assumed mean score.
101
Which was statistically proved that secondary school teachers were highly efficacious. (Table
4.2.1).
ii. The calculated mean score (81.74>72 and p<0.05) was significantly greater than the assumed
mean score for all the three dimensions of teachers’ professional self-efficacy (students’
engagement (30.44>24 and p<0.05), instructional strategies (24.19.>24 and p<0.05) and
classroom management (27.11.>24 and p<0.05)). Thus, this proved that secondary school
teachers were professionally efficacious. (Table 4.2.2).
5.2.3 Comparison of Academic Achievement of Students Belonging to Teachers
with Different Categories
i. The mean score of students’ academic achievement of urban teachers’ (622) was greater
than rural teachers (604) and the value of t (5.586) was also significant at p<0.05 level of
significance students’ academic achievement. Statistical results showed that students of
urban teachers’ performers’ better than students of rural teachers, thus urban teachers were
more professionally efficacious as compared to rural teachers (Table 4.3.1).
ii. The mean score of students’ academic achievement belonging to female teachers’ (654) was
greater than the students of male teachers (585) and value of t (21.909) was also significant
at p<0.05 level of significance. Results showed that students of female teachers performed
better than students of male teachers, thus female teachers were professionally more
efficacious than male teachers (Table 4.3.2).
iii. The mean score of academic achievement of students belonging to science teachers (649.28)
was greater than the students’ academic achievement of general teachers (576.47) and the
value of t (23.954) was significant at p<0.05 level of significance. Thus, teachers of science
subject were professionally more efficacious as there was significant difference between the
academic achievements of students belonging to teachers of different subject (Table 4.3.3).
102
iv. The comparison showed no significant difference between different subjects’ teachers
(science and general) with total teachers’ professional self-efficacy and its different aspects
i.e. classroom management (t=0.961, p>0.05), students’ engagement (t=0.599, p>0.05), and
instructional strategies (t=979, p> 0.05) (Table 4.3.4).
v. The comparison of science teachers and teachers of general with total teachers’ efficacy
(t=.198, p>0.05) and its two aspects i.e. teacher’s personal efficacy (t=.158, p>0.05) and
teacher general efficacy (t=.328, p>0.05) indicated no significant difference (Table 4.3.5).
vi. Comparison of male and female teachers with their total professional self-efficacy (t=.417,
p>0.05) and its different factors, classroom management (t=2.525, p>0.05), students’
engagement (t=0.302, p>0.05), and instructional strategies (t=1.831, p> 0.05) showed no
significant difference. (Table 4.3.6).
vii. The comparison indicated no significant difference between male and female teachers
regarding total efficacy (t=3.115, p>0.05) and its different aspects i.e. teacher’s personal
efficacy (t=3.135, p>0.05) and teacher general efficacy (t=3.381, p>0.05) (Table 4.3.7).
viii. Comparison of statistical values of urban and rural teachers with their total professional self-
efficacy (t=.728, p>0.05) and its different aspects i.e. classroom management (t=1.503,
p>0.05), students’ engagement (t=.133, p>0.05), and instructional strategies (t=.127, p>
0.05) indicated no significant difference between them (Table 4.3. 8).
ix. The comparison statistical values of the urban and rural teachers regarding teacher’s total
efficacy (t=2.130, p>0.05) and its two aspects i.e. personal teaching efficacy (t=1.206,
p>0.05) and general teaching efficacy (t=1.472, p>0.05) indicated no significant difference.
(Table 4.3. 9).
103
5.2.4 Impact of Teachers Efficacy on their students’ Academic Achievement
within Different Categories
i Efficacy of male teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.262, p<0.05) and female teachers (Pearson
‘r’=0.314, P<0.05) has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement (table
4.4.1).
ii Personal teaching efficacy of male teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.751, p<0.05) and female
teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.648, P<0.05) has significant impact on students’ academic
achievement (table 4.4.2).
iii General teaching efficacy of male teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.152, p<0.05) and female
teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.022, P<0.05) has significant impact on students’ academic
achievement. (Table 4.4.3).
iv Efficacy of urban teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.370, p<0.05) has significant impact on
students’ academic achievement, however efficacy of rural teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.092,
P>0.05) has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.4.4).
v Personal teaching efficacy of urban teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.370, p<0.05) and rural
teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.400, P<0.05) has significant impact on students’ academic
achievement. (Table 4.4.5).
vii General teaching efficacy of urban teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.434, p<0.05) has significant
impact on their students’ academic achievement. On the other hand, general efficacy of rural
teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.019, P>0.05) has no significant impact on students’ academic
achievement. (Table 4.4.6).
104
viii Efficacy of science teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.761, p<0.05), general teacher one (Pearson
‘r’ = 0.789, P<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.713, P<0.05) has significant
impact on their students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.4.7).
ix Personal teaching efficacy of science teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.340, p<0.05), general
teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.482, P<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.377,
P<0.05) has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.4.8).
x General teaching efficacy of science teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.340, p<0.05), general
teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.352, P<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.674,
P<0.05) has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.4.9).
5.2.5 Impact of Teachers Professional Self-Efficacy on their Students’
Academic Achievement within Different Categories
i Professional self-efficacy of male teachers’ (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.060, p>0.05) and female
teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.000, P>0.05) has no significant impact on students’ academic
achievement. (Table 4.5.1).
ii Professional self-efficacy of male teachers’ (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.078, p>0.05) and female
teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.067, P>0.05) in students engagement has no significant impact on
students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.2).
iii Professional self-efficacy of male teachers’ (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.869, p>0.05) and female
teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.882, P>0.05) in instructional strategies has no significant impact on
students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.3)
iv Professional self-efficacy of male teachers’ (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.135, p>0.05) and female
teachers in classroom management (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.174, P>0.05 has no significant impact on
students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.4).
