110 F
2,86 = 7.04,
p
= 0.00, and for using authentic assessment,
F
2,86 = 6.55,
p
= 0.00.
4.3.1.5 The effects of teacher status on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
As mentioned in Chapter One, there are three types of teacher status in the teaching profession in the Indonesian context. They are civil servant teachers
who are employed by the government, full-time private teachers who work for private education foundations or private schools, and part-time teachers who
work in either public or private schools on the basis of a part-time contract. Based on the status of the teachers, one hundred and nineteen 78.3 teachers
were civil servant teachers, ten 6.6 fulltime private teachers and twenty 13.2 part time teachers.
Both Multivariate tests and tests of between-subjects effects of MANOVA revealed that there was neither significant contribution of teacher status in the
level of efficacy beliefs nor differences between-subjects effects among the 39 items in the survey. Although there were differences in the mean score of the
three groups resulted from the categorical independent variables, such differences were not statistically significant. The general trend, however,
suggested that the more secure the status the more efficacious the teachers were, for example civil servant teachers reported higher sense of efficacy M = 4.73,
than the full-time private teachers M = 4.67, while the full-time private teachers dominated the part-time teachers M = 4.52.
111
4.3.1.6 The effects of schools on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
There were two types of school where the participating teachers were teaching, public and private schools. One hundred and nineteen 78.3 teachers taught in
public schools and the other 33 21.7 in private schools. Findings suggested that teachers teaching in public schools reported higher level of efficacy M =
4.76, SD = 1.36 than those who are teaching in the private schools M = 4.41, SD = 1.23.
In addition, Multivariate tests of MANOVA revealed that the types of school where the participants were teaching contributed significantly to the differences
in the teachers‘ efficacy,
F
1,48 = 1.73,
p
= 0.04. In the univariate level, the tests of between-subjects effects also suggested that there were significant
differences in the teachers‘ efficacy beliefs due to differences in what schools the teachers were teaching. Seven items in the survey were significant at
p
= 0.05.
In the efficacy for English, there were two items in this subscale that showed significant difference at
p
= 0.05. These two items were related to the teachers‘ efficacy for instructional English speaking,
F
1,86 = 8.39,
p
= 0.00, and the teachers‘ efficacy for understanding movies on TV,
F
1,86 = 4.46,
p
= 0.04. Although the difference in the types of school did not contributed significantly
to teachers‘ efficacy for student engagement, it provided significant effects on
both teachers‘ efficacy for instructional strategies and classroom management. In the teachers‘ efficacy for instructional strategies one item that was
112
significantly affected by school type was the teachers‘ efficacy for providing
challenges for capable students,
F
1,86 = 4.6,
p
= 0.04. One item in the teachers‘ efficacy for classroom management was also significant with
F
1,86 = 4.36,
p
= 0.04. This item was related to the teachers‘ efficacy for getting the
students follow classroom rules.
The difference in the type of schools where the participants taught seemed to contribute substantially t
o the differences in the teachers‘ efficacy for curriculum implementation. Among eight items in this subscale, three items
showed significant differences at
p
= 0.05. The three items which were significant at
p
= 0.05 were the teachers ‘ efficacy for contextualizing teaching,
F
1,86 = 5.35,
p
= 0.02, for stimulating students inquiry,
F
1,86 = 69,
p
= 0.05, and for using authentic assessment,
F
1,86 = 8.23,
p
= 0.00.
4.3.1.7 The effects of districts on the teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
