8

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Review of Related Literature and Related Studies

Teacher self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is grounded in the theoretical framework of social cognitive theory

emphasizing the evolvement and exercise of human agency e that people can exercise some

influence over what they do (Bandura, 2006a). Bandura (2006a) maintains that in this

conception, people are self-organizing, proactive, selfregulating, and self-reflecting. From this

perspective, self-efficacy affects one's goals and behaviours and is influenced by one's actions

and conditions in the environment (Schunk & Meece, 2006). Efficacy beliefs determine how

environmental opportunities and impediments are perceived (Bandura, 2006a) and affect choice

of activities, how much effort is expended on an activity, and how long people will persevere

when confronting obstacles (Pajares, 1997).

Based on social cognitive theory teacher self-efficacy may be conceptualized as

individual teachers' beliefs in their own ability to plan, organize, and carry out activities that are

required to attain given educational goals. Following this conceptualization Bandura's (1997,

2006b) recommendation for item construction should be followed when measuring teacher self-

efficacy: (a) because selfefficacy is concerned with perceived capability the items should contain

verbs like “can” or “be able to” in order to make clear that the items ask for mastery expectations

because of personal competence, (b) the object in each statement should be “I” since the aim is to

assess each teacher's subjective belief about his or her own capability, and (c) each item should
 9

contain a barrier. The latter point is underlined by Bandura (1997, p. 42) stating that “If there are

no obstacles to surmount, the activity is easy to perform, and everyone has uniformly high

perceived self-efficacy for it.” Based on Bandura's definition of self-efficacy several instruments

have been developed to measure (personal) teacher self efficacy.

Most of these instruments either do not measure teacher self-efficacy as a

multidimensional construct, do not reflect the variety of tasks and demands that are put upon a

teacher, or do not follow Bandura's recommendation for item construction (for an overview, see

Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Despite differences in item construction teacher self-efficacy has

been shown to predict teachers goals and aspirations (Muijs & Reynolds, 2002), teachers'

attitudes towards innovation and change (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992; Guskey, 1988),

teachers' tendency to refer difficult students to special education (Meijer & Foster, 1988; Soodak

& Podell, 1993), teachers' use of teaching strategies (Allinder, 1994; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy,

1990), and the likelihood that teachers stay in the teaching profession (Burley, Hall, Villeme, &

Brockmeier, 1991; Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982).

Based on an analysis of role expectations in Norwegian schools Skaalvik and Skaalvik

(2007) recently developed a multidimensional 24-item Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

(NTSES) measuring six dimensions by four items each. The dimensions were self-efficacy for

instruction, adapting education to individual students' needs, motivating students, keeping

discipline, cooperating with colleagues and parents, and coping with changes and challenges.

The scale was constructed according to Bandura's recommendations. One purpose of the present

study was to test the factor structure of the NTSES on a large sample of Norwegian teachers.
 10

In addition to personal efficacy expectations the individual teacher may also have beliefs

both about the ability of the team and of the faculty of teachers at the school to execute courses

of action required to produce given attainments. Such beliefs represent perceived collective

teacher efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy,

2004). Unfortunately, few studies are done exploring relations between perceived collective

efficacy and individual teacher self-efficacy. The few available studies suggest moderate positive

relations both between perceived collective efficacy and individual teacher self-efficacy

(Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007).

On theoretical ground one may argue that it is reasonable to predict that perceived

collective efficacy affects individual teacher self-efficacy. Schools characterized by high

collective teacher efficacy set challenging goals and are persistent in their effort to meet these

goals. Goddard et al. (2004) argue that these high expectations create a normative press that

encourage all teachers to do what it takes to excel and discourage them from giving up when

faced with difficult situations. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2008) proposed that such a cultural

context promotes students' achievements which again enhance individual teachers' sense of self-

efficacy. We therefore expect that individual teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy

are positively related. However, it is not obvious that being part of a strong team always

increases self-efficacy for all team members.

Based on social comparison theory (e.g., Marsh & Craven, 2000) one may expect that a

teacher who perceive his or her teaching ability to be lower than the ability of other teachers at

school may loose confidence regarding his or her own teaching ability. Hence, we conceptualize
 11

individual teacher selfe fficacy and collective teacher efficacy as different but correlated

constructs.

Based on Rotter's (1966) distinction between external and internal control teacher self-

efficacy has been assumed to increase if teachers believe that the students' achievement and

behaviour can be influenced by education (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Rose & Medway, 1981).