105
v Professional self-efficacy of urban teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.028, p>0.05) and rural
teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.222, P<0.05) has no significant impact on students’ academic
achievement. (Table 4.5.5).
vi Professional self-efficacy of urban teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.671, P<0.05) in student
engagement has significant impact on students’ academic achievement on the other hand the
professional self-efficacy of rural teachers in student’s engagement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.029,
p>0.05) and their students’ academic achievement has no significant impact on students’
academic achievement. (Table 4.5.6).
vii Professional self-efficacy of urban teachers’ (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.806, P<0.05) in
instructional strategies has significant impact on students’ academic achievement, however
the professional self-efficacy of rural teachers in instructional strategies has no significant
impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.7).
viii Professional self-efficacy of urban teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.279, p<0.05) and rural
teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.716, P<0.05) in classroom management has significant impact on
students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.8).
ix Professional self-efficacy of science teacher (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.670, p<0.05), general
teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.796, P<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.600,
P<0.05) has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.9).
x Professional self-efficacy of science teacher (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.601, p<0.05), general
teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.589, p<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.859,
P<0.05) in students engagement has significant impact on students’ academic achievement.
(Table 4.5.10).
106
xi Professional self-efficacy of science teacher (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.671, p<0.05), general
teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.696, p<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.671,
P<0.05) in instructional strategies has significant impact on students’ academic achievement.
(Table 4.5.11).
xii Professional self-efficacy of science teacher (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.710, p<0.05), general
teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.692, p<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.797,
P<0.05) in instructional strategies has significant impact on students’ academic achievement.
(Table 4.5.12).
5.2.6 Relative Impact of Teachers’ Efficacy and Professional Self-Efficacy of
Different Factors on the Academic Achievement of Students
i Statistical values for teacher’s professional self-efficacy (B=.951, t= 8.420, p< 0.05) and
teacher efficacy (B=.745, t= 7.786, p<0.05) have significant impact on the academic
achievement of students. On the other hand, statistical values for location (B=.2.011, t=1.120,
p>0.05), gender (B=0512, t=.658, p>0.05) and subject (B=839, t=.801, p>0.05) have no
significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.1).
These findings are aligned with the studies conducted by Akinsola (2002), Adediwura and
Bada (2007), Isiksal (2005); Tschannen-Moran & Hoy (2001), Allinder (1995), Ashton &
Webb, (1986), Larrivee (2008);, Dembo & Gibson (1985), and Gibson &Dembo, (1984).
5.3 Conclusions
Keeping in comprehension and interpretation of the statistical/numerical exploration of the
data, and after the findings of the study the researcher leads to draw these conclusions.
i. The secondary school students of all the categories of teachers have low academic
achievement.
107
ii. Secondary school teachers are professionally highly efficacious.
iii. Urban secondary school teachers are more professionally efficacious as compared to rural
teachers based on the comparatively good academic achievement level of urban teachers’
students.
iv. Female secondary school teachers are more professionally efficacious as compared to male
teachers because of comparatively good academic achievement level of female teachers’
students.
v. Secondary school teachers of science subjects are professionally more efficacious as
compared to general subjects’ teacher because of good academic achievement level of
science teachers’ students.
vi. Different subjects’ teachers (science and general) with teachers’ professional self-efficacy
and its different aspects (classroom management, students’ engagement, and instructional
strategies) are of the same performance position.
vii. The performance of different science teachers and general teachers with teachers’ efficacy
and its two aspects i.e. personal teaching efficacy and teacher general teaching efficacy is
same in their respective schools.
viii. The performance of male and female teachers with professional self-efficacy and its three
factors (classroom management, students’ engagement and instructional strategies) is same
in their institutions.
ix. There is similar performance of male and female teachers regarding total efficacy and its
different aspects i.e. personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy in their
schools.
x. There is similar performance of urban and rural teachers with their professional self-efficacy
and its different aspects i.e. classroom management, student’s engagement and instructional
strategies.
108
xi. The performance of urban and rural teachers regarding teachers’ efficacy and its two aspects
i.e. teachers personal teaching efficacy and teacher general teaching efficacy is same.
xii. There is impact of efficacy of male and female teachers on secondary school students’
academic achievement.
xiii. There is impact of personal efficacy of male and female teachers on students’ academic
achievement.
xiv. The general efficacy of male and female secondary school has impact on students’ academic
achievement.
xv. The efficacy of urban secondary school teachers has impact on students’ academic
achievement and efficacy of rural secondary school teachers has not any impact students’
academic achievement.
xvi. There is impact of personal teaching efficacy of urban and rural teachers on students’
academic achievement.
xvii. General teaching efficacy of urban teachers has an impact on students’ academic
achievement. On the other hand, general efficacy of rural teachers has no impact on
students’ academic achievement.
xviii. Efficacy of science teacher, general teacher one and general teacher two has an impact on
students’ academic achievement.
xix. Personal teaching efficacy of science teacher, general teacher one and general teacher two
has an impact on students’ academic achievement.
xx. General efficacy of science teacher, general teacher one and general teacher two has an
impact on students’ academic achievement.
xxi. Teacher professional self-efficacy has no impact on students’ academic achievement for
male and female teachers.
