Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

Topic: How can teacher practices impact on student engagement?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-topic: How does teacher self-efficacy impact on student engagement?

Part A- Literature Review

Introduction:

This paper will discuss the topic ‘How does teacher self-efficacy impact on student

engagement?’ by reviewing literature of a broad and recent range of research on this subject.

Defining teacher self-efficacy and student engagement

An individual’s self-efficacy is “the beliefs in one’s capabilities to organise and execute

the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). A one’s

self-efficacy, which is helpful in predicting the expected outcomes of any activity that he/she

is engaged in, is informed by the assumption that people influence what they do by being self-

regulated, self-organised, self-reflecting and proactive (Bandura, 2006). Additionally, Bandura

(1997) notes that people with high self-efficacy choose to carry out more demanding tasks than

those with low self-efficacy because they do not see challenges as threats to avoid but

challenges to master. According to Bandura (1977), the development of one’s self-efficacy is

influenced by four sources: mastery experiences, social persuasion, vicarious experiences,

physiological states and social persuasion. Through mastery experiences, one can build a high

sense of self-efficacy. A person’s past experiences raise efficacy beliefs if they were successful

and in contrast, lower the confidence in the case of failures (Wang Tan, Li, Tan & Lim, 2016).

Vicarious experiences promote efficacy by enabling individuals to assess adequacy by

comparing themselves to others (Wang et al., 2016). This means that seeing others similar to

themselves succeeding in something raises the observers’ beliefs especially if the others shared

the same background or experiences. Stress, anxiety and relaxation are all physiological states

1
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

that influence one’s performance and therefore, the one’s self-efficacy beliefs are either

weakened or strengthened, depending on the state faced. Social persuasion denotes the concept

that people can be convinced to think they have the capability to succeed (Wang et al., 2016).

This tool depends mainly on the persuader, his/her expertise and credibility. From the above,

teachers’ beliefs and insights they have about their capabilities to teach students with various

needs define teacher self-efficacy (Ekstam, Korhonen, Linnanmaki & Aunio, 2017;

Holzberger, Philipp & Kunter, 2013). Teacher self-efficacy and student outcomes has

repeatedly been associated with each other in a substantial amount of research findings

(Bandura, 1997; Gibbs & Powell, 2012). It has been reported that teacher with high self-

efficacy provided the type of experiences needed for positive student outcomes (Holzberger et

al., 2013; Lee, Cawthon & Dawson, 2013; Rubie-Davies, Flint & McDonald, 2012) reflected

by student engagement (Temiz & Topcu, 2013).

Student engagement is a broad concept that has been linked to student achievement in

numerous studies (Pianta, Hamre & Allen, 2012) although there is a lack of agreement in the

literature to define it (Parsons, 2011). This review will be based on the framework proposed by

Fredericks, Blumenfeld and Paris (2004) and which considers three types of engagement:

cognitive, behavioural and emotional. Cognitive engagement refers to students being able to

understand the importance of their learning and setting their learning goals (Fredricks, et al.,

2004; Fredericks & McColskey, 2012; Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). It is the hardest type of

engagement to measure. Behavioural engagement refers to students participating in the

classroom and adhering to the rules (Fredricks, et al., 2004; Fredericks & McColskey, 2012).

This type of engagement is useful for the cognitive engagement to occur as it makes sure that

students are committed to learning. The last type, emotional engagement, refers to the

relationship between the students and their teachers, colleagues and the school in general (Finn

2
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

& Zimmer, 2012; Fredricks, et al., 2004; Fredericks & McColskey, 2012). Notably, the three

facets interconnect.

Benefits of high teacher self-efficacy

In their study, Ekstam et al. (2017) investigated the interrelationship between preservice

teachers’ subject knowledge, individual interest and efficacy in delivering mathematics.

Teacher self-efficacy in teaching mathematics was measured using three sub-domains:

instruction, adapt instruction to individual needs and motivate students (Ekstam et al., 2017,

p. 341). The findings indicated that individual interest played a vital role in the sub-categories

of teacher efficacy beliefs whereas subject knowledge had to be paired with personal interest

in order to have an influence on teacher efficacy in regards to motiving students. Ekstam et al.

(2017) also found that high teacher efficacy beliefs are beneficial for low-achieving students

as they allow for competency in engaging students, managing classrooms and integrating

instructional practices. Notably, their study was subject to bias as the participants who

participated, the preservice teachers, were only those who had spare time and taught

mathematics, and were supervised by the authors. Additionally, the sample comprising of 57

participants was too small and consequently, future research would give more complex

analysis.

Wang et al. (2016) investigated the impact of teachers’ self-efficacy on low-achieving

students in Singapore. They based their research on Bandura’s theory and work mentioned at

the beginning of the essay. Similar to Ekstam et al (2017), the researchers discovered that

teachers with high self-efficacy produced better results in assisting low-achieving students

because of their past experiences of dealing with these students. However, they found that the

four sources of Bandura were insufficient to create a high level of self-efficacy in teaching low-

achieving students and therefore, they integrated three additional non-psychological sources:

teachers’ relationship with students, teachers’ knowledge about students and teachers’ previous

3
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

experiences. The first limitation of this study is that it cannot be applicable in other contexts as

teacher efficacy is culturally sensitive (Cheung, 2008). The second limitation is the sources

identified by the authors were not examined to see how powerful in determining efficacy

beliefs they are compared to those of Bandura. Perhaps future research can explore the

interrelationship between the sources of Bandura and those of the authors to understand the

role of these new sources in developing efficacy beliefs.

