CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com -
V ScienceDirect Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 12 (2011) 426-435 ~
International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology (ICEEPSY 2010)
Testing Bandura's Theory in school
Fatemeh Shaterian Mohamadi a*, Hassan Asadzadeh b,Hassan Ahadi b, Farhad Jomehri b
aPh.D student at Psychology Department of Islamic Azad University, Sciences and Research Branch, Tehran, 14778 93855,Iran bPsychology Department,Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, 14896 84511,Iran
Abstract
This article seek the following 3 purposes: 1-The first was to test the validity of Sources of the Self-Efficacy Inventory (SOSI) among Iranian teachers Society, fulfilled in Study I. 2- The second was to evaluate the validity of the Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) among Iranian teachers Society, fulfilled in Study II. The third & the main purpose were to explore the impact of sources of teachers' self-efficacy on student's achievement. For achieving this aim, Study III suggests two alternative models, tested by Structural equation modeling technique. Study I and Study II (N=267) reported suitable validity for survey instrument. Findings of study III (N=284) indicated that between two suggested models the dependent model showed the best overall fit to the data. In this model teachers' self-efficacy had mediational role between sources of teacher s' self-efficacy and student's achievement.
© 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dr. Zafer Bekirogullari of Y.B. Keywords: sources of efficacy information; teachers' self-efficacy beliefs; student's achievement;SEM.
1. Introduction
Self-beliefs are a critical component of most modern theories of human motivation. Central construct in Albert Bandura's (1986, 1997) social cognitive theory is self-efficacy, which he defined as people's judgments of their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance. Self-efficacy differs from self-esteem and self-concept because it is task specific (Bandura, 1997; Hoy, 2004) and based on what people believe they are capable of doing in particular situation in the future (Hoy, 2004).
Self-efficacy theory, applied in the educational realm, has sparked a rich line of research into how teachers' self-efficacy beliefs are related to their actions and to the outcomes they achieve (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998). According to social cognitive theory, teachers who do not expect to be successful with certain students are likely put forth less effort in preparation and delivery of instruction, and to give up easily at the first sign of difficulty, even if they actually know of strategies that could assist these students if applied. However, Compelling evidence has been accumulating over the past three decades revealing that teachers' self-efficacy has been related to their behavior in the classroom and to student outcomes such as students' self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Midgley, Feldlaufer,& Eccles, 1989; Ross, 1992; Tschannen- Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 2007). Bandura (1993) suggests that what teachers do and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98-251-8827307; fax: +98-251-8827307. E-mail address: fshaterian@yahoo.com.
1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dr. Zafer Bekirogullari of Y.B. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.053
say in their classrooms is regulated and defined by the perception teachers have of themselves as individuals and of their personal and pedagogical abilities. He suggests that "Teachers' beliefs in their ability to motivate and promote learning affect the types of learning environments they create and the level of academic progress their students achieve".
Social cognitive theory provides some general guidance about possible sources of teachers' sense of efficacy. Bandura (1986, 1997) posited that self-efficacy beliefs are constructed based on four sources of efficacy information: Mastery experiences, Vicarious experiences, Verbal persuasion, and Physiological states(Tschannen-Moran, et al., 1998). Goddard (2001) explains "Efficacy beliefs are developed through individual cognitive processing that uniquely weighs the influence of efficacy shaping information obtained through mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and affective states".
1.1. The Hypothesized Sources of Self-Efficacy
Mastery experiences: Mastery experiences are the most important sources of efficacy information according to Bandura. Efficacy beliefs are raised if a teacher perceives her or his teaching performance to be a success, which then contributes to the expectations that future performances will likely be proficient(Tschannen- Moran, et al., 2007). Bandura(1997) theorized that the most influential source of information comes from the interpreted results of past performance. These past performance accomplishments can create a strong sense of efficacy to accomplish similar tasks in the future. Alternatively, repeated failure can lower efficacy perceptions. Thus, teachers' Sense of Efficacy is affected by the positive or negative experiences.
Vicarious experiences: The second source of self-efficacy information is the vicarious experience gained by observing others performance tasks. By observing the successes and failures of others, people gather information that contributes to their judgments about their own capabilities. Modeling has the greatest influence when the models observed are perceived to be similar to the observer and in situations in which the observer has little personal experience.