109
xxii. Teacher professional self-efficacy has no impact on student academic achievement for male
and female teachers in student engagement.
xxiii. Teacher professional self-efficacy has no impact on students’ academic achievement for
male and female teachers in instructional strategies.
xxiv. Teacher professional self-efficacy has no impact on students’ academic achievement for
male and female teachers in classroom management.
xxv. Teacher professional self-efficacy has no impact on students’ academic achievement for
urban and rural teachers.
xxvi. Teacher professional self-efficacy has an impact on students’ academic achievement for
urban teachers in student engagement, however the teacher professional self-efficacy has no
impact on student academic achievement for rural teachers in student’s engagement.
xxvii. Teacher professional self-efficacy has an impact on students’ academic achievement for
urban teachers in instructional strategies, however the professional self-efficacy has no
impact on students’ academic achievement for rural teachers in instructional strategies.
xxviii. Teacher professional self-efficacy has an impact on students’ academic achievement for
urban teachers and rural teachers in classroom management.
xxix. Teacher Professional self-efficacy has an impact on students’ academic achievement for
science teacher, general teachers.
xxx. Teacher professional self-efficacy has an impact on students’ academic achievement for
science teachers and general teachers in student’s engagement.
xxxi. There is impact of teacher Professional self-efficacy on students’ academic achievement for
science teachers and general teacher in instructional strategies.
xxxii. There is impact of teacher professional self-efficacy on students’ academic achievement (for
science and general teachers) in instructional strategies.
110
xxxiii. There is impact of teacher professional self-efficacy and teacher efficacy on the student
academic achievement. Whereas there is no impact of teacher professional self-efficacy on
the students’ academic achievement for locality, gender and subject area.
5.4 Recommendations for future
i. The findings of the present study show that there is insignificant impact of the
efficacious teachers and their categories science subject teachers and general subject
teachers. Therefore, further detailed investigation is needed by giving their details
regarding teachers’ achievements during job period, number of training received,
setting boards papers, receiving assessment trainings, participation in seminars,
writing or reviewing textbooks, development of additional study materials etc.
Further, this study may replicate by adding more time-series board results associated
with teachers teaching as independent variable that may have significant effects.
Exploration of correlation between efficacious teachers’ experience, age, academic
qualification, professional qualifications, number of trainings received etc. are
suggested for future studies. Students’ associated variable like their liberty of asking
questions, friendly class environment, teachers’ feeling towards students’ training
of affective domain and values.
ii. It is proved by the results of present study that teacher performance in term of their
student achievement has relationship with teacher self-efficacy (Instructional
Strategies, Classroom Management) and teacher efficacy (teacher personal
efficacy) therefore, it is recommended such variables may be included in the
training of teachers in Pakistan at all levels.
111
iii. Training and development programs design may be thoroughly reviewed to
introduce courses to repeat teacher professional efficacy in the prospective teachers.
Because efficacy most variable affect the teacher performance in term of their
student achievement. Training of in-service teachers focused to improve their
understanding of efficacy for better development of students’ academic
achievement is also recommended.
iv. The students of urban teachers have better performance than the students of rural
teachers. This study investigated student teachers' professional efficacy beliefs, to
determine if school setting (i.e., rural, and urban) impacted teachers' sense of
professional efficacy. Each setting group exhibited significant increases in teachers'
sense of professional efficacy following student teaching. The urban student
teachers exhibited significantly higher teachers' sense of professional efficacy. We
also examined the attributions the student teachers made following student
teaching. The rural student teachers did not make more external attributions than
the urban student teachers, and the patterns of the self-serving attribution bias as
well as the fundamental attribution error were apparent.
v. It is recommended that education department of Pakistan when appoint teachers
from rural sector they focus on their special professional efficacy training in order
to improve the students learning achievement as compare to urban teachers. The
TORs of training should be strong for rural teachers as compared to urban teachers.
vi. It is also recommended that state conduct study on large scale and prepare the list of
low performance teachers and investigate the reasons. They must be train in the
112
weak area. I think in this way in future teachers will perform better and produce
good result.
vii. It is essentially important to note the boundaries of this study. This study used
validated and working measures for data. The same issue may qualitatively research
or the same design may be followed with addition of interviews for data collection.
The data were collected from secondary school teachers and students. Considering
respondents from other educational levels as well as private sector schools may add
more insight into this research effort.
113
REFERENCES
Acom, E. M. (2007). Relationship between job factors and employee commitment in private
primary schools in greater Kampala district. Unpublished Masters of Science (HRM)
dissertation …, 2007, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Adams, R.D. (1982). Teacher development: A look at changes in teacher perceptions and
behavior across time. Journal of Teacher Education, 33 (4), 40-43.
Adediwura, A. A. & Bada, T. (2007). Perception of teachers’ knowledge, attitude and teaching
skills as predictor of academic performance in Nigerian secondary schools
Educational Research and Review, 2 (7), 165-171.
Adepoju, T. L. (2001). Locational factors as correlates of private cost and academic
performance of secondary school students in Oyo State, Nigeria. TL Adepoju -
Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Ibadan, 2002.
Adeyemo, D.A. (2005). Parental involvement interest in schooling and school environment
as predictors of academic self-efficacy among fresh secondary school student in Oyo
State, Nigeria. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5-3 (1),
163-180.
Adu, E, O., Tadu, R. & Eze, I. (2012). Teachers’ self as correlates of secondary school
students ‘’ academic achievement in southwestern Nigeria. Discovery, 2012, 2 (4), 8-
16.
Ajayi, I.A. (1988). Unit cost of secondary education and students’ academic achievement in
Ondo State (1991-1995). A Ph.D Seminar Paper Presented at the Faculty of
Education. University of Ibadan, 7 (5), 170-171.
114
Akinsola, M.K. (2002). In-service elementary teacher’s mathematics anxiety and its
relationship to teachers’ attitude towards the studying and teaching of mathematics.
Nigerian Journal of Applied Psychology. 7 (1), 188-202.
