RTL2 Assignment 2

Part A: Assignment 2 Literature Review

How does teacher self- efficacy impact on student engagement?

Teacher efficacy is the beliefs and perceptions teachers have about their abilities to teach
students with different needs and qualifications (Ekstam, Korhonen, Linnanmaki & Aunio,
2017). These abilities impact heavily on student’s educational achievements, as Caprara,
Barbaranelli, Steca & Malone state in their findings that teachers with high self-efficacy are
more likely to use classroom management approaches as well as teaching methods that
allow students to work autonomously, manage classroom issues and keep students on task
(2006). Additionally, teacher efficacy has been strongly linked to student achievement
reflected by students’ engagement.

Ekstam, Korhonen, Linnanmaki & Aunio (2017) examined the correlation between individual
interest, subject knowledge and their efficacy beliefs, these were measured by pre-service
teachers. The aim of the study was to establish which of the three “sub-domains” had more
of an effect when it came to teaching (p. 342). The findings indicated that individual interest
played a vital role while subject knowledge and individual interest went hand in hand.
Furthermore, the findings revealed that no connection was made between subject
knowledge and teacher efficacy in regards to motivating students, meaning subject
knowledge is only important for self-efficacy if the teacher has an interest in the subject
(p.343). Ekstam, Korhonen, Linnanmaki & Aunio found that teacher efficacy can be
advantageous for low-achieving students as it allows for classroom management and
student engagement (p.343).

Another study undertaken by Wang, Tan, Li, Tan & Lim (2016) investigated teachers with
high and low self-efficacy and the effects it has on low-achieving students in Singapore. In
their study they focus on Albert Bandura’s work of social cognitive theory. Bandura’s work
suggests that individuals base their judgments on “four psychological sources of
information: Mastery experiences, verbal persuasions, vicarious experiences, and
physiological and emotional arousal” (Bandura, as cited in Wang, Tan, Li, Tan & Lim, 2016 p.
140). Bandura’s four psychological sources when used together can have a positive effect on
teacher efficacy. Furthermore, the study indicated that Bandura’s mastery experiences had
an influence on efficacy. Mastery experiences indicates that an individuals’ past
performance raises efficacy beliefs because they were authentic and successful experiences,
however on the contrary, too many failed experiences in the past lowers confidence thus
lowering self-efficacy (p. 140). The study further suggests that teachers who were apart of
the “high-efficacy teacher” (HET) group displayed better results, this was significantly
dependent on the teachers past experience in helping low-achieving students produce good
results and therefore it became the teachers focus to assist low-achieving students make
academic progress (p.147). In addition to Bandura’s four psychological sources, Wang, Tan,
Li, Tan & Lim incorporated three “nonpsychological” sources of efficacy, these included
teachers’ knowledge about students, rapport with students and previous working
experiences (p. 148). These additional sources as well as those of Bandura’s were deemed
crucial amongst the HET group and their effect on teaching low-achieving students in
Singapore.

Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, in 2014, suggested that teacher efficacy was an “elusive
construct” (as cited in Kleinsasser, p. 176) and noted in their work that it is a “simple idea
with significant implications” (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2014 p. 783). Furthermore, their
research identifies some issues with current measure of teacher efficacy and recommend
new measures, one in particular named “Ohio State teacher efficacy scale (OSTES)” (p. 784
& 796). OSTES incorporated a boarder range of teaching tasks namely supporting student’s
thinking, creativity in teaching, and teaching strategies, tasks that were limited in previous
studies (p. 801). OSTES also covered the three dimensions of efficacy, these included
instructional strategies, student engagement and classroom management, all of which
interrelate and allow for good teaching (p. 801). Nevertheless, the tool requires more
testing and validation, however, it has opened new possibilities to measuring self-efficacy.
Some things to take into consideration would include factors that contribute to self-
efficacy, longitudinal studies of mentor teachers’ self- efficacy beliefs and how this impacts
pre-services teachers’ efficacy during their practicum (p. 802). The study concludes by
mentioning the endless possibilities that lay ahead and imply that if teachers’ beliefs in their
capabilities were taken seriously then significant changes will occur in particular preparing
and supporting teachers in the early stages of their profession (p. 802).
A study conducted in 2014 by Uden, Ritzen and Pieters suggested that student engagement
is vital for learning and is associated with better achievement. They go on to further discuss
teacher beliefs and their motives, knowledge domains and self-efficacy. The motives as
stated by the researchers included teachers being altruistically, intrinsically and extrinsically
motivated to become teachers. However, motives are higher at the beginning of their
teaching career and may deteriorate after some time (p. 23). Nonetheless, with motivation
and teacher beliefs comes good teaching practices. However, a vital area of teacher beliefs
stems from what teachers should know (p. 23). This study focuses on three particular
domains, these include knowledge of the content, knowledge about student development
and finally knowledge about how to present teaching materials (p.23). While the study took
all three domains into consideration it also measured three different types of student
engagements including behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement (p. 26). The
results indicated that teacher efficacy had more of an indirect relation with student
engagement whereas interpersonal teacher behaviour had more of an impact on student
engagement (p. 28).