Verbal Persuasion: This source of efficacy information is the least effective for the long term although it might be effective in the short term. And, "the potency of the persuasion depends on the credibility, trustworthiness, and expertise of the persuader (Bandura, 1997).Verbal persuasion has to do with verbal interactions that a teacher receives about his or her performance and prospects for success from important others in the teaching context, such as administrators, colleagues, parents, and members of the community at large.
Emotional/Physiological states: States or Emotional/Physiological states are also sources of efficacy information. Powerful emotional arousal, such as anxiety, can effectively alter individuals' beliefs about their capabilities. People may view a state of arousal as an energizing factor that can contribute to a successful performance, or they may view arousal as completely disabling.
Thus, teachers construct their self-efficacy beliefs through the interpretation and integration of information from these four sources. The strength of the contribution made by each source varies depending on the domain in question and on the cognitive processing strategies of the individual. The manner in which the multiple sources of information are weighted and combined influences the resulting self-efficacy.
2. Teacher Efficacy beliefs
Current understandings of teacher efficacy underscore the multidimensionality and specificity of these beliefs (see Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). For example, the Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk- Hoy (2001) measure of teacher efficacy (i.e. teacher sense of efficacy scale: TSES) identified three areas for which teachers may hold differing levels of efficacy: classroom management, instructional practices, and student engagement.
Bandura (1993, 1997) has been specific about how self-efficacy beliefs differ from other constructs in attempts to clarify conceptual and measurement issues particularly where related constructs are concerned (Dellinger, Bobbett, Olivier & Ellett, 2008). Self-efficacy is distinct from other conceptions of self, such as self- esteem and locus of control, in that it is specific to a particular task. "Self-esteem usually is considered to be a trait reflecting an individual's characteristic affective evaluation of self (e.g., feelings of self-worth or self-liking).By contrast, self-efficacy is a judgment about task capability that is not inherently evaluative" (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Also in his latest book, Bandura (1997) clarifies the distinction between self-efficacy and
Rotter's (1966) internal-external locus of control. He provides data demonstrating that perceived self-efficacy and locus of control are not essentially the same phenomenon measured at different levels of generality. Beliefs about whether one can produce certain actions (perceived self-efficacy) are not the same as beliefs about whether actions affect outcomes (locus of control); in fact, the data show that perceived self- efficacy and locus of control bear little or no empirical relationship with each other, and moreover, perceived self-efficacy is a strong predictor of behavior whereas locus of control is typically a weak predictor (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
From sources of teacher self-efficacy to student's achievement
The construct of teacher self-efficacy has been identified as an important factor in academic learning, but the relationship among sources of teacher self-efficacy and student's achievement has not been examined. The review of research in this area (Banadura's theory in teacher self-efficacy) reveals that there is need to explore the relationship between these sources and student's learning. This study designed to investigate these relationships.
3. Purpose of the study
The nonexistence of reliable and valid instrument in Iranian teacher's self-efficacy field and also the nonexistence of sufficient study on Bandurs's self-efficacy theory motivated us to undertake this survey. In fact, in Bandura's theory four sources of efficacy belief-shaping information aren't taken into consideration sufficiently, and this part of theory has been examined less.
Although many studies have been carried out about the relation of teacher to the student achievement but in most of these studies the impact of teacher's self-efficacy belief sources on student achievement has been ignored. In the present study for fixing such faults, we thoroughly tested Bandura's theory by precise instrument.
One of this article's purposes is evaluating validity of Sources of the Self-Efficacy Inventory (SOSI) among Iranian teacher society. Precise instrument help those researcher who are after discovering sources of efficacy belief-shaping information of teachers, determine which (one) of these sources are more effective in shaping of the self-efficacy beliefs. In preliminary study I, Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Cronbach's alpha are used for exact evaluating of SOSI.
In study II, the second purpose of research, namely; assessing reliability and validity of Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) has been fulfilled.
The validity and reliability of the 12-item TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) has been measured by Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Cronbach's alpha.
In the study III, the third and the most important purpose of this article were to explore the causal relationships between teacher Self-Efficacy Sources, teacher self-efficacy beliefs and student achievement. For achieving this aim we used Structural equation modeling technique.
4. Study One
4.1. Methods
Participants Sample 1
In the study I, the translated Sources of the Self-Efficacy Inventory (SOSI) was distributed to 267 high school teachers of 16 schools of Qom (a large province in Iran) of which 127 (47.5%) were female(with a mean 11.85 years of experience and SD = 10.22) and 140 (52.4%) were male (with a mean 12.67 years of experience and SD = 9.82).