Van Uden, Ritzen and Pieters (2014) discussed teachers’ motives to become teachers,

knowledge and self-efficacy’s impact on student engagement. The motives included the

intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing people to become teachers. The knowledge included

three domains: content knowledge, knowledge in delivering the content and the knowledge of

student development. Their results indicated that the motives and knowledge had a high impact

on student engagement whereas self-efficacy had an indirect relation with student engagement

as opposed to the Ekstam et al. (2017) and Wang et al.’s (2016) studies. This was similar to the

result that Martin, Sass and Schimitt (2012) found in their study conducted in the U.S. They

reported that teacher self-efficacy is an “indirect predictor” in engaging students (Martin et al.,

2012, p. 547). They explained the result by mentioning that teachers with high self-efficacy

have better instructional practices and support for learning and therefore, students attend their

classes and engage in the classroom. A limitation in Van et al.’s (2014) study is that the

participants were volunteers and this means that perhaps only those who were confident in

engaging students participated. Therefore, the outcomes may have been influenced since only

the best teachers participated.

Consequences of low teacher self-efficacy

Yazdi, Motallebzadeh and Ashraf (2014) pointed out that low self-efficacy contributes

to teacher burnout. Their study suggested various reasons for low self-efficacy: lack of

knowledge of the content, having troubles with the materials used to teach and difficulties with

4
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

delivering the content. This statement was also confirmed by Van Uden et a. (2014) who stated

that high self-efficacy contributes to teachers’ well-being. Martin et al. (2012) pointed out that

teachers whose sense of efficacy is low opted to use more controlling instruction strategies as

opposed with those with high self-efficacy who were more relaxed in the classroom and

demonstrated flexibility in designing the lesson and engaging students (Temiz & Topcu, 2013).

It is worth to note that in the study conducted by Martin et al. (2012), the data was collected at

one point in the academic year and perhaps the levels of stress and burnout of teachers vary

during the year.

Overall, it appears that self-efficacy is a salient psychological factor for understanding

teachers’ performance. This literature review presented some of the advantages of high teacher

self-efficacy while also covering the disadvantages of having low self-efficacy.

5
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

Part B- Data Collection Protocol

Teacher Consent Form

Dear Potential Participant,

I am working on a project titled ‘How can teacher practices impact on student engagement’,
from 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.

The aim of this research is to acquire a better understanding of the relationship between
teacher-efficacy and student engagement. I wish to examine whether student engagement
can be explained by specific teacher beliefs in the following survey. The survey itself
consists of 10 questions and should take no longer than 10 minutes.

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 complete all survey questions.
 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.

Name: ___________________________________

Signed: ___________________________________

Date: ___________________________________

6
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

Student Consent Form

Dear Potential Participant,

I am working on a project titled ‘How can teacher practices impact on student engagement’,
from 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.

The aim of this research is to acquire a better understanding of the relationship between
teacher-efficacy and student engagement. I wish to examine whether student engagement
can be explained by specific teacher beliefs in the following survey. The survey itself
consists of 10 questions and should take no longer than 10 minutes.

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 complete all survey questions.
 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 the legal guardian of a person who is 16 or 17

years old, and provide my consent for the person’s participation.

Name: ___________________________________

Signed: ___________________________________

Date: ___________________________________

7
 Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097
Teacher Survey

Please circle one number.

8
 Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097
Student Survey

During the current school year, how often have you done the following? Please check one circle only

Thank you!

9
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

Part C- Data Collection Protocol Explanation

The data collection protocol consists of two different surveys since teachers and

students are subject to different data collection processes. As a result, two consent forms have

been developed for each category of participant.

Explanation

The teachers’ survey was adapted from surveys created by Skaalvick and Skaalvick

(2007) and Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001), who based their instruments on Bandura’s

(1997) definition of self-efficacy, survey created for measuring self-efficacy and

recommendations for developing the instruments. The original instruments created by these

researchers included three-dimensions - instructional strategies, classroom management and

student engagement. Notably, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2001) instrument was used in the

studies of Ekstam et al. (2017), Martin et al. (2012), Temiz and Topcu (2013), Van Uden et al.

