International Conference on Research & Practices in Education A Construct Validity to Examine the Latent Traits of Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument *Sajid Ali Yousuf Zai, Ph.D Scholar Teaching Assistant, University of Arkansas, USA sayousuf@uark.edu Dr. Parveen Munshi Dean, Faculty of Education, University of Sindh munshiparveen@gmail.com Zafar Iqbal Yousuf Zai Deputy Director, Islamabad ziyz@yahoo.com  Feb 03, 2016

Purpose to evaluate convergent and construct validity of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001)’s ‘Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES)’ also known as ‘Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES)’ in the context of Pakistani in-service teacher papulation.

Statement of the Problem Several research studies have been conducted to study teacher efficacy The research on teacher efficacy is in a relatively early stage in Pakistan. The TSES is used by the number of Pakistani scholars to examine the relationship between teacher efficacy and teachers’ characteristics. The TSES has never been validated for Pakistani teacher population.

Significance of the Study Validity and reliability of a teacher efficacy scale in Pakistan’s context. benefits for Pakistani researchers who use teacher efficacy instruments in their studies. Provide empirical evidence how factor structure can be influenced by different regions or with different sample. Provide support to efficacy experts with revising an instrument more appropriate for specific population.

What is Teacher Efficacy? Efficacy beliefs are judgments about the ability to carry out particular course of action. Teacher’s sense of efficacy are confidence on his or her abilities to complete courses of actions required to successfully achieve a specific teaching task in particular context. Teacher efficacy is a teacher’s “judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among students who may be difficult or unmotivated” (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001, p. 283).

Why Teacher Efficacy is important? High efficacy motivated to achieve and optimistic about future Teacher efficacy can influence teacher’s instructional practices and classroom management as well as student achievement. Teachers with high levels of self-efficacy tend to have high levels of job satisfaction (r = .69, p < .001). A significant strong relationship (r = .78, p <.001) between the level of teacher efficacy and students’ attitudes toward school. Highly efficacious teachers performed better in higher education institutes than teachers with low self-efficacy. Teacher self-efficacy is also associated with teacher burnout.

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) The TSES is designed to measure the teachers’ sense of efficacy with three sub-scales. Two version: short form (12-item), long form (24-item) A 9-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (nothing) to 3 (very little) to 5 (some influence) 7 to (quite a bit) to 9 (a great deal). TSES Student Engagement Classroom Management Instructional Practices

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) Student Engagement Teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities to promote, motivate, and active learning in students. Classroom Management “Teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to maintain classroom order” (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000). Instructional Strategies Teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities to plan lessons, explain concepts, question and respond to student questions, employ alternative teaching strategies and assess student comprehension.

International Validation Studies of the TSES Author(s) Year Form Sample Country Findgins Fives and Buehl 2010 Long 102 in-service 270 preservice USA 3 factors for in-service 1-factor for preservice Duffin, Brian, and Patrick 2012 Preservice(n1) = 272 Preservice(n2) = 180 1-factor for preservice Klassen, Bong, Usher, Chong, Haun, Wong, and Georgiou 2009 Short 1,212 in-service teachers Canada , United States, Korea, Singapore, and Cyprus Validated three factors for Canadian, Korean, Singaporean, and Cyprus teachers. O'Neill and Stephenson 573 preservice Australia Loadings .67 to .81 Nie, Lau, and Liau 109 in-service Singapore 3-factors 75.66% Revised scale validated Charalambous, Philippou, and Kyriakides 2008 89 pre-service 2-factor for preservice teachers

Research Questions How many factors extracted with in-service teachers? Do the items function sufficiently within a scale-level internal consistency framework? Is there any significant difference in teacher efficacy belief between male and female teachers?

