Content uploaded by Peter Gavora
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Gavora on Feb 22, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Gavora, Peter Slovak pre-service teacher self-efficacy : theoretical and research considerations.
In: The New educational Review. Vol. 21, No.. 2 (2010), pp. 17-30
Slovak Pre-Service Teacher Self-Efficacy: Theoretical and Research Considera-
tions
Peter Gavora
Abstract
The concept of self-efficacy was originally developed by Albert Bandura, and has been
defined as the personal belief that one is capable of performing in an appropriate and effective
manner to attain certain goals. As such, self-efficacy is a self-system that controls most per-
sonal activity, including appropriate use of professional knowledge and skills. Teacher self-ef-
ficacy is the belief that teachers have about their abilities and skills as educators. Teacher self-
efficacy has been shown to be an important characteristic of the teacher and one strongly re-
lated to success in teaching. Unfortunately, however, effective measurement of teacher self-
efficacy has been limited in part by geography. Therefore, described herein is a validation
study for the Teacher Efficacy Scale in Slovakia. A shortened version of the original Gibson
and Dembo questionnaire was translated into Slovak and administered to a sample of pre-ser-
vice teachers in Bratislava. The obtained score data were factor-analyzed. Two relatively in-
dependent factors emerged: personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy. The two
factors accounted for 43.4 % of the explained variance and the coefficient alpha for each
factor was .73. Pre-service students’ scores on both teaching self-efficacy and general teach-
ing efficacy exceeded the midpoint of the scales, indicating they had positive self-efficacy.
Comparisons to other studies with similar samples in three countries showed surprisingly sim-
ilar results.
Key words: pre-service teachers, self-efficacy, social cognitive theory, efficacy expectations,
outcome expectations, Teacher Efficacy Scale, personal teaching efficacy, general teaching
efficacy
Background
Educational research has long been focused on attempting to identify factors that affect, and
specifically improve, teacher effectiveness. Questions addressed have included what personal
qualities do teachers actually possess, what are the ideal qualities of an effective teacher, and
what is the nature and extent of the differences between the ideal and real qualities of teach-
ers? A large portion of this research stream has been devoted to determining what educational
and subject matter knowledge and skills the teacher has, or should have, to be effective and
successful (e.g., Kolektív autorov, 2006; Lukášová-Kantorková, 2003; Spilková, 1997). How-
ever, there are other teacher characteristics besides professional knowledge and skills that are
important in teaching. In this paper we concentrate on teacher self-efficacy, a self-regulatory,
relatively broad, psychological belief system that influences most teacher behaviour, includ-
ing teaching performance.
The Nature of Teacher Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is the personal belief that one is capable of performing in an appropriate and
effective manner to attain certain goals (Ormrod, 2006). It exists in many domains of human
functioning, including both professional and private behaviour. Specifically in an educational
context, teacher self-efficacy is the teacher’s personal (i.e., self-perceived) belief in ability to
plan instruction and accomplish instructional objectives. It is in effect the conviction the
teacher has about his/her ability to teach pupils efficiently and effectively.
Teacher self-efficacy should be distinguished from teacher “competence,” which is usually in-
terpreted and/or applied to refer to (only) the teacher’s professional knowledge and skills.
Teacher self-efficacy is a broader concept, and in fact high self-efficacy underlies and enables
successful use of professional knowledge and skills, or conversely, low self-efficacy inhibits
effective use of professional knowledge and skills. Thus, teacher self-efficacy is a strong self-
regulatory characteristic that enables teachers to use their potentials to enhance pupils’
learning. It should be acknowledged that teacher self-efficacy is related to “perseverance;” the
stronger the self-efficacy, the greater the perseverance -- and the greater the perseverance, the
greater the likelihood that the teaching behaviours will be successful.
