1877-0428 © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.005

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 8 (2010) 35–40

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

International Conference on Mathematics Education Research 2010 (ICMER 2010)

Teaching Efficacy of Universiti Sains Malaysia Mathematics Student Teachers

Ahmad Zamri bin Khairania,*, Nordin bin Ab Razakb

a,bSchool of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia

Abstract

The prime aim of this study is to examine the level of teaching efficacy among Mathematics student teachers of Universiti Sains Malaysia. In addition, two variables, namely, gender differences and Mathematics performance are also studied in relation with teaching efficacy. The sample consisted of 110 student teachers who just completed their teaching practice. Using the Rasch Model analysis, the findings indicate that classroom management (mean = 1.15, sd = 1.12) was the most difficult aspect to perform followed by instructional strategies (mean = 1.04, sd = 3.4) and student engagement (mean = 0.94, sd =1.74). With regards to individual items, the most difficult task for the sampled student teachers is to motivate students who show low interest in school work (measure =2.81, se = 0.21). The least difficult task is to get students to believe they can do well in school work (mean = ─1.76, se = 0.25). As expected, a positive and significant relationship was reported between CGPA and teaching practice grades. However, contrary to popular beliefs, the study revealed a weak by significant correlation between teaching efficacy and teaching practice grades. The implications of the findings towards the theory and practice of teaching efficacy were also discussed. . © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teaching efficacy; Classroom management; Instructional strategies; Student engagement; Student teacher; Rasch Model

1. Introduction Teaching efficacy is defined as judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated (Bandura, 1997).The construct has been the focus of many studies due to the fact that through literature, the construct has established itself as highly important. Teachers with high efficacy have been shown to have positive affects in teacher activity, effort and productivity (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Podell & Soodak, 1993). They are more likely to use student centred learning strategies while teachers with low efficacy tends to use teachers centred strategies (Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004; Tschanen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Seminal reviews on the impact of teaching efficacy by Ross (1998), Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000), and Wheatley (2005) report that teachers with high efficacy are (1) more likely to enter teaching, (2) express satisfaction with the profession, (3) produce greater effort and motivation, (4) take on

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: e-mel_zamri@yahoo.com

36 Ahmad Zamri bin Khairani and Nordin bin Ab Razak / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 8 (2010) 35–40

extra roles in school, and (4) show more resilient to retention. Therefore, one might speculate that these positive impacts may lead to higher student achievement as documented by Moore and Esselman (1992) and Ross (1992). The concept of teaching efficacy is related to Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, in which a person’s judgments about their ability to perform certain tasks enhance his or her capability to accomplish such particular tasks. With regards to teaching efficacy, higher perseverance, confidence, or motivation will be resulted in greater chance a particular task can be performed successfully. In addition, Bandura (1997) also mention that teaching efficacy affects both general as well as specific instructional orientation of a teacher. Less efficacious teachers, who have negative expectations towards certain students, are less likely to provide meaningful teaching to help the students even though the teachers know the strategies to help them (Garvis, 2009) For nearly 30 years, researchers have investigated teaching efficacy in various academic areas and important findings have help understanding its nature. Within the development, Mathematics has been one of the main focuses (Hackett & Betz, 1989; Pajares & Miller, 1995) Nevertheless, as mentioned by Swars (2005), the number of research studies in the area of mathematics teaching efficacy of student teachers is limited. Given the importance of teacher efficacy to instructional practices, further investigation should occur in this area. In addition studies on teaching efficacy always revolve on one important aspect, that is, the construct is considered as context-specific. In another word, teaching efficacy deals with the ability to do something good within a particular context. Thus, by addressing this question at student teacher level, the study extends the understanding of teacher efficacy in areas of particular importance to teacher educators. In addition, as mentioned by Bandura (1997) and later by Hoy (2004), efficacy beliefs are easily established in early stages of training. Meta-analysis that includes review of 40 studies by Kagan (1992) reveals that student teachers enter education program with different beliefs mainly about images of themselves as good teachers as well as beliefs about teaching and learning from their own experience as students. When a set of beliefs have been developed from the initial experience, conceptions, opinions or perspectives, they are quite permanent and difficult to change (Hoy & Spero, 2005; Joram & Gabriele, 1998; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy & Wayne, 1998). Apart from looking at the teaching efficacy construct alone, literature shows that it is essential to relate the construct with other related variables. Two important variables concerned in this study are gender differences and Mathematics performance. Throughout literature, studies show inconclusive results with regards to gender differences and efficacy. For example, earlier study by Hackett and Betz (1989) find that Mathematics self-efficacy of college males are higher than the females. The males are reported to have more positive attitudes, more confident, and perceive Mathematics as more useful. Pajares (1994) echoes the same finding, in which females show higher level of Mathematics anxiety especially in problem solving. However, Cooper and Robinson (1991) report no significant gender difference in Mathematics self-efficacy, Mathematics anxiety, and Mathematics performance among undergraduates. In recent study, Cakiroglu (2005) reveals that although males score higher than the females in Mathematics efficacy, the difference is small. Meanwhile, teaching efficacy and/or Mathematics performance is another important aspect that worth to study. For instance, Pietsch, Walker, and Chapman (2003) identify self-efficacy beliefs as most highly correlated with performance while Stevens, Olivarez, Lan and Runnels (2004) quotes that self-efficacy is a significant predictor for Mathematics performance. In addition, Ma (2004) documents a consistent gender differences in favor of males in Mathematics performance in most countries. However, he also stated that these gender gaps in Mathematics performance could be characterized as being universally small. Thus, the writers believe that insights relationship between teaching efficacy, gender differences, and Mathematics performance would certainly provide valuable information not only for student teachers but to the teacher education program as well. The purpose of this study was to investigate level of teaching efficacy among student teachers in Universiti Sains Malaysia. More specifically, the objectives of the study were to: (1) assess level of teaching efficacy among the student teachers, (2) explain relationships as well as differences between gender and teaching efficacy, and (3) examine relationships between teaching efficacy and teaching practice grades. The following research questions were used to guide the study.

