SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education / 2009 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 3

NOTE FOR EDITOR: Self-Efficacy Of Formally and Non-Formally Trained Public Sector Teachers

Muhammad Nadeem ANWAR
Pages
9–22
Publication Date
2009-09-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The analysis of data revealed that the formally trained public sector teachers are high in their self-efficacy on all the five categories: to influence decision making, to influence school resources, instructional self-efficacy, disciplinary self-efficacy and self-efficacy to create positive school climate.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The main objective of the study was to compare the formally and non-formally trained in-service public sector teachers’ Self-efficacy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Teacher Efficacy Instrument (TSES) developed by Bandura (2001) consisting of thirty 9-point items was used in the study. 342 formally trained and 255 non-formally trained respondents’ questionnaires were received out of 1500 mailed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The analysis of data revealed that the formally trained public sector teachers are high in their self-efficacy on all the five categories: to influence decision making, to influence school resources, instructional self-efficacy, disciplinary self-efficacy and self-efficacy to create positive school climate.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Self-Efficacy · Non-Formally Trained · in-Service Public Sector Teachers

Abstract

The main objective of the study was to compare the formally and non-formally trained in-service public sector teachers’ Self-efficacy. Five hypotheses were developed describing no difference in the self-efficacy of formally and non-formally trained teachers to influence decision making, influence school resources, instructional self-efficacy, disciplinary self-efficacy and create positive school climate. Teacher Efficacy Instrument (TSES) developed by Bandura (2001) consisting of thirty 9-point items was used in the study. 342 formally trained and 255 non-formally trained respondents’ questionnaires were received out of 1500 mailed. The analysis of data revealed that the formally trained public sector teachers are high in their self-efficacy on all the five categories: to influence decision making, to influence school resources, instructional self-efficacy, disciplinary self-efficacy and self-efficacy to create positive school climate.

🔖

Cite This Article

ANWAR, M. N. (2009). NOTE FOR EDITOR: Self-Efficacy Of Formally and Non-Formally Trained Public Sector Teachers. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 3, 9–22. https://ajindex.com/articles/140853

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Ahearn, E. M. (2000). Educational accountability: A synthesis of the literature and review of a balanced model of accountability. Final Report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 439573). 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.
  2. Aness, M. (2005). A Comparison of formal and non-formal systems of teacher education in Pakistan. [Unpublished] Ph.D. Thesis, University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. pp.55-65.
  3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84(9), 215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company. Coladarci, T., & Breton, W. (1997). Teacher efficacy, supervision, and the special education resource-room teacher. Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 230-239. Commonwealth Secretariat. 1993. Quality of Basic Education and Professional Development of Teachers. Paren and Stacy, London. pp.30-32.
  4. Crowther, D.T. & Cannon, C.R. (1998). How much is enough? Preparing elementary science teachers through science practicum. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Ruba, P. A., & Rye, J. A. (Eds.) Minneapolis: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Darling-Hammond L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047-1085. Darling-Hammond L. & McLaughlin M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
  5. Emmer, E., & Hickman, J. (1990, April). Teacher decision making as a function of efficacy, attribution, and reasoned action. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
  6. Gorrell, J., & Dhamadasa, K.H. (1994). Perceived selfefficacy of preservice and in- service Sri Lankan Teachers. International Education. Gorrell, J., & Hwang, Y.S. (1995). A study of self-efficacy beliefs among preservice teachers in Korea. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28, 101-105.
  7. Guskey, T. R. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 41-47.
  8. Guskey, T. R., & Passaro