Akinsola, M.K. (2008). Relationship of some psychological variables in predicting problem
solving ability of in-service mathematics teachers. The Montana Mathematics
Enthusiast, 5 (1), 79-100.
Ali, M. A. (2011). A Study of Job Satisfaction of Secondary School Teachers. Journal of
Education and Practice, 2 (1), 2011.
Allinder, R.M. (1995). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and
Curriculum-based measurement and student achievement. Research article Remedial
& Special Education, 16 (4), 141-152.
Angela, R. (2013). Teacher characteristics on student achievement: An examination of high
schools in Ohio, (2013) MPA/MPP Capstone Projects. 49.
Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (5), 28-32.
Ashton, P. T. & Webb, R. B. (1986). Teachers' sense of efficacy, classroom behavior, and
student achievement. In P.T. Ashton and R. B. Webb (Eds.). Teachers' Sense of
Efficacy and Student Achievement, 17 (7), 125-144.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1984). Teachers’ sense of efficacy, classroom behavior, and
student achievement. In P. T. Ashton & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Teachers’ sense of efficacy
and student achievement, 17 (7),125–144.
Bailey, J. G. (1999). Academics' motivation and self-efficacy for teaching and research.
Higher Education Research & Development, 18 (3), 343-359.
115
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation" of thought and action." A social cognitive theory.
Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Journal Annual review of psychology ,52 (1),
1-26
Bandura, A & Albert. J. (1977). A self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Journal Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Journal of Educational Psychologist, 28 (2) 117–148.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: And Angetic. Annual Review of Psychology,
54 (1), 1-26.
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press, 3(1), 1-46
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company: NY: Cambridge University Press, 3 (1), 114-149.
Begley, S. (2007). Studies take measure of how stereotyping alters performance. Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved on January 12, 2014.
Bess, J. L. (1996). Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach effectively.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Bulmahn, B. J., & Young, D. M. (1982). On the transmission of mathematics anxiety.
Arithmetic Teacher, 38 (1), 34-35.
Cagle, J. (1998). One teacher’s perspective on the differences of academic expectations for
Hispanic students: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Non Journal Reports -
Research; Speeches/Meeting Papers, 4 (1), 1-29
116
Calderhead, J. (1991). The nature and growth of knowledge in student teaching. Journal
Teaching and Teacher Education, 7 (5/6), 531-535.
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 (1), 473-490.
Certo, J. L. & Fox, J. E. 2002. Retaining quality teachers. High School Journal, 86 (1), 57-75
Cheng, Y.C. (1993). Profiles of organizational culture and effective schools. In School
effectiveness and school improvement 4 (2), 85 –110.
Chism, N. V., Lees, N. D., & Evenbeck, S. (2002). Faculty development for teaching
innovation. Liberal Education, 88 (1) , 34–42.
Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., & Marine, R. J. (2002, April). Faculty motivation to use
alternative teaching methods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 2 (1), 1-20.
Cooke, M. (2011). CEA Pat Clifford Award Winner: Positive teacher- student relationships
play a unique role for students with special needs. Retrieved January 07, 2014, from
CEA: http://www.cea-ace.ca/press-release/2011-cea-pat.
Crow, L.D. and Crow,(1969). Adolescent development and adjustment, Mc Grow – Hill Book
Company, United States. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 3(2),
101-107.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state
policy evidence. Journal of Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1), 1-44.
117
DeChenne, S. E. (2010). Learning to teach effectively: Science, technology, engineering and
mathematics graduate teaching assistants’ teaching self-efficacy. (Doctoral
dissertation, Oregon State University, 2010).
Demato, S D. (2001). Job satisfaction among elementary school counselors in Virginia Ph. D
Dissertation University of Virginia. Retrieved April 7, 2012 from
http://www.martin.uky.edu/centers_research/Capstones_2013/Rockstroh.pdf
Dembo, M.H. & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in school
improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86 (2), 173-184.
Denham, C.H. & Michael, J.J. (1981). Teacher sense of efficacy: A definition of the construct
and a model for further research. Journal of Educational Research Quarterly, 6 (1),
39-61.
Driessen, G. (2007). The feminization of primary education: Effect of teachers’ sex on pupil
achievement, attitudes and behavior. Journal of International review of education, 53
(2), 183-203.
Education Department. (1996). Teachers Performance and assessment. The Punjab University
Lahore Government of Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Assessing the Performance of
Secondary School Headteachers, 37 (6), 766-783.
Ejuu, H. (2005). Teachers‟ self-esteem, sex, qualification and level of commitment to
teaching. Unpublished masters (of Arts Educ. Mgt.) Dissertation, Makerere
University, Kampala, Uganda.
EMIS, Education Management Information System, (2013-2014). Department of Education
Elementary and Secondary Khyber Pukhtunkhwa.
118
Epsiten, D., Elwood, J., Hey, V. & Maw, J. (1998). School boy frictions: feminism and failing
boys, in: D. Epsiten,,J. Elwood, V Hey and J.Maw (Eds) failing boys, (Buckingham,
Open University press).
Eren, A. (2009). Examining the Teacher Efficacy and Achievement Goals as Predictors of
Turkish Student Teachers’ Conceptions about Teaching and Learning. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 34 (1), 60-86.
Evertson, C. M. (1985). Training teachers in classroom management: experimental study in
secondary school classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 32 (1), 34-38.
Freeman, C. (2008). Teacher Efficacy and its Impact on Student Achievement" (2008). All
Regis
University Theses. 16. https://epublications.regis.edu/theses/16
Friedman, I. (2000). Burnout in teachers: Shattered dreams of impeccable professional
performance. Psychotherapy in Practice, 56 (5), 595-606.