Teacher self-efficacy is a construct that was developed within the context of Bandura’s social-
cognitive theory. Bandura defined self-efficacy as the belief about one’s own capabilities to
organize and execute a certain task (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy beliefs influence thought
patterns and emotions, which in turn enable or inhibit actions. According to Bandura’s theory,
self-efficacy has two components: efficacy expectation and outcome expectancy. The
former is the conviction that one has the ability, knowledge, and skills to successfully execute
the behaviour or actions required to produce the desired outcome(s). The latter represents a
person’s estimate of the likely consequences (impact) of performing a task at the self-expec-
ted level of performance. That is, outcome expectancy is the belief that a given behaviour or
action will indeed lead to expected outcome(s). To be successful, the teacher must have both
high efficacy expectations and high outcome expectancy. If the teacher has the former and not
the latter, it is unlikely that the teacher will be successful teacher even if the teacher is profes-
sionally well-qualified.
According to Bandura’s theory, four sources” enhance development of high teacher self-effic-
acy: (a) mastery learning experiences, (b) vicarious experiences, (c) social persuasion, and (d)
physiological and emotional states.
Mastery teaching experiences are situations in which teachers demonstrate their own
teaching success, thus proving that they are competent teachers. “Enacted mastery (teach-
ing) experiences are the most influential source of [self-] efficacy information because
2
they provide the most authentic evidence of whether one can muster whatever it takes to
succeed. Success builds a robust belief in one’s personal efficacy” (Bandura, 1997, p. 80).
Basically, as the adage indicates, nothing succeeds like success.
Whenever teachers engage in teaching activities, they interpret their results and use these
interpretations to develop beliefs about their ability to engage in similar activities. If these
activities are consistently successful, they tend to raise self-efficacy or, conversely, if
these activities typically produce failure, self-efficacy is likely to be lowered. Therefore, if
a teacher initially has a low sense of efficacy, it will bring doubt about his/her abilities.
Such doubt likely will result in failure in teaching, and also reinforce low self-efficacy.
Further information about discordance between self-efficacy and action can be found in
Bandura (1997). Also, Zelina (1995) discussed the relationship between self-concept and
self-efficacy, and the importance of self-reflection in building self-efficacy.
Vicarious experience is learning from observation of the successes of other teachers. Ob-
serving and modelling successful teachers may generate expectations that teachers can
learn from successes of colleagues, which in turn, can result in their own positive self-ef-
ficacy. In brief, teachers can learn to be effective by watching the behaviours of others be-
ing effective.
Social persuasion by colleagues and superiors that a teacher can teach successfully will
enhance the teacher’s self-efficacy. For example, coaching and giving encouraging feed-
back are commonly used actions that likely influence teacher self-efficacy positively. Es-
sentially, emotional support builds a teacher’s belief in teaching self-efficacy.
Physiological and emotional states of the teacher influence self-efficacy judgments. For
example, a teacher’s excitement and enthusiasm can provide cues about anticipated teach-
ing success. On the other hand, stress, anxiety and other negative states can lead to negat-
ive judgments of teacher abilities and skills. This is in part what differentiates teacher
self-efficacy, as a broader concept, from teacher confidence. A teacher who is profession-
ally well-qualified may not be a successful teacher if personal negative or inhibiting emo-
tional factors come into play. In general, the more narrowly defined concept of (teacher)
confidence is less influenced by emotional factors outside the realm of teaching than is
teacher self-efficacy.