Accordingly, teacher self-efficacy has also been assumed to decrease if teachers' believe that

factors external to teaching (e.g., students' abilities and home environments) are more important

to the students' learning than the influence that a teacher may have. These assumptions has led

some researchers to measure teachers' general beliefs about limitations to what can be achieved

through education, which is often referred to as “teaching efficacy” (e.g., Soodak & Podell,

1996). In order to emphasize that this is a measure of the degree to which teachers believe that

factors external to their teaching puts limitations to what they can accomplish, we will refer to it

as “external control” (see also Ho & Hau, 2004). It may also be conceptualized as a general

measure of educational pessimism or optimism. Because external control may be confounded

with teacher self-efficacy it is important to test how strongly there constructs are related and if

they relate differently to school context variables and to teacher job satisfaction. One of the

purposes of this study was to test relations between individual teacher self-efficacy, perceived

collective efficacy, and external control.

Teachers’ confidence

Self-confidence is answering the question; “How the others are seeing me?” Our

perception is always connecting with the others (Baltaş, 2002). Nowadays, research studies show
 12

that self-confidence and success are related (Daniel, 2006). Particularly, Fitch (1970) pointed out

the relationship between self-confidence and success. In addition, self-confidence is one of the

most important factors for motivation and future success. In another research, Hair (2003) found

that positive self-confidence affects academic success positively.

In a previous research, Otacıoğlu (2008) showed the importance of self-confidence and

problem-solving skills in music education by a significant relation between two dimensions.

Another study showed that there were similarities between Pehlivan and Konukman’s (2004)

comparison of physical education (P.E) teachers’ problem-solving skills and other teachers’

problem-solving skills similar to the present study results.

Teachers’ performance

Teacher quality is widely thought of as an essential determinant of academic

performance, yet there is little agreement as to what specific characteristics make a good teacher

(Hanushek and Rivkin, 2006). This is an important issue as the economic impact of higher

student achievement can be profound. Hanushek (2011) examines the economic value of teacher

quality, which is assumed to be a function of the depreciation rate of student learning, the total

variation of teacher quality (as measured by student achievement on standardized tests), and the

labor market return to one standard deviation of higher achievement.

Education and experience account for most of the variation in teacher salary within

school districts in the United States (Hanushek and Rivkin, 2006). Most studies find that the first

few years of experience significantly improve teacher quality (as measured by student test

scores). Additional experience beyond five years, though, does not (on average) appear to
 13

improve teacher efficacy (Hanushek, 2011). One must be careful when examining the body of

literature on experience and teacher effectiveness as many older studies use only observed

student traits to account for student heterogeneity. Also, Clotfelter et al. (2006) provide evidence

that higher scoring students are placed in classrooms with more experience teachers.

Few recent studies have controlled for teacher and student fixed effects when examining

the effects of experience. In an excellent new study, Harris and Sass (2011) are able to include

both while using student-level achievement test data for grades 3-10 in math and reading from

Most recent studies control for unobserved student characteristics and address the

selection-bias issue by using student fixed effects. Another estimation issue when measuring the

effect of experience is due to possible spurious correlation from teacher attrition. If less (more)

effective teachers are more likely to leave a given sample, it may appear that experience has a

positive (negative) effect on student achievement. Including teacher fixed effects will control for

unmeasured teacher ability and should remove the confounding influence on experience.

Critics of this status quo argue that such rigid and misaligned compensation systems

cannot adequately attract and retain a high-quality teacher workforce (see, for example, Johnson

and Papay, 2009; Hanushek, 2007; Murnane and Olsen, 1989). This misalignment is thought to

be especially acute in difficult-to-staff schools where the working conditions are more difficult

yet the compensation, due to the single salary schedule, is often similar to schools with better

working conditions. This dissatisfaction has motivated new efforts to design and implement

programs to assess and reward teacher performance (Johnson and Papay 2009; Cavanagh 2011).

The enthusiasm for such reforms among some policymakers and some practitioners is

underscored by new federal and state initiatives (e.g., the Teacher Incentive Fund, Race to the
 14

Top, state waivers from the federal requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act) that

promote, among other goals, the design and use of measures of teacher performance in

compensation and other personnel decisions. However, these efforts are also extraordinarily

controversial and their ongoing implementation appears to be uneven among school districts

nationwide.
 15

Research Paradigm

Independent variables Dependent Variable

Secondary teachers’ in district 1

Quezon, Bukidnon:
 Self-efficacy in terms of:
a. Influence to DM
b. Influence to SR
c. Instructional Se
d. Disciplinary SE
e. Enlist PI
f. Enlist CI TEACHERS’
g. Create PSC PERFORMANCE
 confidence

Figure 1 shows the schematic presentation of the study showing the relationship among the

independent variables and dependent variable.

 16

Hypothesis of the Study

The null hypothesis is advanced and tested at 0.05 significance level.

Ho1: There is no significant relationship between teacher’s self-efficacy and confidence to the
teacher’s performance.

Ho2: There is no variable that best predicts teacher’s performance.