4.2. Measures and translation procedure
Sources of the Self-Efficacy Inventory: The Sources of the Self-Efficacy Inventory (SOSI; Henson, 1999) is a 35-item likert-type scale ('1' definitely not true for me to '5' definitely true for me) that consists of four subscales. Four subscales were constructed based on the work of Bandura (1997). These subscales involved: Mastery Experience, Vicarious Experience, Verbal Persuasion and Emotional/Physiological States. The reliability coefficient for each subscale ranged from 0.47 to 0.78 (Kieffer & Henson, 2000).
The SOSI was translated into Persian and back-translated into English by two independent official translators. Comparison of the original and back-translated into English version shows that there is a minor change between two forms.
4.3. Data Analyses
Analyses of the reliability and construct validity of the SOSI: In this study, we first examined the internal consistency of its items and subscales and then the SOSI was analyzed for normality. Tests of "alpha-if-item deleted" indicated that the reliability of subscales could be substantially improved by excluding some items. Some of the SOSI' items demonstrated poor internal consistency, and were removed. Cronbach's alpha for four subscale were 0.795 (Mastery Experience), 0.768 (Vicarious Experience), 0.730 (Verbal Persuasion) and 0.627(Emotional/Physiological States). Then, items were then examined for their univariate and multivariate distributional characteristics (i.e., means, standard errors, skewness, and kurtosis). A second source of evidence was CFA. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the construct validity. CFA allows for hypothesis testing and comparison of alternative theoretical models. Using CFA, three theoretical models of the SOSI were evaluated for this study. A CFA procedure (using Lisrel 8.50; Joreskog and Sorbom, 2001) with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted on each of the three theore2tical models, and the results are presented in Table 1. Statistical fit was ascertained using the minimum fit function x . This index shows the clqseness of fit between the unrestricted sample covariance matrix and the restricted (model) covariance matrix. As x values are inflated by large sample sizes, fit was examined using three practical fit indices, namely the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990), the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; Bentler, 1993). The RMSEA provides a measure of model fit relative to the population covariance matrix when the complexity of the model is also taken into account. RMSEA values of <0.05 are taken as good fit, 0.05-0.08 as moderate fit, 0.08-0.10 as marginal fit and >0.10 as poor fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The CFI provides a measure of the fit of the hypothesized model relative to the independent model, with values usually ranging from 0.00 to 1.00. For the CFI, values between 0.90 and 0.95 indicate acceptable fit, and values above 0.95 indicate good fit(Hu & Bentler, 1999). SRMR is the standardized difference between the observed covariance and predicted covariance. A value of zero indicates perfect fit, and values less than .08 indicate acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The other indices are reported; consist of the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1985), the relative chi-square (%2/df; Hoelter, 1983) and the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI; Bentler and Bonett, 1980).
Table 1:Fit indices for proposed model
Model X2 X2/ df GFI RMSEA CFI SRMR NNFI
One factor model 504.0 3.6 0.83 0.099 0.75 0.12 0.70
Two factor model 447.1 3.24 0.85 0.092 0.81 0.11 0.76
Four factor model 204.3 1.48 0.93 0.043 0.96 0.046 0.95
x2/df, relative chi-square, GFI, Goodness of Fit Index, RMSEA, root mean squared error of approximation, CFI, comparative fit index, SRMR, standardized root mean square residual,NNFI , Non-Normed Fit Index.
The fit indices for the 1-factor model for the teacher group were as follows: 1 (df = 140) = 504, p <
.001, x /df = 3.6, wherein a ratio <3.0 indicates a good fit, RMSEA = 0.099 (90% CI = 0.090-0.11), CFI =
0.75, and SRMR = 0.12. These figures indicate a poor fitting model. The fit indices for the 2-factor model for
22 the teacher group were as follows: x (df = 138) = 447.15, p < .001, x /df = 3.24, RMSEA = 0.092 (90% CI =
0.082-0.10), CFI = 0.81, and SRMR = 0.11. 2-factor model also indicate a poor fitting model. The fit indices for
2 2 the 4-factor model for this group were as follows: x (df = 138) = 204.32, p < .001, x /df = 1.48, RMSEA =0
.043 (90% CI = 0.030-0.054), CFI = 0.96, and SRMR = 0.046. These practical fit indices indicate moderately
good fit. Thus, the 4-factor model was a more appropriate fit than the 1-factor and 2-factor model.
