CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
SciVerse ScienceDirect PrOC6d ¡0
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 1730 - 1735
CY-ICER 2012
The study on the self- efficacy perception of foreign languages high school lecturers' in Kyrgyzstan-Turkey Manas University
Kadir Yogurtcu *
High School of Foreign Languages,
_Mira prospect No: 56, Bishkek 720044, Kyrgyzstan_
Abstract
The main objective of this article is to study self-sufficiency level of foreign language teachers in Foreign Languages High School of Kyrgyzstan-Turkey Manas University (KTMU). In this regard the significance of age, gender and nationality on self-efficacy is investigated. This study was conducted with the participation of Turkish, Kyrgyz, Russian and English teachers (citizens of Kyrgyzstan and Turkey) of High School of Foreign Languages, working in fall semester of 2011-2012 academic years. The total number of respondent is 110. The data obtained through Ohio Teacher Efficacy Scale (2001), which is frequently used in teacher competence researches, was analyzed by multivariate statistical techniques. As a result of the research, it was found that there are statistically significant differences between self-efficacy levels of faculty members and according to variables like age and nationality. This finding draws attention to differences in experience and cultural trends; shows that instructional (teaching) self-efficacy depends not only on absolute cognitive differences, but also on the cultural differences shaping the social approval mechanism.
© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu Keywords: Kyrgyzstan, foreign language teaching, self- efficacy, Ohio Teacher Efficacy Scale
1. Introduction: Self Efficacy As An Active Ability Directed Towards Self
The works on the educational studies (Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli &Caprara 1999; Caprara et al., 2006) which indicate the positive correlation between the performance of students and teacher efficiency underline the concept of teacher self-efficacy. When the Self-Efficacy Theory based on Bandura's Social Cognitive Learning Theory (1977, 1986, 1997) is considered with regard to the teacher, it emphasizes the knowledge, skill and attitudes necessary for fulfilling the responsibilities and tasks required for a teacher. However it is not sufficient to explain teacher efficacy only with efficiency (Goddard & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2000). Although the debate about the definition and the content of the self- efficacy (Guskey, 1982; Pajares, 1996; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, 1998, 2001; Friedman, 2003; Rimm-Kaufman &Sawyer, 2004) is not finished yet, the explanation which is agreed upon is that the self efficacy focuses on teacher's belief about whether the desired results like motivation, learning and commitment in students could be created or not (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). On the other side, the capacity of an individual dealing with different situations is as important as the activity of showing a particular performance. Herein which is important is the individual's observation about his/her performance, his/her decision making and his/her internal reinforcement. In other words, self-efficacy is not a passive ability about the self, it is an active ability where the self-regulation mechanisms and motives are intertwined with. Judgements constituting this ability are affected by
*. Tel.:+996-312-541941 E-mail address: kadiryogurtcu@hotmail.com
ELSEVIER
1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.891
information obtained from four main sources (Bandura, 1986; 1997): 1. Mastery experience: information which comes directly as a result of accomplished or unsuccessful activities performed by individual himself. 2. Vicarious experience: accomplished or unsuccessful similar activities of others. 3. Social persuasion: encouragement, counselling, advice, social approval mechanism regarding individual's judgements about him/herself. 4. Emotional arousal: expectations of individual about being successful or not regarding a particular task. This study which especially indicates the effect of social approval mechanisms from these four main sources aims to survey teacher self-efficacy in teaching foreign languages in a multi-cultural educational environment. If we consider a teacher teaching foreign languages also as an agent in the process of intercultural communication, the importance of this study crystallizes.
2. Method
2.1. Main Pupil of the Research
The statistical results of this research are based on a survey's empirical data which is implemented to 110 instructors who are citizens of Kyrgyz and Turkish republics teaching Turkish, Kyrgyz, Russian and English in the 2011-2012 academic year at High School of Foreign Languages, Kyrgyzstan-Turkey Manas University. These instructors teach courses under the name of language courses to students of preparatory classes (1485), students of required classes (1723), academic and administrative staff of the university (110) and public community (220), which makes 3538 students in total.
2.2. Main Hypothesis of the Research
1. The main question of the research: What is toe level of foreign language instructor's self-efficacy belief ? 2. What are the variables affecting self- efficacy belief? This hypothesis is tested accordingly;
HO = There isn't any meaningful difference between toe mean of self-efficacy beliefs of foreign language instructors of the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Kyrgyzstan.
H1 = There is a meaningful difference between the mean of self-efficacy beliefs of foreign language instructors of the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Kyrgyzstan.
