Teachers’ self efficacy beliefs Means and standard deviations of the teachers’ self- efficacy data

94

4.2.2 Findings of quantitative data analyses

Quantitative data in this research study covered three major aspects including the teachers‘ self-efficacy beliefs, work engagement and perceived effects of Competency-based Integrated Training CBIT attended by the teachers prior to data collection. Data were collected using two scales of self-efficacy and work engagement. Data about the perceived influence of CBIT was collected by repeating the efficacy survey asking the participants to report their level of efficacy before and after their attendance in the training program.

4.2.2.1 Teachers’ self efficacy beliefs

Data about teachers‘ self-efficacy were collected using five subscales of teacher efficacy survey. Three subscales were drawn from The Ohio State Teacher Self- efficacy scale OSTES consisting of efficacy for instructional strategies, classroom management and student engagement Tshannen-Moran Hoy, 2001. The other two subscales consisting of efficacy for English and efficacy for curriculum implementation were developed by the researcher to address the specific context of the participants in the present study, see Table 4.2. In the presentation of the efficacy data, the researcher has organized the findings in accordance with the kind of analyses. The first part of the presentation deals with the descriptive findings of the data covering the mean scores and standard deviations of every subscale. The following parts deal with the data resulting from the Multivariate Analyses of ANOVA MANOVA concerning the effects of th e independent variables on the level of teachers‘ 95 efficacy, and the data about the perceived influences of CBIT resulting from the repeated measures MANOVA.

4.2.2.2 Means and standard deviations of the teachers’ self- efficacy data

The findings indicate that in general all mean scores of the subscales were above the middle point in the 7-point Likert-type scale. The overall mean of the efficacy data was 4.68 and the standard deviation was 1.45, with the means of 4.25, 4.77, 5.02, 4.71, and 4.51, and the standard deviations of 1.61, 1.31, 1.2, 1.21, and 1.47 respectively for the teachers‘ efficacy for English, instructional strategies, classroom management, student engagement and curriculum implementation sub-scales. Details of item mean scores and standard deviations can be viewed in Table 4.2. The findings revealing a moderate level of efficacy beliefs imply that English teachers in the province were fairly confident in their teaching. In addition, this fairly high level of confidence among these participants was also interesting in the context where teachers had been long critiqued for not able to bring about high achievement among students, especially when achievement was measured using the results of the national examination. 96 Table 4.2. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Self-efficacy Subscales Subscales Efficacy for … Means SDs Efficacy for English instructional English speaking 4.85 1.22 English for communication 4.39 1.27 understanding movies on TV 3.95 1.11 understanding books written in English 4.48 1.21 English songs 4.11 1.33 instructional English writing 4.87 1.23 English journalpublication writing 3.08 1.47 Overall 4.25 1.61 Efficacy for Instructional Strategies Tschannen- Moran Hoy, 2001 responding to questions 4.84 1.21 gauging students comprehension 4.72 1.05 crafting good questions 4.72 1.16 adjusting lessons to the proper levels of the students 4.75 1.18 using a variety of assessment 4.57 1.22 providing alternative explanation and examples 5.09 1.08 implementing alternative instructional strategies 4.67 1.09 providing challenges for capable students 4.75 1.13 Overall 4.77 1.31 Efficacy for Classroom Management Tschannen- Moran Hoy, 2001 controlling disruptive students 4.95 1.24 making the expectation clear for students 4.89 1.1 establishing routines to keep activities running smoothly 4.82 1.19 getting students follow classroom rules 5.34 1.03 calming disruptive or noisy students 5.33 1.09 establishing classroom management for groups 4.88 1.05 keeping a few troubled students from ruining the whole class 4.93 1.15 responding to defiant students 4.78 1.07 Overall 5.02 1.2 97 Table 4.2 continued Efficacy for Student Engagement Tschannen- Moran Hoy, 2001 getting through the most difficult students 4.70 1.17 helping students think critically 4.68 1.08 motivating students who show low interest in school work 4.91 1.04 getting students to believe they can be successful in school work 4.96 1.11 helping students value learning 4.98 1.08 fostering students creativity 4.54 0.98 improving the understanding of students who are failing 4.78 1.02 helping families to help children do well in school 4.21 1.28 Overall 4.71 1.21 Efficacy for Curriculum Implementation preparing lesson plans 4.36 1.28 contextualizing teaching 4.46 1.21 implementing genre based-teaching 4.70 1.29 developing teaching materials 4.63 1.15 stimulating students inquiry 4.30 1.13 presenting model in learning 4.64 1.21 promoting interaction among learners 4.36 1.18 using authentic assessment 4.49 1.16 Overall 4.51 1.47 On a 7-point Likert-type scale

4.3 Results of Multivariate Analysis of Variance MANOVA