This article was downloaded by: [Fondren Library, Rice University ]On: 13 November 2014, At: 16:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Africa Education ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raer20

Self-efficacy and the recognition ofprior learningNeville Rudman a & Paul Webb aa The Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University , Port Elizabeth,South AfricaPublished online: 15 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Neville Rudman & Paul Webb (2009) Self-efficacy and the recognition of priorlearning, Africa Education Review, 6:2, 283-294, DOI: 10.1080/18146620903274589

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18146620903274589

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

283

ISSN 1814-6627 (print) 1753-5921 (online) Africa Education Review 6 (2)DOI 10.1080/18146620903274589 © University of South Africa Press pp 283–294

Self-effi cacy and the recognition of prior learning

Neville Rudman The Nelson Mandela Metropolitan UniversityPort Elizabeth, South Africaneville.rudman@nmmu.ac.za

Paul WebbThe Nelson Mandela Metropolitan UniversityPort Elizabeth, South Africa

ABSTRACTRecognition of prior learning (RPL) is a relatively new concept in South Africa, which has been introduced as a mechanism grounded in the educational transformational policies of the African National Congress (ANC) to redress the historical legacy of apartheid. This paper attempts to determine the impact of the RPL outcomes of a module on the self-effi -cacy of in-service educators involved in a BEd (upgrade) programme. The methodology included the gathering of quantitative and qualitative data through the administering of pre- and post-intervention self-effi cacy questionnaires and focus-group interviews. Other foci were the biographical background of the students and the portfolios of evidence they produced during the course of the module. The data generated reveal a statistically signifi cant improvement in the participating students’ self-effi cacy over the course of the module, but draw attention to the negative impact of context in previously disadvantaged South African schools. The signifi cance of this research lies not only in the interrogation of an innovative approach to dealing with RPL issues in an academic programme, as well as its possible infl uence on teacher self-effi cacy, but also in its contribution to the academic debate about the RPL process currently taking place both locally and internationally.

Keywords: recognition of prior learning, self-effi cacy, lesson plans, work schedules, context

IntroductionRecognition of prior learning (RPL) is generally seen as having its roots in the United States of America during the 1970s, when the shift towards adult education gained prominence (Evans 2000). Some researchers, however, place the origin even earlier,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 16:

27 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Neville Rudman and Paul Webb

284

linking the emergence of RPL to the return of US veterans who wanted universities to recognise their skills after World War II (Harris 2006). RPL is currently practiced in many countries all over the world, such as the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Canada, Sweden, South Africa and Scandinavia (Harris 2006), and is generally linked to the context in which it evolved. Michelson (2007, 142) refers to the “differing historical moments” at which RPL emerged in different countries. In South Africa, she sees it as a mechanism to overcome the huge wage and education gaps created by apartheid; and in New Zealand, the focus was on backlogs in Aboriginal education. The focus was clearly to deal with a societal situation, which required some form of correctional action or fast-tracking to give people who would otherwise not have access to institutions of learning the opportunity to study and attain quali cations.

In South Africa, the concept of RPL is grounded in the educational transformational policies of the governing ANC, because “teacher education for Black South Africans under the apartheid system was fragmented, unequal and of questionable quality” (Hendriks, Ralphs, Tisani & Volbrecht 2005, 2). In a position paper drafted by a government-appointed study team in preparation for the proposed South African Universities Vice-Chancellors’ Association (SAUVCA) conference, RPL is presented as redressing historic inequalities through the formal recognition of existing skills and knowledge of workers and adult learners (SAUVCA 2002). The document states that the SAQA Act of 1995 established the objectives and legal framework within which RPL was to become an integral feature of the design of all standards and quali cations registered by that authority (SAUVCA 2002). The National Quali cations Framework de nes RPL as “… the comparison of the previous learning of a learner howsoever obtained against the learning outcomes required for a speci ed quali cation, and the acceptance for purposes of quali cation of that which meets the requirements” (SAQA 2002, 7).