In agreeance with the above research is Martin, Sass & Schmitt’s work, they also make
mention that teacher efficacy and students engagement may be an “indirect predictor”
(2012 p.547). This may possibly be related to teachers’ perception of their ability to provide
support for learning as well as motivating students and considering their work to be
meaningful resulting in students attending their classes (p. 547).

Further research has shown the importance of teacher efficacy and its usefulness for
teaching students with special education needs (Choa, Chow, Forlin & Ho, 2017). The
definition of “inclusive education” has evolved overtime, however it can be defined as
“practice of providing for students with a range of abilities, backgrounds and aspirations in
regular school setting” (Van Kraayenoord, 2012 p. 390). However, similar to previous studies
mentioned in this literature review, Choa, Chow, Forlin & Ho’s paper also agree that
teachers who possess high self-efficacy are more prone to encouraging students learning
through better teaching approaches (p. 361). Therefore, a sense of high efficacy allows for
better planning and preparation of lessons as well as teachers using a wide range of
teaching approaches to support students in inclusive classrooms (p. 361).
While high self-efficacy plays a pivotal role in being successful as a teacher, there are
unfortunately some teachers with a sense of low self-efficacy. Yazdi, Motallebzadeh &
Ashraf point out that low self-efficacy can be a contributor to teacher burnout amongst
other factors (2014 p. 1199). Their study suggested several reasons that caused low-efficacy
and teacher burnout. These reasons included using inappropriate methodology and having
trouble with the materials they used for teaching (p. 1202).

Overall, it appears that there is ample research regarding teacher efficacy and its relation to
student engagement. However, the sub-topic covered some of the benefits of high-teacher
efficacy while also mentioning the downside to having low-self efficacy.
 References
Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs as
determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at the school
level. Journal Of School Psychology, 44(6), 473-
490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001

Chao, C., Chow, W., Forlin, C., & Ho, F. (2017). Improving teachers’ self-efficacy in applying teaching
and learning strategies and classroom management to students with special education needs
in Hong Kong. Teaching And Teacher Education, 66, 360-
369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.004

Ekstam, U., Korhonen, J., Linnanmäki, K., & Aunio, P. (2017). Special education pre-service teachers'
interest, subject knowledge, and teacher efficacy beliefs in mathematics. Teaching And
Teacher Education, 63, 338-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.009

Martin, N., Sass, D., & Schmitt, T. (2012). Teacher efficacy in student engagement, instructional
management, student stressors, and burnout: A theoretical model using in-class variables to
predict teachers' intent-to-leave. Teaching And Teacher Education, 28(4), 546-
559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.003

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching
And Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00036-1

Van Kraayenoord, C. (2012). School and Classroom Practices in Inclusive Education in Australia. Childhood
Education, 83(6), 390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2007.10522957

van Uden, J., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. (2014). Engaging students: The role of teacher beliefs and
interpersonal teacher behavior in fostering student engagement in vocational
education. Teaching And Teacher Education, 37, 21-
32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.08.005

Wang, L., Tan, L., Li, J., Tan, I., & Lim, X. (2016). A qualitative inquiry on sources of teacher efficacy
in teaching low-achieving students. The Journal Of Educational Research, 110(2), 140-
150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1052953

Yazdi, M., Motallebzadeh, K., & Ashraf, H. (2014). The role of teacher's self-efficacy as a predictor of
Iranian EFL teacher's burnout. Journal Of Language Teaching And Research, 5(5), 1199-
1202. http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.4304/jltr.5.5.1198-1204
 Part B: Data Collection protocol

Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled Effective teaching and its impact on student engagement for the class,
‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2,’ at Western Sydney University. As part of the project, I am
collecting information to help inform the design of a teacher research proposal.

This research topic is about understanding how teacher self-efficacy effects impacts on student
engagement. The aim of this research is gain a better understanding of the relationship between teacher
efficacy and student engagement. The data protocol undertaken for this research task will be semi-
structured interviews with teachers.

By signing this form I acknowledge that:

 I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity to discuss the
information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.
 The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me, and
any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.
 I consent to be interviewed
 I understand that my involvement is confidential, and that the information gained during this
data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of the ‘Researching Teaching
and Learning 2’ unit, and that all personal details will be de-identified from the data.
 I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my relationship
with the researcher/s, now or in the future.