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Classroom Behaviour
The growing body of research on teacher self-efficacy suggests that it may account for indi-
vidual differences in teacher effectiveness. For example, teacher self-efficacy has been found
to be consistently related to positive teaching behaviour and strong pupil achievement, pupils
learn more from teachers who have high self-efficacy, and highly self-efficacious teachers are
more likely to use open-ended questions, inquiry methods, or small group learning activities
for students. They are also are more persistent at a task, take more “risks” (e.g., are more will-
ing to try not-yet-tested teaching activities), and are more likely to use innovative elements in
their teaching. Teachers with high self-efficacy also are more open to new ideas, more willing
to adopt innovations, are less likely to experience burn-out, support pupils’ autonomy to a
greater extent, and are more attentive to low ability students (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003; Hen-
son, 2001; Ross & Bruce, 2007). Finally, teachers with high self-efficacy exhibit greater en-
thusiasm for teaching, have greater commitment for teaching, and are more likely to remain in
the teaching profession (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
Measuring Teacher Self-Efficacy
Teacher self-efficacy has at least a 25 year history of research. Presumably, the first attempt to
measure teacher efficacy was by the RAND Foundation. RAND researchers inserted two
3
“sense of self-efficacy” items in their questionnaire first in a study in which success in reading
programmes was examined and then in a second study in which effects of funding of educa-
tional programmes was investigated. Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy proved to be an unex-
pected, but important, factor that had strong, positive relationships to students’ performance,
achievement of programme goals, and other positive (educational) outcomes (Armor et al.,
1976).
Independent of the RAND research, Guskey (1981) investigated how teacher locus of control
was related to teacher self-perceived responsibility for student achievement (RSA). Teacher
self-efficacy is conceptually similar to but not exactly the same as RSA. To conduct the re-
search, Guskey developed a measure to indicate how much teachers assume personal respons-
ibility for student success or failure. Based on his findings, he concluded that there were two
distinct qualities underlying RSA, meaning that RSA was not a unitary dynamic. Guskey’s
work on RSA inspired Gibson and Dembo to develop a measure of teacher self-efficacy.
Gibson and Dembo (1984) were first to develop an instrument specifically to measure teacher
self efficacy. Their instrument, the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), has been used in many
studies and is considered to be a “standard” tool for measuring the teacher self-efficacy con-
struct. The original TES had 30 items. Later, they developed a short form having only 16
items but better psychometric qualities. Still later, other researchers developed a 10-item ver-
sion found to have psychometric qualities roughly equivalent to those of the 16-item version.
In igts various forms, the TES has been used in a variety of school environments and at di-
verse types of schools, administered to in-service teachers who taught across a variety of
school subjects, and used with pre-service teachers. It also inspired researchers to develop and
use similar instruments, especially subject-specific measures such as ones for teaching math-
ematics (Charalambos, Philippou, & Kyriakides, 2007), science (Cakiroglu, Cakiroglu, &
Boone, 2005), chemistry (Enochs, Smith, & Huinker, 2000), or character formation (Milson,
2003).
The structure of the TES includes two dimensions labelled (a) personal teaching efficacy and
(b) general teaching efficacy. The latter was originally named simply teaching efficacy but
because it was frequently confused with the first component, it was later renamed general
teaching efficacy. TES respondents use a six-point, Likert-type response scale ranging from
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Higher (i.e., more positive) scores represent higher
self-efficacy.
Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) represents a teacher’s belief that he/she possesses
the skills and abilities to facilitate student learning, that is, it is the teacher’s overall sense
of his/her own teaching effectiveness. Items 1 and 6 in Table 2 are examples of PTE
measurement.
General Teaching Efficacy (GTE) represents the belief that teaching (as an organisa-
tional form of education) can affect pupils positively, even in light of external factors or
conditions such as low motivation or poor home environment. Items 5 and 7 are ex-
amples of GTE measurement.
According to Gibson and Dembo, GTE is a teacher’s personal beliefs about the relationship
between his/her teaching and pupils’ learning; essentially, it corresponds to what Bandura
called outcome expectancy.
Gibson and Dembo (1984) found that teachers who scored high on both dimensions were less
likely to criticize a student following an incorrect answer and more likely to persist if a stu-
dent failed a learning task initially. High-efficacy teachers also were more likely to divide a
4
class for small group instruction as opposed to whole-class instruction. Other researchers have
found similar results.
Research
The primary goal of this research was to validate the Slovak version of the TES. The follow-
ing criteria were set to achieve this goal:
1. Two factors determined to represent the PTE and GTE dimensions.
2. Two factors relatively independent of each other.
3. Factors extracted account for at least 28.8 % of the total (explained) variance [which is
the percentage achieved by Gibson and Dembo (1984) in their original research].