Regarding the concept of teacher self-ef cacy, research has shown that teachers’ beliefs in their personal ef cacy have a clear impact on their teaching practice and the manner in which they relate to the education process (Pajares 1997). Albert Bandura developed a theoretical foundation of self-ef cacy, which is rooted in social-cognitive theory. According to Bandura (1994), self-ef cacy can be de ned as a person’s belief about their ability to produce the levels of performance required to positively in uence events that affect their lives. Support for Bandura’s work on self-ef cacy, among others, comes from the nding of Graham and Weiner (1996, 75): “What cannot be disputed is Bandura’s argument that self-ef cacy has been a much more consistent predictor of behaviour and behaviour change than any of the other closely related expectancy variables.”

In the PSPL201 module (a module that is offered as part of a BEd (upgrade) programme), the RPL component provides the student (in-service educator) with an opportunity to demonstrate his/her ability to draft work schedules and lesson plans, based on his/her prior experience. The underlying premise of this study is that the process adopted in the PSPL201 module is transformative in nature and provides a positive learning experience for the participants.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 16:

27 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Self-effi cacy and the recognition of prior learning

285

This study is an attempt to investigate whether the module in question has any effect on the students’ self-ef cacy and, if so, which factors contribute to this change in ef cacy.

BackgroundThe Faculty of Education of the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU) offers the module PSPL201 as part of the BEd (upgrade) programme to in-service educators. The module outcome of PSPL201 is: “The production of a portfolio of evidence that will convince the assessor that the student is able to plan Work Schedules and design and implement Lesson Plans” (Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 2006, 1). This RPL module utilises a variety of approaches. Firstly, the student is required to produce evidence – working from his/her prior knowledge and classroom experience – in the form of a work schedule and a lesson plan, which are handed in and assessed against a rubric. The student is then engaged in contact sessions focusing on feedback of the initial task and guidance in best practice. Based on the feedback, the student is required to repeat the task, employing the new knowledge gained. This new knowledge must be discussed with a peer assessor before the lesson is taught. A self-assessment rubric is provided. A second lesson is planned and taught in the presence of a peer assessor. A peer-assessment rubric is provided. All the data is collated in a portfolio, which has to be submitted for assessment. A rubric is provided as pre-reading for the assessment of the portfolio so that the student has a clear understanding of the outcomes required. The student is also provided with guidelines on RPL, developing learning programmes and developing quality lesson plans.

Generally, the student body consists of rural, black educators who, because of the (often deeply) rural environment in which most of them nd themselves, are usually exposed to poor training and operate in a challenging teaching environment.

The total number of students involved in the programme was initially 188. In the table below, a summary is provided of the distribution of the students throughout the different NMMU on- and off-campus sites. In the headings of the table, the “No. students” refers to the total number of students in each centre; the “Self-ef cacy pre-test” indicates the number of students who completed the initial self-ef cacy questionnaire, while “Self-ef cacy post-test” is the number who completed the (second) measurement of their self-ef cacy after the intervention. “Biographical” refers to the number of students who completed the biographical details questionnaire, while “Permission” indicates the number of students who gave permission for their work to be used in this study.D

ownl

oade

d by

[Fo

ndre

n L

ibra

ry, R

ice

Uni

vers

ity ]

at 1

6:27

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Neville Rudman and Paul Webb

286

Table 1: Number of students at the different centres who participated in the module, wrote the pre- and post-tests, fi lled in the biographical questionnaire, and gave permission for their data to be used in the research study

Centre No. students Self-effi cacy pre-test post-test

Biographical Permission

Ngcobo 17 17 17 17 17

Durban 35 28 14 27 27

King 22 19 20 20 20

Lusikisiki 20 19 19 17 19

Mthatha 27 22 26 22 21

Port Elizabeth 37 27 15 20 21

Queenstown 6 5 4 5 5

Kokstad 15 15 14 15 15

George 9 9 5 7 7

Total 188 161 134 150 152

It is clear that not all students in the programme, to whom we refer as the “population” of this study (Bless, Higson-Smith & Kagee 2006; Jain 1998), participated in all aspects. There were various reasons for this: students were absent when data were collected, some dropped out after the initial self-ef cacy measurement was taken and some only joined the class after the initial measurement was conducted. Some students also provided incorrect student numbers, which invalidated their responses. It should be noted that although some students chose not to be a part of this study and were not included, “it is possible to reach accurate conclusions by examining only a portion of the total group” (Bless et al. 2006, 97).