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time university student
who is 17 years old.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is 16 or 17 years old, and
provide my consent for the person’s participation.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________
Date: Teachers name:
Duration of interview: 15mins (This is subject to change depending on the interviewee)
Semi-structured interview Questions
Questions
1. How long have you been teaching?
2. In your opinion what are the best
aspects of teaching?
3. What are some challenges in teaching?
4. How would you describe your quality of
teaching when you are happy?
5. How well do you know the subject you
teach and is this your preferred
teaching area?
6. Explain how confident you are teaching
(name subject)?
7. What was one of the most challenging
lesson you had and why?
8. What was one of the best lessons you
had and why?
9. What does teacher efficacy mean to
you and would you say you have high
or low teacher efficacy?
10. How do you think students are affected
by teacher efficacy?
11. What is your opinion on student
engagement and its link to teacher
efficacy?
*Subject to Change depending on interview
KLA(s):
Probes*
Silent probe: Nodding head
Elaborate probes: “Could you please tell me
more?” “Why is that?”
Elaborate probes: “Could you please tell me
more?” “Why is that?”
Clarification probes: interviewer to select a
word mentioned by interviewee and ask to
elaborate on it. E.g. “You mentioned the
students are more engaged, how do you
mean?”
Uh-huh probes: Encouraging the interviewee
by using probes such as “Uh-huh” and “yes I
see”.
Elaborate probes: “Could you please tell me
more?” “Why is that?”
Elaborate probes: How did you
manage/overcome this lesson?
Elaborate probes: What approaches did you
use?
Uh-huh probes: Encouraging the interviewee
by using probes such as “Uh-huh” and “yes I
see”.
Elaborate probes: “Why do you think that?”
Uh-huh probes: Encouraging the interviewee
by using probes such as “Uh-huh” and “yes I
see”.
 Part C: Data collection protocol explanation

The purpose of this study is to identify whether high teacher efficacy influences student
engagement. The data protocol, semi- structured interview is qualitative in nature and
suitable for this research topic. The notion behind this data collection protocol is to obtain
information through gathering “peoples life stories” (Jacob & Furgerson, 2012). Through this
form of data collection, it is possible to gain a better understanding of whether self- efficacy
plays a role in engaging students.

The responses yielded from the semi-structured interview are vital in understanding a
teachers’ perspective on self-efficacy and its effect on student engagement. The use of
semi-structured interviews for this form of research can assist substantially as the nature of
this method consist of open-ended questions that offer the interviewee space to share their
thoughts and uncover as much as they possibly can (Jacob & Furgerson, 2012 p.3). However,
while it can be difficult sometimes to get the interviewee to give as much information as
possible, the upside to semi-structured interviews and their open-ended questions allows
for a technique known as probing. A simple nod of the head or phrases such as “tell me
more” or “how do you mean” invites the interview to elaborate and again tell their story
(p.4). Furthermore, these promotes not only push for further discussion, but it allows the
interviewer to remain on track by acting as a reminder as to what question they are on, this
can also benefit the interviewer as new and unexpected data may emerge (p.4).

The focus of this semi-structured interview is to obtain as much information as possible

without having to make the interview process to long and daunting. It is essential to make
the questions as relevant as possible to the research topic and designing questions that are
not too long. The questions selected for this particular research are short and to the point,
they are designed to focus on teacher efficacy and how this relates to student engagement.
Nevertheless, as interviews are unpredictable often there might be “on the spot” revision
questions that may arise during the interview, these questions tend to be more of a follow
up and sometimes can be very beneficial, however it is also wise for the interviewer to
ensure that this does not lead down a “tangential path” (Jacob & Furgerson, 2012 p. 5).

Underpinning the use of qualitative data is the ability to gain an in-depth analysis of the
research topic whilst being in a natural setting attempting to comprehend or interpret
phenomena that the interviewee brings (Halcomb, 2015 p.6). This gives the interviewer an
insight of the interviewees world, therefore this form of data collection would be best
suited to the overarching topic of “Effective teaching and its impact on student
engagement” as well as the sub-topic.

The work presented in this literature review has not included any resources provided by
either students or teachers nor have either been approached to undertake a semi-
structured interview. However, in the instance that resources or participation is required
from either party, a consent form will be issued containing all the necessary information
required for ethical purposes.
 References
Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews: Tips
for Students New to the Field of Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 17(42), 1-10.
Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss42/3

Halcomb, E. (2016). Understanding the importance of collecting qualitative data creatively. Nurse
Researcher, 23(3), 6-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.7748/nr.23.3.6.s2