4. Reliabilities of at least .79 for each factor scale (which is what was found by Gibson
and Dembo (1984) in their original research).
A second major goal was to collect data on Slovak pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy.
The original, 30-item TES was translated into Slovak by an experienced translator who
rendered a substantive but not entirely literal version of the items; the items were adapted to
reflect the Slovak educational environment. The translated version (TES-SK) was then re-
viewed by several university-based educational professionals. Subsequently, some item word-
ings were modified to improve comprehensibility.
Sample
The translated and refined TES-SK was administered to 135 students enrolled in five year
teacher education programmes at the Faculty of Education, Comenius University in Bratis-
lava. Prior to completing the TES-SK, all university student respondents had completed at
least 20 hours of school-based classroom observation, and the majority had at least 40 hours
of classroom observation. None of the participants had actual teaching experience. The ori-
ginal sample included 16% year one students (n = 21), 40.5% year two students (n = 55), 16%
year three students (n = 21), 14.5% year four students (n = 20), and 13% year five students (n
= 18).
Upon post-administration review, it was found that there was considerable, likely spurious,
variations in the responses of the year one students, most probably because these students
were in the initial semester of their programmes and were inexperienced about effective
teaching practices. Therefore, their data were excluded from further analysis, and the final
sample consisted of 114 respondents. There were eight males in the final sample. Although
relatively small, the sample size is sufficient because it exceeds the typically and often recom-
mended minimum of 100 respondents for factor analysis (e.g., see Garson, 2008).
Data Analyses
A principal component factor analysis with varimax normalized rotation was performed. De-
termination of the number of factors to retain included applications of the Kaiser criterion
(i.e., eigenvalues greater than one) and the scree test. Items that loaded .30 or higher on a
factor were retained.
Two component factors emerged and they accounted for 34% of the total (explained) factor
variance. The first factor was deemed to represent PTE and the second was deemed to repres-
ent GTE. Ten items had factor loadings greater than .30 on the first factor, seven items had
factor loadings greater than .30 on the second factor, and one item loaded greater than .30 on
the two factors. Because of the dual loading, this latter item was dropped from the further ana-
lysis and interpretation. In general, the results were similar to those found for the 16 item ver-
5
sion of the instrument. The respective coefficient alphas for the items retained on these factors
were .76 and .45.
The initial analysis yielded data that were encouraging because of their similarity to results
from other similar studies. Also, the explained total variance was not optimal, but it was
higher than that found in the original Gibson and Dembo (1984) research. However, the low
reliability for the second (GTE) factor was problematic. Therefore, a second phase of analysis
was undertaken to attempt to improve the psychometric qualities of the TES-SK.
In the second analysis, items that loaded .50 (a relatively rigorous criterion) or more on any of
the factors in the original factor analysis were identified and retained as the data set. The data
from these items were then factor analyzed using the same procedures and criteria as applied
in the first analysis.
Again, two factors emerged. Applying the greater-than-.30 factor loading criterion, ten items
were retained. Importantly, each item retained loaded highly on only one factor. These two
factors account for 43.4% of the total (explained) factor variance, which is greater than in the
previous analysis and 15% more than that in the Gibson and Dembo (1984) research. The first
factor, again identified as PTE, explained 27.2% and the second factor, again identified as
GTE, explained 16.2%. As expected, it also was determined that the inter-factor correlation
was low at .15. The TES-SK factor structure resulting from this analysis is shown in Figure 1.
The respective coefficient alphas for the items retained on these factors were .73 and .54. In
this version, the reliability of the first factor items is satisfactory, but the reliability of the
second factor items was relatively low.
The final form of the TES-SK contains ten items, similar to the briefest version of the original
TES that has been used. The first factor contains six items and the second contains four items.