Gavora, P. (2010). Slovak pre-service teacher self-efficacy: Theoretical and research
considerations. The New Educational Review, 21(2), 17-30.
Genc,E., & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2006). Patterns in teaching styles of science teachers in
Florida and factors influencing their preferences.
George, P., & Aronson, R. (2003). How educators’ cultural beliefs systems affect underserved
students’ pursuit of post-secondary education. Retrieved April 7, 2012 from
http://www.prel.org
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
119
Goddard, R. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective
efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological
Measurement. 62 (1), 97-110.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(2), 479–507.
Gordon, L. M. (2001). High teacher efficacy as a marker of teacher effectiveness in the
domain of classroom management. San Diego, CA. Presented at the Annual Meeting
of the California Council on Teacher Education, (Fall 2001).
Guskey, T.R. (1994). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. Journal of
Educational Research, 81(1), 41-47.
Hallak, J. (2007). Planning the location of schools: an instrument of educational policy Paris:
UNSECO-HEP, 13-14, 33-39.
Hamre, B. K. & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of
children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72 (1), 625-
638.
Hassan, M. & Akbar, R. (2019). Effect of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy on Students’ Academic
Achievements: Case of Male Public Sector Secondary Schools. Journal of Research
in Social Sciences (JRSS). 7(2), 2305-6533.
Hativa, N., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.) (2001). Teacher thinking, beliefs, and knowledge in
higher education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
120
Henson,R. K. (2001, January). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and
measurement dilemmas. Presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research
Exchange, Texas A & M University.
Hill, H. C., Rowan,B. and Ball,D.L. (2005). Effect of Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for
Teaching on student’s achievement. American Education Research Journal 42 (1),
237-406.
Housego, B.E.J. (1992). Monitoring student teachers’ feelings of preparedness to teach,
personal teaching efficacy and teaching efficacy in a new secondary teacher education
program. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38 (1), 49-64.
Howard, G.P. (2001). We Can Not Teach What We Don’t Know: Multiracial schools. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Hoy, A. W. (2000). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational
health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(20), 356–372.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
6 (1), 1–55.
Hussain, S., Ali, R.,Khan, M.S., Ramzan, M.,& Qadeer, M.Z.(2011). Attitude of scholarly
school teachers towards teaching profession. International Journal of Academic
Research, 3(1), 985-990.
121
Ignat, A., & Clipa, O. (2010). The impact of self-efficacy and locus of control on the
professional development of teachers. University Petrol-Gaze din Ploiesti, 1(A), 180-
185.
Isiksal, M. (2005). Pre-service teachers’ performance in their university coursework and
mathematics self-efficacy beliefs: What is the role of gender and year in program? The
Mathematics Educator, 15(2), 8-16.
Kaplan, D. (2009). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 20 (4), 721-745.
Kinzie, M.B. & Delcourt, M.A.B. (1991). Computer technologies in teacher education: The
measurement of attitudes and self-efficacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED331891).
Klein, R. B. (2011). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). "May be I can teach those kids": The influence
of contextual factors on student teachers' efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24 (1), 166-179.
König, J., Blömeke, S., Paine, L., Schmidt, W.H., & Hsieh, F.-J. (2011). General
pedagogical knowledge of future middle school teachers: On the complex ecology of
teacher education in the United States, Germany, and Taiwan. Journal of Teacher
Education, 62 (2), 188 -201.
122
Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student
perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100, 96-104.
Krows, A. J. (1999). Pre-service teachers’ belief systems and attitudes toward mathematics
in the context of a progressive elementary teacher preparation program. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma.
Landino, R. A., & Owen, S. V. (1988). Self-efficacy in university faculty. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 33 (1), 1–14.
Lanier, J. (1984). Research on Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 251450).
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.
Reflective Practice, 9 (3), 341–360.
Lenhart, S. T. (2010). The Effect of Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge and the
Instruction of Middle School Geometry. Unpublished doctoral thesis. School of
Education. Liberty University. Lynchburg, VA.
Marsh, H.W., Martin,A.J., & Cheng,J.S. (2008). A multilevel perspective on gender in
classroom motivation and climate: potential benefit of male teachers for boys? Journal
of Education psychology 20 (1), 107-123.
Marsh, H. W., and Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: lts multifaceted, hierarchical structure.
Educational Psychologist, 20 (1), 107-123.
Martin, O.L. (1989). Does teacher efficacy begin with teacher education: Implications from
student teacher candidates? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 324273).
123
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D.,
Burchinal, M., Early, D. M., & Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in
prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills.
Child Development, 79 (4), 732-749.
Marzano, R.J., & Marzano, J.S. (2003) the key to classroom management. Education
leadership. 61(i),6-13.
Maxton, S.P. (1996). The influence of teachers’ beliefs on literacy development for at-risk
first grade students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Metz, E.R. (1986) Symposium addresses teacher preparation. Music Educators Journal, 72
(5), 53-4.
Milner, R. (2002). A case study of experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy and persistence
through “crisis” situations: Theoretical and practical considerations. The High School
Journal, 86 (1), 28-35.
Mojavezi, A. & Tamiz, M. P. (2012). The Impact of Teacher Self-efficacy on the Students’
Motivation and Achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2 (3), 483-49.
Montague, M., & Rinaldi, C. (2001). Classroom dynamics and children at risk: A follow-up.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 24 (3), 75–83.
Morris, L. V. (2004). Self-efficacy in academe: Connecting the belief and the reality.
Innovative Higher Education, 28 (3), 159–162.