MethodologyAs a starting point, the science teacher ef cacy belief instrument (STEBI), designed by Riggs and Enoch (1990), was adapted for the purposes of this study and administered to the students during the rst contact session of the module. The purpose of this was to measure the various levels of self-ef cacy of the educators involved in the study prior to their exposure to the content of the module and the (intervention) processes that form part of the RPL component of this module. A follow-up assessment was done, and the instrument was again administered, after the completion of the module. Results from these two measurements would give an indication of whether the process (of generating work schedules and lesson plans based on teaching practice and learning in a structured and supportive environment) has had a positive impact on the teachers’ self-ef cacy.

A secondary line of investigation is related to the possible role played by the contextual factors that may in uence levels of self-ef cacy. A questionnaire was administered to generate biographical data on each of the students. Factors such as gender, age, educational environment and experience were included.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 16:

27 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Self-effi cacy and the recognition of prior learning

287

In order to collect further quantitative and qualitative data, a sample of the portfolios containing the work schedules and lesson plans developed by the students was collected and assessed in order to give an indication of the teachers’ abilities and how they relate to their self-ef cacy, as indicated by their scores on the STEBI self-ef cacy scale. Qualitative data were generated via their written responses regarding their experiences of the module. If their self-ef cacy measurement is an indication of their level of functioning, as suggested by Pajares (1997), then it may be expected that there would be a correlation between the quality of the work schedules and lesson plans and their STEBI scores. However, if this is not the case, it would lend support to Ernest (1989) and Lerman’s (2002) stance that there is not always a correlation between the beliefs teachers verbalise and their practice in the classroom.

Finally, a number of interviews were conducted with students. We chose the focus group approach. In this approach, a group of students is gathered and a group discussion is held. In order to facilitate the process, we drafted an interview schedule, listing the questions we wished to ask. We chose not to ask a list of questions, but rather to engage the group in a conversation, (albeit a conversation guided by a set of predetermined questions), ensuring that all the required areas were covered. It was important for us to ensure that the group was relaxed and that they had bought into both our integrity and the need for honest, accurate responses – hence the opening indication that there were no correct or incorrect responses, but that we needed to record their feelings, opinions and comments.

ResultsStatistica version 7.1 was used for data processing and statistical analysis. Firstly, exploratory factor analysis was used to identify the factors of the questionnaire items that formed a cluster; the internal reliability of these factors was calculated using Cronbach Alpha (μ) coef cients. Both numerical and descriptive statistics were used to illustrate results of the individual items and the identi ed factors. The Statistica general linear model routine was used, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) and covariance (ANCOVA) procedures was used for inferential tests. ANOVA was used to identify the relationships between the dependant variable and a set of qualitative independent variables, whilst ANCOVA was used to identify the relationships between the dependent variable and sets of quantitative independent variables.

The data subjected to factor analysis revealed that items 5, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 16 did not cluster. It is interesting to note that these items all deal with the same content, namely the learners’ ability to achieve (or the educators’ beliefs about their ability to in uence their learners’ achievement levels), and it is possible that the respondents (educators) were struggling with issues concerning their locus of control (Rotter 1966; 1954).