Results and Discussion
The final version of the TES-SK containing 10 items met three of the four a priori criteria set
for this validation study: (a) a two-factor solution was found and the factors appeared to rep-
resent PTE and GTE, (b) independence between the factors was shown, and (c) and the total
factor (explained) variance was greater than 29%. The fourth criterion was not achieved in
that the reliabilities found did not reach the criterion. However, the reliability of the first
factor items was relatively high. Overall, the Slovak version of the Teacher Efficacy Scale
(i.e., TES-SK) has good and substantive, though not ideal, psychometric properties, and there-
fore may be used cautiously in future research.
The PTE and GTE factors were shown to be relatively independent, which suggests that a
teacher may have high personal teaching efficacy but may believe that influences external to
his/her efficacy affect pupils’ learning, or vice versa. Thus, a teacher may be convinced of
his/her own ability to teach (PTE) but doubtful about his/her pupils’ ability to learn success-
ively (GTE), or may believe that his/her pupils’ ability to learn is irrespective of his/her own
inability to teach.
Several reasons may underlie why the data for the second factor (GTE) of the TES-SK are not
as clear or as strong as those for the first factor. Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) and Deemer and
Minke (1999) offered an interpretation that the two dimensions of TES represent two very dif-
ferent constructs. The first (PTE) refers to individual (i.e., personal) teacher efficacy; note the
use of “I” or “my” pronouns in PTE items. The second (GTE) includes items that refer to a
rather generalized concept of a teacher or situations external to the teacher’s classroom; in
other words, a much less personalized context. It may be that generalized conceptualizations
of teaching have more varied components than do personal conceptualizations of teaching.
6
Although the TES-SK psychometric properties could have been better, they are sufficient for
initial investigation of the resultant item data. As for other forms of the TES, higher scores
reflect higher the teacher self-efficacy. Each TES-SK item theoretically had a midpoint score
of 3.5. As shown in Table 1, found in this study was that individual item overall means ex-
ceeded the midpoint for both dimensions. This suggests that the student participants believed
that they can teach efficiently and effectively, and that teaching is not much affected by
factors outside their control as teachers.
The PTE item means were higher than those for GTE and review of the standard deviations
shows greater spread for the GTE items. This finding is in accord with similar studies of in-
service or pre-service teacher self-efficacy. It suggests that the respondents were more varied
in regard to their perceptions of teaching efficacy in general than they were in regard to their
own teaching efficacy.
Individual item means are shown in Table 2. Among the four highest PTE item means, three
are related to belief in efficacy in managing pupils’ learning and the other is related to belief
in efficacy in managing pupil discipline. Managing pupil discipline is one of the more diffi-
cult tasks with which a teacher is confronted. Perhaps these student respondents’ high per-
ceived self-efficacy to manage pupil discipline has not yet been tested in the reality of actual
classrooms?
The lowest PTE item means (6 and 8) are related to concerns about pupil progress expressed
as grades. It is laudable that the student respondents believe in their own self-efficacy in re-
gard to helping pupils achieve better grades. Hopefully, such belief would prompt them as
teachers to teach better and not to simply raise pupils’ grades because they believe they are
teaching better.
A broader context of understanding the results here can be achieved by comparing them to
those found in other countries. Thus, studies which had comparable samples and used similar
self-efficacy instruments with six-point item scales were examined. Woolfolk (2000) admin-
istered a 10-item teacher efficacy scale to students at a teachers’ college in the USA. Simil-
arly, Charalambos, Philippou, and Kyriakides (2007) investigated student teacher self-effic-
acy in the USA and in Turkey. Wertheim and Leyser (2002) measured self-efficacy in pre-
service teachers in Israel. Table 3 shows and allows comparison of the resultant respective
data sets. In all the studies, PTE item mean scores exceed four points, and are surprisingly
similar. The greatest difference is between the highest score for USA 2 and the lowest score
for USA 1 at .53. This suggests that even across varied educational and cultural environments,
pre-service teachers have similar levels of self-efficacy beliefs. In addition, the PTE scores are
all rather high and are a good precondition to enable these students to be efficacious teachers
after entering the profession.