Mutchler, H. (2005). Teacher identity in Africa: the case of the Republic of Benin,
Unpublished PhD thesis, Stanford University: USA.
124
Namutebi, B. (2006). Reward management practices commitment of teachers in senior
secondary schools in Wakiso district, Uganda. Unpublished masters (of Arts Educ.
Mgt.) dissertation, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Narang, H.L. (1990). Beginning teachers’ perceptions of their proficiency in teaching skills.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 328515).
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Norton, S. M. (2013). A phenomenological investigation into the self-efficacy Beliefs of
teachers who have persisted in the teaching. Unpublished doctoral thesis. School of
Education. Liberty University. Lynchburg, VA.
Obidan, J.E., & Manheim Teel, K. (2001). Because of kids: facing racial and cultural
difference in schools, New York; Teachers College Press
Omisade,Y.O. (1985). The impact of school management environment on students’ output
Quality in Oyo State secondary schools. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, university of
Ibadan.
Osborne, J. W. (2002). Notes on the use of data transformations. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation,8(6). Retrieved from http://PAR
Eonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=6 Pajares,
Owoeye-Joseph, Sunday and Yara, Philias Olatunde (2010). School location and academic
achievement of secondary school in Ekiti State, Nigeria. Kampala international
university Kampala, Uganda. Doi, 75(1),170-174.
Pajares, F. (1996a). Assessing self-efficacy beliefs and academic outcomes. ‘The case for
specificity and correspondent. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.
125
Pajares, F. & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in
mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal Q/Educational Psychology,
8 (6), l93-203.
Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of
kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and
child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102 (4), 225-238.
Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. B. (1995). The first two years of school:
Teacher-child relationships and deflections in children's classroom adjustment.
Development and Psychopathology, 7 (1), 295-312.
Pickens, T. (2010). Personal or professional? Reflecting on teacher-student relationship.
Retrieved January 07, 2014, from Journal of Classroom Teaching & Learning:
http://joctl.blogspot.com/2010/03/personal-or-professionalreflecting-on.html
Pigge, F.L. & Marso, R.N. (1990). A longitudinal assessment of the affective impact of pre-
service training on prospective teachers. Journal of Experimental Education, 58 (4),
283-289.
Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2008). Variation in teachers’ description of teaching:
Broadening the understanding of teaching in higher education. Learning and
Instruction, 18 (1), 109–120.
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training
on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 557–571.
Prieto, L. R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1994). The relationship of prior training and previous
teaching experience to self-efficacy among graduate teaching assistants. Research in
Higher Education, 35(4), 481–497.
126
Raisani.H.M. (1988). A study of relationship between climate and demographic information
to job satisfaction Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan University.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Sawyer, B. E. (2004) Primary grade teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs,
attitudes toward teaching and discipline practice priorities in relation to the responsive
classroom approach. The Elementary School Journal, 104 (1), 321- 341.
Roche, L.A., & Marsh, H.W. (2002). Teaching self-concept in higher education. In N. Hativa
& P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education
179–218. London, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory.
Boston: Houghton, Miffiin.
Ross, J.A. (2001). The impact of an in-service to promote cooperative learning on the stability
of teacher efficacy. Teaching & Teacher Education. 10 (2), 381-394
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for intimal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 148~l54.
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15 (1),
85–109.
Saban, A. (2003). A Turkish profile of prospective elementary school teachers and their view
of teaching. Teaching and teachers education, 19(8), 829.doi:
10.106/j.tate.2003.03.004.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of
mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76 (2), 647-658.
127
Sarangapani, P.M.2003. Constructing school knowledge: An ethnography of learning in
Indian village. New Delhi: Saga Publication India Private Ltd.
Scharlach, T. D. (2008). These kids just aren’t motivated to read: The influence of pre-service
teachers’ beliefs on their expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling
readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47 (2), 158-173.
Schmidt,W. H., Cogan, L., & Houang, R.(2011). The role of opportunity to learn in teaching
preparation. An international context. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 138-153.
Schon, D. A. (2005). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Schunk, D. (2012). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist. 26 (3),
207-231.
Shahzad, K. & Naureen, S. (2017). Impact of teacher self-efficacy on secondary school
students’ academic achievement. Journal of Education and Educational Development.
4 (1).
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (2006). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments,
decisions, and behavior. Review of Education Research, 51(4), 455–498.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. I-l. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
81 (1), 91-100.
Shoukat, S., & Iqbal, H. M. (2012). Teacher Self-Efficacy as a Function of Student
Engagement, Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management. Pakistan Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10 (2), 82-85.
128
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching foundation of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57 (1),1-22.
Singer, E. R. (1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Research in higher
education 37 (6), 659-79.
Smith, R. E. (1989). Effects of coping skills training on generalized self-efficacy and locus of
control. Journal of Social Psychology, 6 (1), 223-233.
Smylie, M. A. (1996). Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. Instructional Outcomes of
school-based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 18 (1),181-198.
Sood, P. (2006). Educational choice in relation to academic stress, achievement motivation
and academic self-concept. J. Comm. Gui. Res., 23(2): 141-152
Stajkovic, A. D. & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. In R. M.
Steers, L. W. Porter, & G. A. Bigley (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior 7(1) 126–
140). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Steele, C. (2004). Steele discusses “stereotype threat.” College Street Journal.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2002). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Terry, A. (2008). More life through life management. Retrieved on 1-12, 2014, from Michigan
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.sageday.com/relationships-in-
the-classroom/.
129
The Free Dictionary. (2014). Achievement. Retrieved on 14-1-2014 from
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/achievement
Thomas, K. (2009). Gender and Subject in Higher Education. Buckingham open University
Press
Tollerud, T. (1990). The perceived self-efficacy of teaching skills of advanced doctoral
students and graduates from counselor education programs. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Iowa, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International 51:12A.