2.3. Medium for Collecting Datum
Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy (2001) developed a scale for evaluating their theoretical model in respect of teacher competence. This scale named as Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES) or Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) was adapted to the studies about teacher competence in Turkey and 24-item, 5-point Likert type scale was developed accordingly (Baloglu &Karadag, 2008). In this respect points can be taken changing in a range between 24 and 120. This scale was used as a data collection tool in our research. According to the collected data, a t-test and a variance analysis was made for determining whether the differences between arithmetic means are meaningful or not. During the analysis, the arithmetic mean and the standard deviation of the self- efficacy points were calculated. The general score of instructor's self-efficacy was found as 107, 25. The general mean was accepted as high if this amount is considered within categories as 81>low, 82-102 medium and 103<high.
2.4. Validity and Reliability of the Survey Used in this Research
The reliability of the answers given to the questions asked in the survey, the internal consistency of the survey and the reliability of the survey was investigated by calculating Cronbach's Alpha coefficient which is commonly used for describing the internal consistency of variables with likert scale and two outcomes. The Cronbach's Alpha
internal consistency amount which was calculated over 24 questions indicate the views and the attitudes regarding the self-efficacy apprehensions belonging to the scale used in the survey was 0,889 for the whole scale. Furthermore the amount was found for providing sub-dimensions of student participation as 0,756, for sub-dimensions of instructional strategies as 0,806 and for sub-dimensions of classroom management as 0,777. Coefficients in this state represent that the high-level reliability scale was used in the research and the internal consistency of the survey was provided. In the analysis of reliability whether the assumption of addivities of the survey's results has been ensured or not was investigated by the Tukey's test of addivities and by using two-dimensional variance analysis for finding whether the answers given to the survey's questions constitute a homogeneous group or not (Gravetter& Wallnau, 2007; Pallant, 2011). Also here, both tests were calculated for survey's data and at significance levels which were smaller than 0,001 (f^ 174,050, p=0,000 and Tcal. =127,810, p=0,000) it was understood that the addivity hypothesis was provided by rejecting the zero-hypothesis and the answers given to the questions were different and by this way it was also understood that the calculated reliability coefficient was statistically valid and reliable.
3. Findings and Comment
3.1. Demographic Aspect
63 instructors out of 110 (%57, 3) who participated in this survey were citizens of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, 47 out of 110 (%42, 7) were citizens of the Republic of Turkey. Also it was seen that 18 percent of participants (%16,4) were between the 20-25, 20 percent (%18,2) between the 26-30, 29 percent (%26,4) between the 31-35, 16 percent (%14,5) between the 36-40 age range and 27 percent (%24,5) over 40. When the gender factor is analyzed it was seen that 66 instructors out of 110 were female, 44 out of 110 were male. In their answers about job experience it was seen that 43 have (%39, 1) 0-5 years, 20 have (%18, 2) 6-10 years and 18 have (%16, 4) 16-20 years experience.
3.2. Self-Efficacy Belief of Instructors
In this research main pupil's self-efficacy apprehension frequency distributions and their standard deviations were in all extents examined and investigated according to the nationality variable. The mean of self-efficacy evaluation of all instructors was 107, 25. The mean of self-efficacy evaluation of Kyrgyz citizen instructors was found as 113, 14; the mean of self-efficacy evaluation of Turkish citizen instructors was found as 99, 36:
Table 1: Self- efficacy Score Differences According to Nationality
Nationality N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Self-efficacy Kyrgyz 63 113,14 6,35726 ,80094
Turkish 47 99,3617 6,38757 ,93172
3.3. The Analysis of Self-Efficacy Beliefs According to Variables
In our research whether there is a meaningful difference between variables and self-efficacy mean or not was investigated by One-Way ANOVA. At ANOVA significance research it has been found that the differences in age variables were also parallel to job experience and at p<0,001 degree of age, job experience and nationality variables, the variable of gender was seen at p< 0,05 degree as meaningful.