4.4. Results
This study was only a pilot study for evaluating reliability and validity of SOSI. It aims to lay the foundation of future studies especially in teacher's field. Of the 35 items of SOSI, 16 items were removed because they had poor internal consistency. Fit of three models were examined simultaneously. One and two factor models were rejected by estimation of confirmatory factor analysis. Just one model (the four-factor model) building on the source of efficacy information of Bandura(1997) were found to fit the data. The result of testing different model's led to strengthen Bandura's theory in teacher's efficacy sources field.
5. Study Two
5.1. Methods
This study was also a pilot study for evaluating reliability and validity of Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The 12-item TSES was administered to the same Participants of Study I (267 high school teachers from 16 schools in the Qom city of Iran).
Measures and translation procedure
Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale: The TSE measure contained 12 items and three factors. For each factor 4 questions has been designed. These factors are as the following: Efficacy for instructional strategies, Efficacy for student engagement, and Efficacy for classroom management. Participants completed a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 "Nothing", to 5 " A great deal" to rank their self-efficacy related to 12 teaching-related tasks. Moderate alpha coefficients provided evidence for the internal consistency of scores on the TSES (0.81 for student engagement, 0.86 for instructional strategies, 0.86 for classroom management and overall=0.90) (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).The teachers' sense of efficacy scale was translated into the Persian language by the official translator. Then a different translator conducted a back translation into English. Minor translation discrepancies were found and corrected.
5.2. Data Analyses
Reliability: The purpose of this pilot study was determining the validity and reliability of survey instrument used in our study.
Cronbach's Alpha was used to assess the reliability or the internal consistency of the instrument, using SPSS software. The Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale, TSES showed a good overall reliability for the total scale of alpha = 0.837. The reliability coefficients of each subscale were strong: TSES-SE (Student Engagement) with an alpha 0.949, and TSES-CM (Classroom Management) with an alpha = 0.908 and TSES-IS (Instructional Strategies) with an alpha = 0.893. On all of the subscales deleting items did not increase the subscale alpha.
5.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the construct validity. Maximum-likelihood CFA using Lisrel 8.50(Joreskog and Sorbom, 2001) was conducted to compare alternative theoretical models. Because the TSES is a relatively new measure, we considered whether the measure was better conceptualized as a one-factor or a three-factor construct. A one-factor model of TSE was compared to the three-factor measure proposed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001). Table 2 prese2nts the fit indices for the one-factor and three factors model for TSE. We included six measures of goodness-of-fit: x /df ratio, GFI, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),
CFI, SRMR and NNFI.
The one-factor model showed a poor fit, with x /df ratio 9.58 and CFI 0.75 for Iranian high school teachers, A three- factor model model was a significant improvement over the one-factor model with with x /df ratio 1.76 wherein a ratio <3.0 indicates a good fit, RMSEA =0 .056 (90% CI = 0.036-0.075), and CFI 0.98. The three-factor model (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy ,2001) was a more appropriate fit than the one-factor model.
5.4. Results
For achieving a better acquaintance of Bandura's theory in academic settings, we need instruments that thoroughly were tested their validity and reliability. A review of the CFA results (see table 2) disclosed the one-factor model provides a poor fit to the data. These results also indicated that the three factor model provided a good fit to the data. The model exceeded the generally accepted criteria of .98 for CFI, NNFI, RMSEA < 0.08 and SRMR < 0.06 NNFI (Hu& Bentler, 1999). Thus, the conclusion from the CFA for the factor structure of Study II data indicated that the Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy model fit is acceptable.
Table 2 :Fit indices for proposed model
Model X2 X2/ df GFI RMSEA CFI SRMR NNFI
One factor model Three factor model 450.1 82.56 9.58 1.76 0.78 0.95 0.180 0.056 0.75 0.98 0.20 0.037 0.70 0.98
x2/df, relative chi-square, GFI, Goodness of Fit Index, RMSEA, root mean squared error of approximation, CFI, comparative fit index, SRMR, standardized root mean square residual ,NNFI , Non-Normed Fit Index.
6. Study Three
6.1. Methods
Participants Sample 2
Participants in Study III were 284 high school teachers from 18 schools of the Qom. Among the teachers, 146(51.4%) were female and 138(48.6%) were male. Participants' teaching experience ranged from 1 to 29 years, with mean of 12.11 years for female and a mean of 12.56 for male.