A similar trend is evident in the GTE item mean scores. Differences among GTE item mean
scores across the studies also are small. The greatest difference is between the highest scoring
Turkish students and the lowest scoring Slovak students, but is only .68. It also may be ob-
served that the GTE item mean scores in all the countries except Turkey are lower than PTE
item mean scores. However, the difference between PTE and GTE scores in pre-service stu-
dents in Turkey is only .12. This finding is similar to those of other studies that found that
pre-service as well as in-service teachers have higher PTE than GTE (e.g., Milson, 2003;
Wertheim & Leyser, 2002).
Implications
7
Although the TES-SK psychometric properties determined from this study were not as strong
as might be desired, they are substantive enough to allow initial research use of the instru-
ment. A first step in such research might be further refinement of the TES-SK to address some
of its limitations. For example, it should be used to investigate teacher self-efficacy among
more tightly controlled and selected samples of pre-service teachers and among practicing
teachers. In particular, problems with measurement of GTE remain, a not unusual result in
the professional literature. Further, more specific refinement or revision of existing measures
of GTE are necessary, as is GTE research with more varied samples and of factors related to
GTE.
Data from Slovak pre-service students were similar to comparable samples in other countries.
Relatively high level self-efficacy in pre-service teachers is a good in that it should underlie
successful teaching after they actually enter the teaching profession. However, further re-
search is needed to determine the educational, personal, social, and/or other factors that con-
tribute to level of teacher self-efficacy. As noted, Bandura postulated four sources of efficacy
expectations: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and physiological
and emotional states (Bandura, 1997). These sources in particular should be examined to in-
vestigate how they function in and impact pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy. And of special
concern is how to design teacher education so that it can successfully impact pre-service
teachers’ self-efficacy.
Note: An earlier version of this paper was published in Gavora (2010).
8
References
David J. Armor, P. Conry-Oseguera, Millicent Cox, Nicelma J. King, Lorraine M.
McDonnell, Anthony H. Pascal, Edward Pauly, & Gail L. Zellman (1976). Analysis of the
school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority schools. Report No.
R-2007 LAUSD. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. (cited after Tschannen-Moran, M.,
Woolfolk Hoy, A., 2001).
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman and
Comp. ISBN 0-7167-2850-8.
Brouwers, A., &Tomic, W. (2003). A test of the factorial validity of the Teacher Efficacy
Scale. Research in Education, Vol. 69, May, pp. 67-79.
Cakiroglu, J., Cakiroglu, E., Boone, W. (2005). Pre-service teacher efficacy beliefs regarding
science teaching: A comparison of pre-service teachers in Turkey and the USA. Science
Educator, 14, No. 1, pp.31-40.
Deemer, S., & Minke, K. (1999). An investigation of the factor structure of the Teacher Effic-
acy Scale. The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 93, No. 1. pp. 3-10.
Enochs, L., Smith, P., & Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing factorial validity of the mathemat-
ics teaching efficacy beliefs instrument. School Science and Mathematics, Vol. 100, No. 4,
pp. 194-202.
Garson, D. G. (2008). Factor Analysis: Statnotes. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from North
Carolina State University Public Administration Program,
http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/factor.htm.
Gavora, P. (2010). Profesijná zdatnosť vnímaná učiteľom. Adaptácia výskumného nástroja.
Pedagogická revue (Bratislava), Vol. 61, No. 1-2, pp. 19-37.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 569-582.
Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of responsibility teachers assume for academic successes
or failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 34, pp. 44-51.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher Efficacy: A study of construct dimension.
American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 645 -674.
Henson, R. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement
dilemmas. Paper at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Exchange. January 26,
2001. Texas A&M University, Texas. www.des.emory.edu/mfp/erekeynote.pdf (retrieved
Nov. 9., 2007).