The remaining items clustered into three groupings: items 1–4, which focus on the educator’s perception of his/her own ability to develop work schedules and lesson plans; items 6, 12 and 15, which focus on the educator’s perception of his/her ability to plan and execute lesson plans and deal with learner responses; and items 7, 9 and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 16:

27 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Neville Rudman and Paul Webb

288

11, which focus on the teachers’ perception of the learners’ performance in relation to effective planning of work schedules and lesson plans. The data generated within these clusters were subjected to t-tests and analysis of variance and covariance (ANOVA and ANCOVA) in order to provide inferential statistics.

Table 2: The mean pre- and post-test scores for the clustered items (questions) on the fi ve-point self-effi cacy questionnaire

Clustered items (questions) Mean scoresPre-test Post-test

n

Development-related items (1–4) 3.56 4.15 123

Execution-related items (6, 12 and 15) 4.03 4.29 123

Learner-performance items (7, 9 and 11) 3.98 4.13 123

This table reveals an increase in self-ef cacy in all three of the clustered items, and inspection of all individual questions making up the clustered items followed the same pattern. It should also be noted that these items were not deliberately clustered by the researchers, but that they clustered as a statistical consequence of the data analysis.

Further quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the portfolios of evidence the students produced for the module PSPL201. We scanned a sample of portfolios selected from three centres (Durban, Kokstad and Lusikisiki) in order to cover the range of socio-geographic settings in which the respondents were located, namely urban (Durban), semi-urban or country town (Kokstad) and rural (Lusikisiki). We selected 12 sets of complete data from each centre for comparison (there were only 12 full sets from the Kokstad region, so this set the upper limit of the sample).

We focused, rstly, on the following quantitative aspects of the 36 selected participants from the three centres:

• scores of the self-assessment and peer assessment of the two lessons • scores of the self-assessment and the tutor assessment of the nal portfolio presented

by the students

Table 3: The number of portfolios used for research purposes, as well as the means and medians of the data gained from them

Lesson planMean Median (n)

PortfolioMean Median (n)

Self-assessment 84.9% 83% (33) 70.3% 73% (32)Peer assessment 75.3% 89% (36) 60.4% 64% (36)

The mean and median of the self-assessment scores are also noticeably higher than the assessment scores by both the peers (for the second lesson) and the tutors’ assessments (for the portfolio).

If one views the average marks obtained at each of the centres for the different assessments

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 16:

27 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Self-effi cacy and the recognition of prior learning

289

done, it is of interest to note that the students at the urban centre, Durban, scored noticeably higher in both the self-assessed and the peer-assessed lesson presentations than their colleagues at the other two (semi-urban and rural) centres. However, the average scores obtained in the portfolio assessment indicate very similar scores in the self-assessments and, in fact, the rural centre (Lusikisiki) scored noticeably higher than the other two centres in the tutor-assessed result.

Qualitative data was gleaned from the written comments by the students in terms of their lesson evaluation ( rst lesson), and by their peers, when evaluating the second lesson. The student and his/her peer assessor were also required to make qualitative (written) assessments as they re ected on the lessons presented. These data give additional insight into the developmental process of the student as a teacher, as well as his/her self-ef cacy perception. In an attempt to group the various responses, we created the following categories of responses for the self-assessment section, as they became evident after reading all of the written comments, i.e., on lesson 1:

• Students feel they need more help and missed some criteria.• Contextual factors interfere with successful lesson delivery. • Students feel positive about their efforts.

A variety of responses was interpreted to mean that the students felt that they still required further assistance. Students who intimated a certain degree of insecurity gave a variety of responses: Some indicated that they still need to be assisted in lesson planning, while others had dif culty in distinguishing between a work schedule and a lesson plan.

Students referred to numerous contextual factors that are indicative of the dif cult world in which they operate. Many students referred to issues of understaf ng and classes that are too big. Some students also claimed that multi-level classes (numerous grades in one class) hindered their performance, while others were teaching outside the grade level they normally teach. Language was recognised as a problem for some, while it was clear that (the lack of) equipment presented a problem on two levels, namely what the school could (not) provide and what the learners could (not) bring to class.

There were many who responded with satisfaction to their experience, while some focused on the enjoyment experienced by the learners, the interest they showed and the results they achieved.