6.2. Measures
Sources of the Self-Efficacy Inventory: This scale had 19 items and four subscales that we evaluated its reliability and validity in study I.
Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale: The TSE measure contained 12 items, with three factors that we evaluated its reliability and validity in study II.
Academic achievement: In the present study, the mean of junior student's first semester scores of each teacher has been considered as student achievement. Each student first semester score in Iran ranges from 0 to 20, indicating his/her performance on that specific subject. Therefore each teacher has a mean score for each of his/her classes.
6.3. SEM Analysis
The structural relationships among the factors influencing student achievement were examined using the LISREL 8.5 program via maximum likelihood estimation procedure. The term structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis conveys two important aspects of the procedure. First, the causal processes among variables under study are presented by a series of simultaneous regression equations for each dependent variable. Second, these structural relations can be presented pictorially for the purpose of clearer conceptualization and examination. The hypothesized model can then be tested statistically in a simultaneous analysis of the entire system of variables to examine the extent to which it is consistent with the data. If the goodness of fit is adequate, the model argues for the likelihood of the postulated relationships among the variables in the model. (see Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998).
6.4. Results
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis
Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables are reported in Table 3. In first step, we computed correlations between observed variables and school performance. In addition, means and standard deviations of all variables were estimated.
Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate correlations between variables, from the SEM
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1- Mastery Experience 23.91 7.49
2- Vicarious Experience 14.45 6.78 .41**
3-Verbal Persuasion 14.36 4.70 .73** .48**
4-Physiological state 8.75 3.78 -.04 -.05 -.004
5- Student Engagement 14.44 2.40 .36** .20** .29** -.20**
6- Classroom Management 15.47 2.16 .26** .21** .23** -.11 .06
7-Instructional Strategies 14.93 1.90 .32** .18** .29** -.19** .13* .35**
8-Academic achievement 15.38 1.32 .18** .15* .10 .05 .33** .17** .07
Note. N=284;*p<.05;**p<.01;***p<.001. 6.5. Testing between structural equation models
In second step, structural equation models using LISREL (Joreskog and Sorbom, 2001) were tested. In this study
2 latent variables were estimated: 1-Sources of efficacy information and 2- Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy. The first latent variable was measured by the following observed variables: Mastery Experience, Vicarious Experience, Verbal Persuasion and Emotional/Physiological States. Another latent variable was measured by the following observed variables: Student Engagement, Classroom Management and Instructional Strategies.
In Model I, we tested an independent two-factor model. In this model, sources of efficacy information and Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy independently influenced student achievement. In model II, we examined a dependent 2-factor model, consisting of: (a) antecedent variable, containing the sources of efficacy information, not influenced by other variables in the model; (b) mediator variable, containing Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy, influenced by sources of efficacy information, and (c) criterion variable, containing student's achievement which is predicted by the other variables in the model. In this relationship, Sources of efficacy information directly influences Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy and indirectly influences student's achievement.
Table 4 :Fit indexes for two models of the antecedents of students' academic achievement
Model X2 X2/ df GFI CFI NFI SRMR RMSEA
Independent two-factor model 43.93 2.44 0.96 0.93 0.89 0.056 0.071
Dependent two-factor model (TSES 37.96 2.23 0.97 0.95 0.91 0.057 0.066
x2/df=relative chi-square, GFI=Goodness of Fit Index, CFI=comparative fit index, NFI=normed fit index, SRMR=standardized root mean square residual, RMSEA=root mean squared error of approximation,
The fit indexes of independent two-factor model, show less good fit values When comparing the two-dependent-factor model (TSES is moderator)(see table 4). For example, NFI was not very good, CFI is under .95 and RMSEA is over .06, only the S-RMR displays a good value. In comparison to the two-independent-factor model, the two-dependent-factor model (Teacher efficacy is moderator) shows somewhat better values. The analysis results reported show that two-dependent-factor model (Teacher efficacy is moderator) fits the empirical data and all the fit indexes are good.
Finally, we examined path diagram of a sources of efficacy information model without a direct effect on school performance. This diagram indicated that sources of efficacy information had a significant, positive impact on Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy, as hypothesized in Bandura's theory. The indirect effect of the sources of efficacy information on student achievement via teacher self-efficacy was significant.