Research Method Instruments Demographics (e.g., gender, province, age group) – 7- items Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) – 12 items with 9-point scale Personal Teaching Efficacy (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) – 9 items with 6-point scale

Participants

Participants

Participants

Data Analysis Reliability Analysis TSES = .81 (SE= .77, IS = .79, and CM = .89) Inter-Scale Correlation Student Engagement (SE) Instructional Strategies (IS) Classroom Management (CM) Student Engagement Instructional Strategies .69 p <.001 Classroom Management .57

Data Analysis TSES PTE 34% Convergent Validity Significantly moderate correlation between general efficacy of the (Techannen- Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and Personal Teaching Efficacy from (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) TSE scale, r(410) = .58, p <.001 TSES PTE 34% r squared

Data Analysis Construct Validity The principal-axis factoring of the 12-item yielded three factors with eigenvalues greater than one, accounting for 64% of the variance in the TSES’ scores Preliminary eigenvalues for initial three factors were 5.44, 1.25, and 1.00. Each factor explained 45%, 10%, and 8% of the variance in the total TSES score. Communality values were in the range of 0.54 to 0.77 with an average of 0.64.

Data Analysis: Construct Validity Factor Loadings

Data Analysis: Construct Validity Factor Loadings

Data Analysis: Construct Validity Factor Loadings

Data Analysis Parallel Analysis The parallel analysis using SAS Macro (Kabakoff, 2003) Figure 1. Scree plot of original data and simulated data using parallel analysis for 1000 randomly generated datasets.

Data Analysis MANOVA Analysis Significant Multivariate effect in gender, Wilks’ λ = .85, F (3, 408) = 23.50, p < .001 Concluded that there were significant differences among the set of three subscales of the TSES between male and female teachers. Follow-up Analysis Significance differences in the efficacy of Student Engagement, F (1, 410) = 57.00, p < .001; efficacy of Instructional Strategies, F (1, 410) = 47.89, p < .001; efficacy of Classroom Management, F (1, 410) = 43.18, p < .001. Female teachers reported higher sense of efficacy than male teachers in all three subscales of the TSES.

Mean Efficacy differences between male and female teachers

Discussion The three factor structure of the TSES measure the level of teachers’ efficacy beliefs in three subareas: Efficacy for student engagement, Efficacy for instructional strategies, and Efficacy for classroom management. The inter-correlations among three subscales were consistent with the Techannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) results. The correlation between Personal Teaching Efficacy (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) TSE scale and TSES was significant, provides evidence of convergent validity.

Discussion Factor Structure results are consistent with Techannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) and Fives & Buehl (2010) studies. Fives & Buehl (2010) study suggested that the three-factor solution for teacher efficacy appears to be more appropriate for practicing teachers. Result indicated that 15% of the variation in the set of three subscales of the TSES is accounted for by the gender of the teacher. Female teachers tend to have higher sense of efficacy than male teachers in all three subscales of teacher efficacy measure

Teacher’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (Short-Form) Directions: This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the kinds of things that create difficulties for teachers in their school activities. Please circle your opinion about each of the statements below. Your answers are confidential.   Teacher Beliefs How much can you do? Nothing Very little Some influence Quite a bit A great deal 1 How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work? How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work? How much can you do to help your students value learning? To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students? How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies? 10 To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused? 11 How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school? 12 How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom?

Personal Teaching Efficacy from Gibson and Dembo (1984) scale Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement below by circling the appropriate numeral to the right of each statement Strongly disagree Moderate disagree Disagree slightly more than agree Agree slightly more than disagree Moderatel y agree Strongly agree If a student masters a new math concept quickly, this might be because I knew the necessary steps in teaching that concept.   When the grades of my students improve it is usually because I found more effective teaching approaches. When I really try, I can get through to most difficult students. If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson. When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exerted a little extra effort. If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know some techniques to redirect him quickly. If one of my students could not do a class assignment, I would be able to accurately assess whether the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty. When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, I am usually able to adjust it to his/her level When a student gets a better grade than he usually gets, it is usually because I found better ways of teaching that student.

Any Question ? Sajid_edu@yahoo.com Skype: sajid.edu