1. What is the efficacy level of the sampled student teachers? 2. To what extend do teaching efficacy differ by student teachers’ specialization? 3. To what extend do teaching efficacy vary by gender?

Ahmad Zamri bin Khairani and Nordin bin Ab Razak / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 8 (2010) 35–40 37

4. What is the relationship between teaching efficacy, cumulative grade point average and teaching practice grades?

2. Methodology A total of 110 student teachers (male = 18, female = 92) from the School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia were sampled. They are all in their final year and have just completed the 14-week teaching practice. A structured questionnaire adapted from Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) was used to collect information on teaching efficacy of the student teachers in week 12th. The questionnaire consisted of 12 items measuring 3 teaching efficacy sub-constructs, namely efficacy in classroom management (4 items), student engagement (5 items), and instructional strategies (3 items). Mathematic performance is measured by (1) their cumulative grade point average (CGPA) and (2) their teaching practice grades. In order to provide meaning to the score, Rasch Model analysis using WINSTEPS version 3.57 (Linacre, 2005) was employed in this study. Rasch Model analysis is a method of obtaining objective, fundamental and linear measures from stochastic observation of ordered category. The procedure transforms the summated test score into interval-scale ‘measure’ in log-odd or logits unit. Several appealing outcomes from the procedure include (1) instrument-free respondent measures, (2) respondent-free item difficulty measures, (3) evidence of construct validity of the measures. However, in order for such a measure to have these properties, two important assumptions must be met. Firstly, the data must meet the unidimensionality assumption, that is, they represent a single construct (Wright & Masters, 1982). Secondly, Rasch Model requires that the data must fit the model, that is, there should be a reasonable degree of discrepancy between data and the model’s expectation is kept to a reasonable level (Andrich, 1989). 3. Findings and Discussions