Table 2: The Results of One-Way ANOVA according to Nationality Variable
Self-efficacy_
Nationality
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error f Sig
Kyrgyz 63 113,14 6,35726 ,80094
Turkish 47 99,36 6,38757 ,93172 125,983 ,000
Total 110 107,25 9,33322 ,88989
3.4. The Analyses of Self-Efficacy Beliefs at Sub-Dimensions
It has been seen that the self-efficacy beliefs of the main pupil were stronger than expected, which was found noteworthy, and thus the basic hypothesis of this study was further tested in the sub-dimensions of the scale. In this context the differences between the means of instructor's self-efficacy beliefs were analyzed according to nationality variable by Independent Samples T-Test, sig. 2-tailed. In the statistical analysis, meaningful differences were found at every mean except the questions "To what extent can you prepare good questions for your students?" which is at the 11th level at P<0,001 importance level at sub-dimensions and the one at the 16th level "How well can you establish a classroom management system within each group of studentsT' However the mean differences except the judgements as "How much can you motivate students who show low interest in school wor№" which is in the 4th level of mean difference at a =0,756 sub-dimension of Efficacy in Student Engagement and the one in the 12th level lHow much can you reinforce your students' creativity?" and at 14th level "How much can you improve the understanding of a student who is failing?", tos accepted as incidental. Hence, at the Effectiveness in Classroom Management and Education Strategies sub-dimensions, it is understood that the means related to the Kyrgyz instructors' expressions about their self-efficacy beliefs were higher than their colleagues from Turkey. Therefore by rejecting the zero-hypothesis for both sub-dimensions, it was decided that the nationality variable was an important factor effecting self-efficacy beliefs for the main audience. (|t |>t 0.001, sd, P< 0.001, HO reject, HI accept, important in a higher level). On the other hand it was understood that the nationality variable in general is not a factor performing a significant role in mean differences of self-efficacy in terms of Effectiveness in Providing Student Participation ( |t |<t 0.05, sd, P> 0.05, H0 accept, H1 reject, unimportant).
4. Conclusion and Suggestions
Self-efficacy belief is an important sign about a teacher's high expectations, which is a substantial factor in the education system (Ebmeier & Good, 1979; Dweck, 1986; Murph &Alexander, 2000; Sinatra, 2005; McCaslin et al., 2006). In this respect, it is expected from teachers to execute the highest performance in many educational institutions. Thus in the context of competence many variables (age, experience, job satisfaction, level of burnout, self-efficacy belief etc.) are considered to be as teacher oriented. In this aspect, experienced teaching staff can have a risk to come closer to a level of burnout such as teachers' self efficacy level, which can be low for new teachers. In this research, the nationality variable is emphasized which is significant for a multicultural educational environment and it is manifested that the two main groups (Kyrgyz and Turkish instructors) represent different features in terms
of socio-cultural validation systems, and they have different self-efficacy apprehensions. This finding signifies that the third source constitutes the concept of self-efficacy in Bandura's theory (1977). From this point, it's possible to think that the acculturation process and the social persuasion in Kyrgyzstan have a motivating effect on self-efficacy beliefs in a positive way. Thinking the social experiences and different cultural beliefs as a factor effecting self-efficacy belief is suitable for common sense. However it is necessary to pursue the findings of this study via larger samples and variables for similar studies which is going to be executed in the direction of the impact of the collective teacher efficacy beliefs on student achievement.
References
Baloglu, N., & Karadag, E. (2008). Teacher Efficacy and Ohio Teacher Efficacy Scale: Adaptation for Turkish Culture, Language Validity and
Examination of Factor Structure. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 56, pp: 571-606.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191—215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117—148. Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in Societies. New York. Cambridge University Press, pp.3-5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bandura A, Pastorelli C, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depresssion. JPers Soc Psychol; 76:258-269. Bandura, A. (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales (Monograph). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
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, 473—490.
Dweck, C.S. (1986).Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Ebmeier, H., & Good, T.L., (1979).The effects of instructing teachers about good teaching on the mathematics achievement of fourth-grade students. American Educational Research Journal, 16, 1-16.
Friedman, I. A., (2003). Self-Efficacy and burnout in teaching: The importance of interpersonal-relations efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 6, 191-215.
Gravetter, F.J.,&Wallnau, L.B. (2007). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 7th edition. USA:Thomson & Wadsworth,pp-113-115.
Goddard, R. D., Logerfo, L., and. Hoy, W. K. (2004) High School Accountability: The Role of Perceived Collective Efficacy. Educational Policy, Vol. 18 No. 3, 403-425
Goddard, R. D., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning, Measure, and Impact on Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 37, no 2, pp, 479-507.
Goddard, R.D., and Skrla L. (2006). The Influence of School Social Composition on Teachers' Collective Efficacy Belifs. Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol. 42, No.2, 216-235.
Guskey, T. R. (1982). Differences in teachers' perceptions of personal control of positive versus negative student learning outcomes.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 70—80.
McCaslin, M., Bozack, A.R., Napoleon, L., Thomas, A., Vasquez, V., Wayman, V., et al. (2006). Self-regulated learning and classroom management: Theory, research, and considerations for classroom practice. In C. M. Evertson & R. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (pp. 223-252), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Murph, P.K., &Alexander,P.A.(2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-53. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 533—578.
Pallant, J.(2011). SPSS survival manual a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS 4 111 edition. Australia: Allen & Unwin, pp.205-208.
Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., & Sawyer, B.E. (2004). Primary-^^de tochers' self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the Responsive Classroom Approach. Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 321-341.
Sinatra, G. (2005).The warming trend in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 107-115.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202—248.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Tea
ching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
