98
The term multifactor was used in regard to the number of independent variables or the factors involved in the analyses. Such independent factors derived from
the independent variables of the study and included gender, age, the English teaching background, teaching experiences, teacher status, schools and the
districts where the teachers were teaching. Further analyses using Tuckey post hoc were carried out to locate the differences among more than two groups
created by the categorical variables. Only significant findings were reported in this section using the level of significance of
p
= 0.05.
4.3.1 The main effects
4.3.1.1 T he effects of gender differences on the teachers’ self-
efficacy beliefs
Multivariate tests of MANOVA revealed that there were significant differences in the level of efficacy between male and female teachers
F
39,150 = 1.86,
p
0.05. In general male teachers scored higher M = 4.78, SD = 1.44 than female teachers M = 4.64, SD = 1.3 except in two items related to the efficacy for
helping families to help children do well in school and efficacy for implementing genre-based teaching.
Between subject effect tests, however, revealed that only one out of 39 items in all five subscales of the self-efficacy survey showed significant differences.
This item was in the teachers‘ efficacy for student engagement subscale and was
related to the teachers‘ efficacy for helping student value learning
F
1,86 = 4.67,
p
0.05.
99
The fact that gender differences contributed significantly to the level of teachers‘ efficacy beliefs was worth noting because there had been indication
that demographic factors, like gender, were normally included merely as a control due to weak theoretical reasons to suggest them as related to self
efficacy beliefs Tschannen-Moran Hoy, 2007. The findings showing a general trend of male teachers reporting a higher level of efficacy beliefs was
also interesting, because teaching profession was usually dominated by female. This issue is discussed further in the chapter on discussion and interpretation of
the data.
4.3.1.2 The effects of age on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
As stated previously, the age of the participating teachers was between 23 and 57 years. For the purpose of analysis, however, the sample was grouped into
four age groups. These groups were teachers who were younger than 30 years of age, between 30 and 40 years, 41 and 50 years and older than 50 years.
Teachers within the fourth group 50 years reported the highest level of teachers‘ efficacy M = 4.79, SD = 1.78, followed by the second group 30-40
years with M = 4.77 and SD = 1.21, the third group 41 –50 years with M=4.71
and SD = 1.22, and the first group 30 years reported the lowest level of efficacy with M = 4.4 and SD = 1.8. These findings were interesting in the case
that teachers‘ efficacy in this study did not increase smoothly with age but fluctuated between the age groups.
100
Table 4.3. Gender Differences in T eachers’ Self-efficacy Beliefs
Efficacy Subscales
Efficacy for ... Gender
Male Female Efficacy
for English
instructional English speaking 5.4
5.0 English for communication
4.7 4.3
understanding movies on TV 4.6
4.0 understanding books written in English
5.6 4.4
English songs 4.7
4.3 instructional English writing
5.6 5.0
English journalpublication writing 4.6
3.7 Efficacy
for Instructional
strategies responding to questions
5.6 5.0
gauging students comprehension 4.7
4.4 crafting good questions
5.5 4.5
adjusting lessons to the proper levels of the students 5.4 5.8
using a variety of assessment 5.1
4.9 providing alternative explanation and examples
5.8 5.1
implementing alternative instructional strategies 5.1
4.8 providing challenges for capable students
5.9 5.2
Efficacy for
Classroom Management
controlling disruptive students 5.9
5.5 making the expectation clear for students
5.0 5.0
establishing routines to keep activities running smoothly
5.5 4.9
getting students follow classroom rules 6.0
4.5 calming disruptive or noisy students
6.0 5.8
establishing classroom management for groups 5.4
5.1 keeping a few troubled students from ruining the
whole class 5.9
5.2 responding to defiant students
5.6 4.5
Efficacy for
Student Engagement
getting through to the most difficult students 5.4
5.1 helping students think critically
5.0 4.5
motivating students who show low interest in school work
5.7 5.3
getting students to believe that they can be successful in school work
5.4 5.3
helping students value learning 5.9
5.5 fostering students creativity
5.2 4.7
improving the understanding of students who are failing
5.9 5.5
helping families to help children do well in school 4.2
4.3
101
Table 4.3 continued Efficacy
for Curriculum
Implementation preparing lesson plans
4.7 4.5
contextualizing teaching 5.0
4.6 implementing genre based-teaching
5.1 4.5
developing teaching materials 5.1
4.7 stimulating students inquiry
4.5 4.2
presenting model in learning 5.8
4.8 promoting interaction among learners
5.5 4.8
using authentic assessment 5.0
4.6 Significant at p = 0.05
Notwithstanding this fluctuation, the Multivariate test of MANOVA suggested
that there was a statistically significant contribution of age on teach ers‘ sense of
efficacy
F
117,150 = 1.95,
p
= 0.00.
Because there were three age groups of participants, the Tuckey post hoc analyses were used to locate the significant differences among the groups
Findings of these post hoc analyses reveled that although there were variation on the level of efficacy of all age groups, significant differences was only found
between the first group, teachers younger than 30 years of age, and the other three age groups of teachers of 30 years of age or older.
At the univariate level, the tests of between-subjects effects revealed that there was a statistically significant contribution at
p
= 0.05 in six items of teachers‘
efficacy for English and teachers‘ efficacy for curriculum implementation see Table 4.4.
102
As shown in Table 4.4, two items in the teachers‘ efficacy for English showed
significant differences due to differences in age. These items were related to teachers‘ self-efficacy for understanding books written in English,
F
3,86 = 3.56,
p
= 0.02, and teachers‘ self-efficacy for instructional English,
F
3,86 = 3.31, p = 0.02.
Differences in age among the participants did not seem to contribute significantly to
teachers‘ efficacy for instructional strategies, classroom management and student engagement. In these three subscales, there were no
item showing significant differences at the significance level of
p
= 0.05.
Interesting findings were found in the efficacy for curriculum implementation. Among eight items in the subscale, four of them were statistically significant at
the level of significance of
p
= 0.05. The four items showing significant differences at p = 0.05 were those
concerning the teachers‘ efficacy for preparing lesson plans,
F
3,86 = 3.25,
p
= 0.03, the efficacy for contextualizing teaching,
F
3,86 = 2.87,
p
= 0.04, the efficacy for developing teaching materials,
F
3,86 = 3.24,
p
= 0.03, and the teachers efficacy for using authentic assessment, 3,86 = 4.33,
p
= 0.01.
4.3.1.3 The effects of English teaching background on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