3.1 Teaching Efficacy of Universiti Sains Malaysia Mathematics Student Teacher

The prime aim of this study is to examine the level of teaching efficacy among Mathematics student teachers of Universiti Sains Malaysia. Since both unidimensionality and fit assumptions of the Rasch Model were met, this section provides some important findings of the present study. In general, majority of the student teachers sampled have moderate to high teaching efficacy (mean = 1.96, sd = 1.97). A high teaching efficacy reported is similar to local study with Science undergraduates done by Abdul Rahim, Mohd Majid, Rashid and Lyndon (2008). Knobloch (2006) suggests two possible reasons behind this. The student teachers may already feel efficacious and that their experiences during teaching practice confirm their ability to teach. However, it is also possible that the student teachers may have inflated their beliefs that they can teach, and the beliefs remains inflated over their teaching practice time because of the support they received from their colleagues, university supervisors or cooperating teachers. However, it is also important to note that when these supports were withdrawn and the real teaching begins, studies (Cantrell,Young, & Moore, 2003; Hoy & Spero, 2005) show that the teaching efficacy is declined. Ghaith and Yaghi (1997) relate this to the fact that teachers may start to believe that they no longer have control on student learning. With regards to specific aspects as depicted by Table 1, the findings indicate that classroom management (mean = 1.15, sd = 1.12) was the most difficult aspect to perform followed by instructional strategies (mean = 1.04, sd = 3.4) and student engagement (mean = 0.94, sd =1.74). The finding, however, is in contrast with Abdul Rahim et al. (2008) that report a classroom management – instructional strategies – student engagement pattern. The inconclusive results provide more evidence of teaching efficacy as a context-specific construct (Lin & Gorell, 2000). Table 1 shows the Rasch statistics for every item for Teaching Efficacy scale. The study was also conducted to investigate difference in teaching efficacy related to student teachers specialization as well as difference in gender. 57 student teachers who were majoring in Mathematics were compared with 53 others who choose the subject as their minor specialization. The independent sample t-test shows that there was no significant difference between the two groups even though the former scored higher (mean = 2.22) compared to the latter counterparts (mean = 1.63). Result from another independent sample t-test also showed no significant difference in teaching efficacy despite the male student teachers scored higher (mean = 2.59) compared to the female (mean = 1.84). The result was in line with previous studies by Cakiroglu (2005), Main and Hammond (2008)

38 Ahmad Zamri bin Khairani and Nordin bin Ab Razak / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 8 (2010) 35–40

as well as Tejeda-Delgado (2009). Neither specialization nor gender was found to have affected student teachers’ efficacy in their mathematical teaching. One might speculate that this might be related to the target group taught by the student teachers. The student teachers might feel comfortable in teaching Mathematics for Form 1, Form 2 or Form 4 during their teaching practice which were less complex compared with what they have been learned during their Mathematics courses at university level. Their content knowledge increases student teachers’ efficacy and confidence in teaching high school Mathematics.

Table 1. Descriptive analysis for Teaching Efficacy Scale

Item Measure Error INFIT OUTFIT PTMEA MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD 4 Motivate students who show low interest

in school work (SE) 2.81 .21 1.31 2.2 1.35 2.2 .49

9 Inculcate values among students (SE) 2.72 .22 1.24 1.7 1.31 2.1 .45 3 Control class discipline (CM) 1.96 .23 1.26 2.0 1.30 2.0 .37 1 Get through the most difficult students

(CM) .69 .23 .94 −.3 .97 −.1 .58

5 Make expectations clear to students (CM) −.64 .26 1.17 .9 1.11 .6 .63 12 Foster students’ creativity (SE) −.74 .26 .90 −.5 .76 −1.0 .74 8 Ensure smoothness of class activities

(CM) −.74 .24 1.17 .9 1.11 .6 .63

2 Help student think critically (SE) −.87 .26 .74 −1.4 .64 −1.7 .71 10 Measure student’s comprehension of what

have been taught (IS) −.87 .26 .95 −.2 .81 −.8 .55

11 Deal with difficult questions from students (IS) −.93 .26 .88 −.6 .79 −.9 .65

7 Construct good questions to student (IS) −1.64 .25 .83 −1.0 .71 −1.4 .69 6 Bring out the best from students (SE) −1.76 .25 .69 −2.0 .57 −2.3 .70