(2014), Wang et al. (2016), and Yazdi et al. (2014). Since the aim of this study is to measure

teacher self-efficacy on student engagement, only statements related to student engagement

were included. The response form used is a nine-point Likert scale which has been proven to

be satisfactory in various studies (Bandura, 2006; Bryman, 2012; Van Uden et al., 2014). A

score 1 means that “the teacher feels they cannot do anything at all regarding the content of the

items” and score 9 means that “the teacher feels they have excellent control over the topic of

the item” (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy 2001, p. 800). The statements were designed according

to the findings from the literature review and the items from the instruments of Skaalvick and

Skaalvick (2007), and Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001). The purpose of the statements is to

assess how much each teacher believes in his/her capacity to engage students and therefore,

the object in every statement is ‘you’. Additionally, each statement includes the auxiliary verb

‘can’ in order to assess the mastery experiences of each teacher (Bandura, 1997). Furthermore,

a barrier was integrated into each statement, such as ‘the most difficult students’ because “if

10
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

there are no obstacles to surmount, the activity is easy to perform, and everyone has uniformly

high perceived self-efficacy for it” (Bandura, 1977, p.42). Hence, it would be interesting to see

how teacher self-efficacy is impacting on student engagement in Australian schools.

The students’ survey was based on Fredericks et al.’s (2004) definition of student

engagement, discussed in the literature review. It was adapted from surveys created by

Appleton, Christenson, Kim and Reschly, (2006) and Archambault et al. (2009) used in Von

Uden et al.’s (2014) study. However, those questionnaires were created to measure engagement

at a school level and therefore, in this study, they were reformulated to connect student

engagement with a specific teacher since this study aims to link engagement to teacher self-

efficacy. Similar to teachers’ survey, a four-point Likert scale is used ranging from ‘never’ to

‘very often’. Behavioural engagement which assesses class attendance and compliance with

the classroom rules, emotional engagement, which assesses student enjoyment in the class and

their level of interest in doing the classwork, and cognitive engagement which assesses student

willingness to put effort and time in doing classwork, are assessed using three, four and three

items respectively.

The study will first start by choosing 5 random teachers from Australian public

secondary schools, from year 11 and year 12. Then 5 students from each class that is taught by

the specific teacher will be chosen randomly to complete the survey. The purpose of choosing

5 students from each class is to compare the answers of the students who are taught by the same

teacher.

Overall, this quantitative research will add to the group’s topic an understanding how

teacher self-efficacy and engagement are related.

11
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

References

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and

psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal

of School Psychology, 44(5), 427-445. Doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002

Archambault, I., Michel Janosz, M., Fallu, J., & Pagani, L. S. (2009). Student engagement and

its relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 32(3), 651-670.

Doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.007

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan

(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information

Age Publishing.

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. Doi:

10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001

Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Teacher efficacy: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghai

primary in-service teachers. Australian Educational Research, 35, 103–123. Doi:

10.1007/BF03216877

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. Doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.009

Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In

S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student

engagement (pp. 97-131). New York, NY: Springer.

12
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the

concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. Doi:

10.3102/00346543074001059

Fredericks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A

comparative analysis of various methods and student self‐report instruments. In S. L.

Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student

engagement (pp. 763-782). New York, NY: Springer.

Gibbs, S., & Powell, B. (2012). Teacher efficacy and pupil behavior: The structure of teachers'

individual and collective beliefs and their relationship with numbers of pupils excluded

from school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 564-584. Doi:

10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02046.x

Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of

Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79-91. Doi:10.1037/stl0000021

Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers' self-efficacy is related to

instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,

105(3), 774-786. Doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.009

Lee, B., Cawthon, S., & Dawson, K. (2013). Elementary and secondary teacher self-efficacy

for teaching and pedagogical conceptual change in a drama-based professional

development program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 84-89. Doi:

10.1016/j.tate.2012.10.010

Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (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. Doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.003

13
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and

engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom

interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of

research on student engagement (pp. 365-386). New York, NY: Springer.

Rubie-Davies, C. M., Flint, A., & McDonald, L. G. (2012). Teacher beliefs, teacher

characteristics, and school contextual factors: What are the relationships? British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 270-288. Doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.

2011.02025.x

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with

strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. (Report).

Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. Doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611

Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping,

and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.),

Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). New York, NY: Springer.

Temiz, T., & Topcu, M. S. (2013). Preservice teachers' teacher efficacy beliefs and

constructivist-based teaching practice. European Journal of Psychology of Education,

28(4), 1435-1452. Doi: 10.1007/s10212-013-0174-5

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.

Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 783–805.Doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

Van Uden, J. M., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. (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. Doi:

10.1016/j.tate.2013.08.005

14
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

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. Doi: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. Doi: :10.4304/jltr.5.5.1198-1204

15
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097

Scale – teacher 1 M Scale - students M

Self-efficacy 7.00 Behavioural 3.73
Cognitive 3.30
Emotional 3.46
Total 3.49

Scale – teacher 2 M Scale - students M

Self-efficacy 4.00 Behavioural 1.12
Cognitive 2.31
Emotional 1.15
Total 1.52

Scale – teacher 3 M Scale - students M

Self-efficacy 8.00 Behavioural 4.22
Cognitive 3.82
Emotional 4.15
Total 4.06

Scale – teacher 4 M Scale - students M

Self-efficacy 7.00 Behavioural 4.93
Cognitive 3.51
Emotional 3.95
Total 4.13

Scale – teacher 5 M Scale - students M

Self-efficacy 6.00 Behavioural 3.31
Cognitive 2.12
Emotional 1.16
Total 2.19

16