7. General Discussion
Self-efficacy beliefs are critical determinants of human motivation and behavior. In academic settings, these beliefs influence motivation, self-regulation, and achievement. If we trust Bandura's theory (1986) (that teacher's self-efficacy beliefs are the key factor of human agency), much more attention should be paid to researches about formation of these beliefs and about factors nurturing these beliefs.
One of the goals of this study is to validate items that assess the four theorized sources of teacher self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). The findings present important evidence for the construct validity of the Sources of the Self-Efficacy Inventory (SOSI) developed by Henson (1999). Another purpose of the present study is to examine the validity of the TSES in Iranian educational context. The three-factor model showed satisfactory fit to the data. This model is in accordance with Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy's (2001) results, that TSES comprises three factors for in-service North American teachers
Finally, we also aimed to examine the relationship between mentioned sources, teacher self-efficacy and student achievement. Results of study III revealed that three of the four sources of self-efficacy correlated significantly with self-efficacy of teacher latent variable. Latent variable of Sources had a significant indirect effect on student achievement through teacher self-efficacy beliefs. Results from this study showed that factors of mastery experience, verbal persuasion and vicarious experience form teacher self-efficacy beliefs, but physiological states don't have significant effect on formation of efficacy beliefs.
The relationship between teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement is very important and should be taken into serious consideration. To enhance teachers' sense of efficacy means to enhance their belief in their educability of all students, even those in challenging circumstances. Thus, it seems necessary to increase these beliefs among teachers to help students overcome academic problem and high levels of success. Also, much more attention needs to be paid to the programs that increase efficacy beliefs of teachers.
Since teacher's strong self-efficacy beliefs and high level of student's achievement are connected to each other, it's necessary to examine factors influencing the development of a sense of efficacy among teachers. This study indicated that mastery experience, vicarious experience and verbal persuasion are effective factors that strengthen and increase teacher's self-efficacy beliefs. Among these 3 factors, achieving mastery experience in teaching seems
to be the most important factors. On the other hand, Bandura's (1986) claim that self-effcacy is especially sensitive to vicarious experience if there is uncertainty about one's capabilities, and when one has had little prior experience on which to base evaluations of capabilities. Vicarious experience is an important source of information about self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In addition, we recognize the importance of positive sources of social persuasion in developing teacher efficacy. The results also indicated that all of Bandura's sources of self-efficacy are not significant in this study. Physiological states (i.e., coping with stress, fear and anxiety) can not be assumed as a source of self-efficacy. This suggests that cognitive pedagogical mastery may play a role in reducing negative visceral Arousal. This is in agreement with the view of Bandura (1997) who stated that anxiety could be diminished by modelling or mastery experiences (Palmer, 2006).
On the other hand, results of this study show that there is quite good support for reliability and validity for the TSE Scales among Iranian teachers. Since vast majority of information in teacher's self-efficacy field belongs to North American researchers and there isn't sufficient information and knowledge in this field in Asian countries, conducting independent researches in this area outside of North America cultural context seems to be necessary.
Finally, we believe these relationships merit additional empirical attention, both through quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches. In addition, researchers should seek to determine how these relationships might vary by other individual-level or school-level characteristics or as a function of the interactions of contextual variables.
Reference
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P.(1988). Relationships among teachers' and students' thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34 (2), 148-165.
Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. Ameican Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. EducationalPsychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Company.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonnett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Dellinger, A.B., Bobbett, J.J., Olivier, D.F.,& Ellettd, C, D.(2008).Measuring teachers' self-efficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 751-766.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (3), 467-476.
Henson, R.K. (1999). The Sources of Self-Efficacy Inventory. Unpublished instrument. Huttiesburg, MS: University of Southern Mississippi.
Hoelter, J.W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: goodness of fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325-44.
Hoy, A.W. (2004).What Preservice teachers should know about recent theory and research in motivation? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1985). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.5: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Keiffer, K.M., & Henson, R.K.(2000).Development and validity of the sources of self-efficacy Inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Mesurment in Educstion, New Orleans: LA.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99-113.
Manley, G.G., Benavidez, J., & Dunn, k. (2007). Development of a personality biodata measure to predict ethical decision making. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(7), 664-682.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258.
Palmer, D. H. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for primary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 36, 337-353.
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: different concepts, different outcomes. American Socio-logical Review, 60, 141-56.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51-65.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944-956.
Usher, E.L., & Pajares, F.(2008). Sources of Self-Efficacy in School: Critical Review of the Literature and Future Directions. Review of Educational Research, 78 (4), 751-796.
