Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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-
(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
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).
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
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
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.
In their study, Ekstam et al. (2017) investigated the interrelationship between preservice
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.
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
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
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
teachers’ performance. This literature review presented some of the advantages of high teacher
5
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097
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.
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.
Name: ___________________________________
Signed: ___________________________________
Date: ___________________________________
6
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097
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.
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.
Name: ___________________________________
Signed: ___________________________________
Date: ___________________________________
7
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097
Teacher Survey
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
students are subject to different data collection processes. As a result, two consent forms have
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
recommendations for developing the instruments. The original instruments created by these
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
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
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
11
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097
References
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and
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
Age Publishing.
Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs as
10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001
Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Teacher efficacy: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghai
10.1007/BF03216877
Ekstam, U., Korhonen, J., Linnanmäki, K., & Aunio, P. (2017). Special education pre-service
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In
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
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
10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02046.x
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers' self-efficacy is related to
Lee, B., Cawthon, S., & Dawson, K. (2013). Elementary and secondary teacher self-efficacy
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-
13
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and
Rubie-Davies, C. M., Flint, A., & McDonald, L. G. (2012). Teacher beliefs, teacher
characteristics, and school contextual factors: What are the relationships? British
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).
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping,
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
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Van Uden, J. M., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. (2014). Engaging students: The role of teacher
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
Yazdi, M., Motallebzadeh, K., & Ashraf, H. (2014). The role of teacher's self-efficacy as a
15
Student ID: 18724211 Assignment 2 RTL2: 102097
16