Charalambos, Y., Philippou, G., & Kyriakides, L. (2007). Tracing the development of preser-
vice teachers’ efficacy beliefs in teaching mathematics during fieldwork. Educational
Studies in Mathematics (on-line), www.springerlink.com/content/3g04 3058m382444 (re-
trieved Nov. 8., 2007).
Kolektív autorov. (2006). Profesijný rozvoj učiteľa. Prešov: Metodicko-pedagogické centrum
v Prešove. ISBN 80-80545-431-0.
Lukášová-Kantorková, H. (2003). Učitelská profese v primárním vzdělávání a pedagogická
příprava učitelů (teorie, výzkum, praxe). Ostrava: Pedagogická fakulta OU. ISBN 80-
7042-272-6.
Milson, A. J. (2003). Teachers’sense of efficacy for the formation of students’ character.
Journal of Research in Character Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 89-106.
Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (5th ed.), glossary. N.J.,
Merrill: Upper Saddle River.
Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of
randomised field trial. The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 101, No. 1, pp. 50-60.
9
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalised expectances of internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80, pp. 1-28.
Spilková, Vl. (1997). Proměny primární školy a vzdělávaní učitelů v historicko-srovnávací
perspektivě. Praha: Pedagogická fakulta UK.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 17, pp. 783-805.
Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiated
instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 96,
pp. 54-63.
Woolfolk, A., & Hoy, W, (2000). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of
teaching. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Associ-
ation, New Orleans. www.coe.ohio-state.edu/ahoy/efficacy%2043%2022.pdf (retrieved
Nov. 8., 2007).
Woolfolk, A., & Hoy, W. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about
control. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 81-91.
Zelina, M. (1995) Výchova tvorivej osobnosti. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského.
10
Figure 1. The factor structure of TES-SK: item loadings and inter-factor correlation
Table 1. TES-SK overall item descriptive statistics
mean minimum maximum SD
PTE 4.22 2.33 5.83 0.73
GTE 3.69 1.50 5.75 0.87
.74
.60
.66
.64
.64
.60
Personal Teaching
Efficacy
.74
.62
.73
.51
General Teaching
Efficacy
.15
11
Table 2. TES-SK item means in descending order.
dimension item mean
1 When a pupil is having difficulty with an assignment,
I am usually able to adjust it to his/her level. PTE 4.86
2 If a pupil is not disciplined, I am sure I can find ways to
manage him/her. PTE 4.26
3 If a pupil cannot do a homework assignment, I would
be able to assess whether it was at a correct level of dif-
ficulty.
PTE 4.15
4 If a pupil masters a new concept quickly, it might be
because I knew the necessary steps in teaching that
concept.
PTE 4.10
5 Hours in class have little influence on pupils compared
to the influence of their home environment. GTE 4.08
6 If pupils get better grades than they usually get, it is be-
cause I found more efficient ways of teaching. PTE 4.05
7 A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve be-
cause it is the home environment that shapes a pupil’s
motivation.
GTE 4.04
8 When the grades of a pupil improve, it is because
I found a way how to adjust teaching him/her. PTE 4.02
9 Even if the teacher has excellent knowledge and skills,
it has little influence on pupils’ learning. GTE 3.35
10 The amount a pupil can learn is primarily related to
family background. GTE 3.33
Notes:
For this table, the Slovak version of the items was translated back into English.
Negatively worded items (3, 5, 7 and 9) were reverse scored.
PTE - Personal Teaching Efficacy
GTE - General Teaching Efficacy
Table 3. Mean scores on PTE and GTE in five studies of pre-service teachers
Slovakia USA 1 USA 2 Turkey Israel
PTE 4.22 4.12 4.65 4.25 4.31
GTE 3.69 3.85 4.19 4.37 3.89
Note:
PTE - Personal Teaching Efficacy
GTE - General Teaching Efficacy
USA 1 – Woolfolk (2000)
USA 2 – Cakiroglu, Cakiroglu, Boone (2005)
Turkey – Cakiroglu, Cakiroglu, Boone (2005)
Israel – Wertheim, Leyser (2002)
12