Mean .00 .24 1.01 .1 .96 −.1 S.D. 1.56 .02 .20 1.3 .27 1.5

3.1 Teaching efficacy, cumulative grade point average and teaching practice grades

Bivariate correlation was estimated to determine relationship between teaching efficacy, teaching practice grades and cumulative grade point average (CGPA). The findings revealed that female student teachers perform significantly higher than their male counterpart during teaching practice. Consistent with studies by Isiksal (2005), cultural factor may well be the reason behind the finding. The reason was that, in Malaysia, teaching is being perceived as a profession for female while their male counterpart is always encourages pursuing technical jobs like engineering or architecture. The belief system in teaching was very much influenced by this stereotyping. Female student teachers were more comfortable with the job and therefore would be able to carry out their work fluently. In contrast, during the teaching practice, male student teachers may find themselves in a world dominated by female in-service teachers and this will certainly affected their performance. A positive and significant relationship was reported between CGPA and teaching practice grades (r = .470, p = .01). In another word, student teachers who obtain high CGPA would likely score high in his or her teaching practice grade. The finding is consistent with previous studies that show student teachers enter teaching programme with belief that successful teaching is related to content knowledge and the ability to convey that knowledge to others (Hollingsworth, 1989; Powell, 1992). The study also reported a significant but weak negative correlation between teaching efficacy score and CGPA (r = −.283, p = .01). The result is difficult to explain since it is hypothesized that teaching efficacy and CGPA are positively correlated. In fact, studies by Abdul Rahim and Shamsiah (2008) as well as Isiksal (2005) have proven the intended relationship. What more, regression analysis shows that both CGPA and teaching efficacy are significant predictors and they explain about 26.4% variance in teaching practice grades. The

Ahmad Zamri bin Khairani and Nordin bin Ab Razak / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 8 (2010) 35–40 39

low percentage of variance explained paves the way for further study to identify other variables apart than teaching efficacy (such as expectation or beliefs) that could contribute to a higher teaching practice performance. 4. Conclusion As documented by Bandura (1997) and Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998), teaching efficacy gives impact towards teaching motivation. Student teachers with high teaching efficacy beliefs are likely to be (1) more productive, (2) more competent, (3) more confident, and thus (4) more successful. Student teachers would have already developed set of beliefs about teaching and learning when they embark in teacher training program (Anderson, Blumenfield, Pintrich, Clark, Marx & Peterson, 1995; Joram & Gabriele, 1998). Thus, the positive finding, that the student teachers of Universiti Sains Malaysia have high level of teaching efficacy, would mean that the reality in classroom teaching is consistent with their belief. It is important to establish a strong teaching efficacy belief especially when the student teachers enter teaching profession because studies show that life as a beginning teachers are difficult especially in applying the theoretical knowledge acquired in their teacher preparation program (Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2002) as well as having to complete the most difficult assignments and facing students with multiple needs (Halford, 1999). As such, teacher education program should consider all possibilities to develop high teaching efficacy beliefs to counter the difficulties student teachers may face later during their real teaching experience. Since research in this field suggested that teaching efficacy might change throughout the teacher preparation program and during early years of teaching, the present study suggests that future research should be conducted to track one’s teaching efficacy level during this transition stage. When a student teacher makes a choice to enter the teaching profession, the decision is similar to what any other students make in entering any other career choices. The choice may be based on their personal satisfaction or extrinsic factors such as pay and reward. In Malaysia, teaching profession has undergone tremendous changes in both aspects that lead to an influx of students choosing the profession. For example, teacher’s pay has been increased by leap and bound. Classroom reality has also undergone drastic improvement. However, for the student teachers, many of them come with expectations towards the profession that is related to the past, during their schooling periods, but not present and certainly not the future. Therefore, it is essential for teacher education program to provide a platform to enable our students to be sure of what they would expect life in the teaching profession to be like. The platform should be done in such a way to mirror the real life as teacher. In addition, a paradigm that enable teacher education program to produce student teachers with knowledge, skills, and capabilities of effective teachers should be identified and established. Together, the platform and paradigm would enable student teachers to sustain their high teaching efficacy for the next 20 to 30 years in teaching role.

References Abdul Rahim, B. & Shamsiah, M. (July, 2008). Teacher sence of efficacy among Malaysian agriculture student teachers. Paper presented at 2008

Humanities Conference, Istanbul. Abdul Rahim, B., Mohd Majid, K. Rashidi, J. & Lyndon, N. (2008). Teaching efficacy of Universiti Putra Malaysia science student teachers.

College Student Journal, 42(2), 493 – 508. Anderson, L.M., Bluemenfield, P., Pintrich, P.R., Clark, C.M., Marx, R.W. & Peterson, P. (1995). Educational psychology for teachers:

Reforming our courses, rethinking our roles. Educational Psychologist, 30, 143-157. Andrich, A. (1989). Distinctions between assumptions and requirements in measurement in the social sciences. In J.A. Keats, R. Tarf, R.A. Heath,