Toste, J. R. Heath, N. L., & Dallaire, L. (2010). “Perceptions of Classroom Working Alliance
and Student Performance,” Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56 (1) 371-387.
Retrieved from http://ajer.synergiesprairies.ca/
Tracz, S. M., & Gibson, S. (1986). Effects of efficacy on academic achievement. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the California Educational Research Association.
California.1986
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy
beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23 (1),
944–956.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 (2), 783–805.
UNESCO, (2000). Increasing the number of woman teachers in rural schools: A synthesis of
country case studies: South Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO Principal regional office for
Asia and the Pacific.
UNESCO. (2005). EFA global monitoring report 2005: the quality imperative. Paris:
UNESCO.
130
UNESCO. (2006). Advocacy brief: the impact of woman teachers on girls’ education.
Bangkok: UNESCO.
Walker, L. (1992). Perceptions of pre-service teacher efficacy. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 354230).
Whitehead, J. (1996). Sex stereotypes, gender identity and subject choice at ‘A’ level,
education research, 38 (2), 147-160
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs
about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 81–91.
Wright, J. C., Giammarino, M., & Parad, H. W. (1986). Social status in small groups:
Individual-group similarity and the social “misfit.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50 (1), 523–536.
Wylie, R. (1968). The present status of self-theory. In E. Borgotta & W. Lambert (Eds),
Handbook of personality theory and research 728-787. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Yenagi, G.V. (2006). Study habits as a function of self-perception among intellectually gifted
and non-gifted students. J. Edu. Res. Ext., 2(1), 50-56.
131
ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A SAMPLE SCHOOLS LIST D.I. KHAN
List of Boys Schools 1.