& S. Lovibond, (Eds.), pp. 7-16, Mathematical and Theoretical Systems. Amsterdam, North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publisher. Ashton, P., & Webb, R. (Eds.) (1986). Making a Difference: Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Student Achievement. New York: Longman Inc. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cakiroglu, E. (2005). Teacher efficacy and academic performance. Academic Exchange Quarterly. Retrieved June 24, 2010 from

http://thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=14263686 Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 14, 177–192. Collins, J.B., Selinger, S.J. & Pratt, D.D. (2003). How do perspectives on teaching vary across disciplinary majors for students enrolled in teacher

preparation? Retrieved July 27, 2010 from http://teachingperspectives.com/PDF/howdoteachers.pdf Feiman-Nemser, S., McDiarmid, G.W., Melnick, S.L. & Parker, M. (1989). Changing beginning teachers’ conceptions: a description of an

introductory teacher education course. East Lansing, MI: National Centre for Research in Teacher Education, Michigan State University.

Garvis, S. (2009). Improving the teaching of the arts: Pre-service teacher self-efficacy towards art education. US-Chine Education Review, 6 (12), 23 – 28.

40 Ahmad Zamri bin Khairani and Nordin bin Ab Razak / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 8 (2010) 35–40

Ghaith, G. & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451-458.

Goddard, R. G., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-508.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in MathematicsEducation, 20, 261–273.

Halford, J. M. (1999). Policies to support new teachers. Educational Leadership, 56(8). Retrieved June 26, 2010, from www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9005/extpolicylink.html.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160-189. Hoy, A. W.(April, 2004). What do teachers need to know about self-efficacy? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American

Educational Research Association, San Diego. Hoy, A., & Spero, R.B. (2005). Changes in teacher-efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 21(4), 343-356. Isiksal, M. (2005). Pre-service teachers’ performance in their university coursework and mathematical self-efficacy beliefs: What is the role of

gender and year in program? The Mathematics Educator, 15(2), 8-16. Joram, E. & Gabriele, A. (1998). Preservice teacher’s prior beliefs: transforming obstacles into opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education,

14(2), 175-191. Kaufman, S. E. R. & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers’ self-efficacy, beliefs, attitudes towards teaching, and discipline and teaching

practice priorities in relation to the responsive classroom approach. The Elementary School Journal, 104 (4) Klobloch, N. A. (2006). Exploring relationship of teachers’ sense of efficacy in two student teaching programs. Journal of Agricultural

Education, 47(2), pp. 36 – 47. Linacre J M. (2005). A user’s guide to Winsteps [Program Manual]. Lin, H. & Gorell, J. (2001). Explarotary analysis of pre-service teachers in Taiwan. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 623 – 35. Ma, X. (2004, July). Current trend in gender differences in mathematics performance: An international update. Paper presented at 10th

International Congress on Mathematics Education, Denmark Main, S & Hammond, L. (2008) Best practice or most practiced? Pre-service teachers’ belief about effective behaviour management strategies

and reported self-efficacy. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://ajte.education.ecu.edu.au/issues/PDF/334/Main.pdf Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992, April). Teacher efficacy, power, school climate and achievement: A desegregating district's experience.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Pajares, F., & Miller, D. M. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and selfconcept beliefs in mathematics problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193–203. Pietsch, J., Walker, R., & Chapman, E. (2003). The relationship among self-concept, self-efficacy, and performance in mathematics during

secondary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 589–603. Powell, R. (1992). The influence of prior experience on pedagogical constructs of traditional and nontraditional preservice teachers. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 8 (3) 225-238 Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17( 1), 51 -65. Ross, J. A. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, 7, 49-74.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Stansbury, K., & Zimmerman, J. (2002). Smart induction programs become lifelines for the beginning teacher. Journal of Staff Development,

23(4). Retrieved August 19, 2004, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/stansbury234.cfm. Stevens, T., Olivarez Jr, A., Lan, W. Y., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2004). Role of mathematics self-efficacy and motivation in mathematics

performance across ethnicity. Journal of Education Research, 97(4), 208–221. Swars, S. L. (2005). Examining perceptions of mathematics teaching effectiveness among elementary preservice teachers with differing levels of

mathematics teacher efficacy. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(2), 139-147. Tejeda-Delgado, M. D. C (2009) Teacher efficacy, tolerance, gender and years of experience and special education referrals, International

Journal of Special Education, 24 (1), 112 - 119 Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. Tshannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., and Wayne K. H. (1998). Teacher efficacy: It's meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research 68 (2),

202- 248. Wheatley, K.F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teaching and Teacher Education 21: 747–766. Wright, B. D. & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.