2. Government Higher Secondary School No.2 D.I.Khan
3. Government Higher Secondary School No.3. D.I.Khan
4. Government Higher Secondary School No.4. D.I.Khan
5. Government High School Muryali D.I.Khan
6. Government High School No.5 D.I.Khan
7. Government High School Umar Khal Sharq D.I.Khan
8. Government High School Mandhran Kalan D.I.Khan
9. Government Higher Secondary School Dnakki D.I.Khan
10. Government High School Kachi Paind Khan D.I.Khan
11. Government High School Parova D.I.Khan
List of Girls Schools
1. Government Girls Centennial Model High School No.1 D.I.K
2. Government Girls Higher Secondary School No.2 D.I.Khan
3. Government Girls Higher Secondary School No.6 D.I.Khan
4. Government Girls High School Fazal Rahim Colony D.I.Khan
5. Government Girls High School Hassa D.I.Khan
6. Government Girls High School Ratta kullachi D.I.Khan
7. Government Girls High School Pahar Pur D.I.Khan
8. Government Girls High School Paniyala D.I.Khan
132
ANNEXURE B
SAMPLE SCHOOLS LIST KOHAT
List of Boys Schools
1. Government Higher secondary School No.1 Kohat
2. Government High School No.2 Kohat
3. Government High School No.3 Kohat
4. Government Comprehensive High School Kohat
5. Government High School Behzadi Chikar Kot Kohat
6. Government Centennial Model High School Kohat
7. Government Higher Secondary School Gumbat Kohat
8. Government High School Pershai Kohat
9. Government Higher Secondary School Lachi Kohat
10. Government Higher Secondary School ChorLaki Kohat
11. Government High School Shadi Khel Kohat
12. Government Higher Secondary School Siab Kohat
List of Girls Schools
1. Government Girls High School No.1 Kohat
2. Government Girls High School No.2 Kohat
3. Government Girls High School KDA Kohat
4. Government Girls High School Behzadi Chikar Kot Kohat
5. Government GIRLS Higher Secondary School Shakar Dara Kohat
6. Government Girls Higher Secondary School Gumbat Kohat
7. Government Girls High School Jungle Kohat
8. Government Girls High School Lachi Kohat
133
ANNEXURE C
SAMPLE SCHOOLS LIST MARDAN
List of Boys Schools
1. Government High School No. 1. Bicket Gunj Mardan
2. Government High School No. 2. Bicket Gunj Mardan
3. Government Higher Secondary School No.1 Mardan
4. Government High School Mohabat Abad Mardan
5. Government Centennial Model High School for Boys Mardan
6. Government High School Labour Colony Mardan
7. Government Higher Secondary School Baghdada Mardan.
8. Government Higher Secondary School Chamtar Mardan
9. Government Higher Secondary School Manga Mardan
10. Government High School khanjar Mardan
11. Government High School Rustam Mardan.
12. Government Higher secondary School Gujar Garhi Mardan.
List of Girls Schools
1. Government Girls Higher Secondary School Shahdand Baba Mardan
2. Government Girls Higher Secondary School Katlang Mardan
3. Government Centennial Model High School for Girls Canal Road Mardan
4. Government Girls High School No.1 Mardan
5. Government Girls High School ParHoti No.1 Mardan
6. Government Girls High School Rustam Khel Mardan
7. Government Girls High School Kas Korona Mardan
8. Government Girls High School Mayar Mardan
134
ANNEXURE D
SAMPLE SCHOOLS LIST ABBOTTABAD
LIST OF BOYS SCHOOLS
1. Government High School No. 1. Abbottabad
2. Government Centennial Model High School No.2 Abbottabad
3. Government High School No. 3. Abbottabad
4. Government High School No.4 Abbottabad
5. Government Higher Secondary School Nowashar Abbottabad
6. Government Higher Secondary School Khanuspur Abbottabad
7. Government Higher Secondary School Bodla Abbottabad
8. Government High School Jhangi Abbattabad
9. Government Higher Secondary School Bandi Dhunda Abbottabad
10. Government High School Bakot Abbottabad
11. Government High School Sherwan Abbottabad
12. Government High School Kanthali Abbottabad
LIST OF GIRLS SCHOOLS
1. Government Girls Centennial Higher Secondary School Abbottabad
2. Government Girls Comprehensive Higher Secondary School Abbottabad
3. Government Girls Higher Secondary Havelian Abbottabad
4. Government Girls High School No.2 Abbottabad
5. Government Girls High School Jhangi Abbottabad
6. Government Girls High School Sajikot Abbottabad
7. Government Girls High School Sharwan Abbottabad
8. Government Girls High School MalikPura Abbottabad
135
ANNEXURE E
SAMPLE SCHOOLS LIST MANSHERA
LIST OF BOYS SCHOOLS
1. Government Higher Secondary School No. 1. Mansehra
2. Government High School No. 2. Mansehra
3. Government Centennial Model High School No. 3. Mansehra
4. Government Higher Secondary School Baffa Mansehra
5. Government High School Afzal Abad Mansehra
6. Government High School Shinkari Mansehra
7. Government High School Khaki Mansehra
8. Government High School Phulra Mansehra
9. Government High School Oghi Mansehra
10. Government Higher Secondary School Garhi Habibullah Mansehra
11. Government Higher Secondary School Pairain Mansehra
12. Government High School Shamdhara Mansehra
LIST OF GIRLS SCHOOL
1. Government Girls High School Nokot Mansehra
2. Government Girls Higher Secondary School No.2 Mansehra
3. Government Centennial Model High School No.1 Mansehra
4. Government Girls High School Afzal Abad Mansehra
5. Government Girls High School Atter Shesha Mansehra
6. Government Girls High School Baffa Mansehra
7. Government Girls Higher Secondary School Kot Najibullah Mansehra
8. Government Girls High School Taragzi Bala Mansehra
136
ANNEXURE F
SAMPLE SCHOOLS LIST PESHAWAR
LIST OF BOYS SCHOOLS
1. Government Higher Secondary School No.1 Peshawar Cantt.
2. Government Higher Secondary School No.1 Peshawar City.
3. Government Higher Secondary School Hayatabad Peshawar City.
4. Government Higher Secondary School Wazir Bagh Peshawar City.
5. Government High School Policy Colony Peshawar.
6. Government High School Civil Quarters Peshawar.
7. Government High School Main Gujar Peshawar
8. Government High School Malogo Peshawar
9. Government High School Badaber Peshawar
10. Government High School Nahaqi Peshawar
11. Government High School Pakha Gulam Peshawar
12. Government High School Budni Peshawar
LIST OF GIRLS SCHOOLS
1. Government Girls Higher Secondary School Hayatabad Peshawar.
2. Government Girls High School Gulbahar Peshawar
3. Government Girls High School Islamia Collegiate Peshawar
4. Government Centennial Girls Higher Secondary School Peshawar.
5. Government Girls High School Gulbahar Peshawar
6. Government Girls High School Malogo Peshawar
7. Government Girls High School Badaber Peshawar
8. Government Girls High School Nahaqi Peshawar
137
ANNEXURE-G
STUDENT SAMPLE
S.No District Name Male students Total
Male
Students
Female students Total
female
students
Science Arts Science Arts
1. Abbottabad 620 903 1523 440 891 1331
2. D.I.Khan 643 1034 1677 436 753 1189
3. Kohat 515 702 1217 437 569 1006
4. Manshra 647 861 1508 534 669 1203
5. Mardan 606 782 1388 387 733 1120
6. Peshawar 604 854 1458 556 843 1399
Total sample 3635 5136 8771 2790 4458 7248
Grand Total 16019
138
ANNEXURE-H
PERMISSION LETTER
Re: PERMISSION
Shopping
• Anita Hoy <[email protected]>
• 06/27/12 at 12:05 AM
To
• zohra akhunzada
Message body
You are welcome to use the TSES in your work and translate it as necessary.
Anita Woolfolk Hoy, Professor
Educational Psychology & Philosophy
School of Educational Policy and Leadership
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210
phone: 614-488-5064
fax: 614-292-7900
e-mail [email protected]
http://ehe.osu.edu/epl/directory/anita-hoy/
On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:37 PM, zohra akhunzada wrote:
dear Anita Woolfolk HOY
I am seeking your permission to use Teachers' sense of efficacy scale in my phD research.
139
i am pursuing my phD thesis from Hazara university Pakistan, and my research title is
Impact of Teachers’ professional- Efficacy on Academic Achievement of Government
Secondary Schools Students.
i hope you ll allow me to use the scale and also allow me to translate the same scale in
URDU (Pakistan national language) according to the need of my research requirements.
with best regards
Zohra Begum
PhD student
Hazara University Manshera Pakistan
The Top 10 Tips
Visit for Education Research Articles
140
ANNEXURE-I
GRADE PERCENT MARKS
A+ 80 and above
A 70 to 79
B 60 to 69
C 50 to 59
D 40 to 49
E 24 to 39
141
ANNEXURE-J
BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION KOHAT
142
ANNEXURE-K
BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION PESHAWAR
143
ANNEXURE-L
BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ABBOTTABAD
144
ANNEXURE-M
BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION MARDAN
145
ANNEXURE-N
BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION DI KHAN
146
QUESTIONNAIRES
ANEXURE:- O
TEACHERS EFFICACY SCALE
147
148
QUESTIONNAIRES
ANEXURE:- P
TEACHERS SELF-EFFICACY SCALE
149