In terms of the peer assessment, we created the following categories for the various written responses after reading and re ecting upon the responses:

• Students need assistance in some areas.• Students produce excellent lessons. • Contextual factors have a negative impact on the lesson.

It is signi cant to note the apparent progress made by the students from the initial re ective comments on lesson 1 to the subsequent comments made by the peer assessors with regard to lesson 2. While 44.7% of the students felt positive about their presentation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 16:

27 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Neville Rudman and Paul Webb

290

of the rst lesson, 89.7% of the peer assessors believed that the second lesson attempt was successful. Similarly, 39.5% of the students acknowledged “problems” in their lesson presentation, but only 7.6% of the peer assessors indicated problems in this regard. Finally, 50% of the students cited contextual problems in their re ection on the rst lesson presentation, while this factor was referred to by only 15.4% of the peer assessors for lesson 2. This shift is also clearly re ected in the quantitative data (results) presented earlier in this regard.

Comments made by peer assessors in this section clearly mirrored the comments of the students. Understaf ng and overcrowding are indicated, while reference is also made to the lack of equipment, the language issue and the arti cially created situations in which the lessons were presented.

In order to further develop our understanding of the data analysis above, we conducted interviews with three students from each of the focus centres, namely Durban, Kokstad and Lusikisiki.

The sample of student interviewees was based on three from each centre, who had shown a signi cant improvement, or a deterioration, in their self-ef cacy levels, as well as some students who showed minimal, or no change, in their self-ef cacy development during the period of the intervention. This may be referred to as “convenience sampling” (Cohen & Manion 1994).

In terms of the development items (planning of work schedules and lesson plans) prior to the intervention, the students reported that they were unsure and even sceptical of this “new approach”. Furthermore, it was interesting to note that the students generally attributed a signi cant improvement in this regard to the intervention of module PSPL201.

In terms of the execution of the work schedules and lesson plans before intervention, a similar picture emerged from the interviews, as the students reported a marked improvement in their ability to deliver the planned work schedules and lesson plans after the intervention.

With regard to having an in uence on the learners, there was also a generally more positive feeling post-intervention. Students referred to the variety of assessment strategies that they had learnt about (during the intervention), which had ensured that the learners were more involved in their learning.

In terms of contextual issues, the same issues that were raised in the written responses of the portfolios surfaced again here: the number of learners per class, inadequate classroom facilities, language issues, a shortage of apparatus and the poor roll-out of the NCS by the provincial education department featured prominently.

During the course of the research, a number of issues arose from the results:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 16:

27 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Self-effi cacy and the recognition of prior learning

291

• The students’ self-ef cacy generally improved as a result of the intervention of the module PSPL201.

• The increase in ef cacy differed with regard to the three clusters of items, with the development cluster generally showing a greater increase than the execution cluster, and the learner performance cluster showing the smallest increase.

• There were a number of issues regarding locus of control that came to the fore. • The context in which the students operate as teachers had a signi cant impact on the

levels of self-ef cacy achieved by the students.

DiscussionThe question posed at the start of this research report asked if the process of generating evidence by teachers for the RPL in the module PSPL201 can effect a change in their sense of self-ef cacy. Firstly, the statistical analysis of the ef cacy questionnaires indicated three well-de ned sets of items, which clustered as follows: the teachers’ ability to develop work schedules and lesson plans; their ability to execute work schedules and lesson plans; and learner performance.

Secondly, while the analysis showed that there were three sets of items that clustered, there were also a number of items (six, in total) that did not cluster, i.e., showed no commonality across the various responses. The signi cance of this became apparent as the research unfolded, because these items all focus on the teachers’ perceptions of their ability to have an impact on the learners in their classes. The analysis indicated (where similar items – learner performance – did cluster) that this is, in fact, the area where educators showed the lowest level of ef cacy increase. This nding correlated well with the quantitative analysis of the portfolio results (n = 36) and the qualitative responses made by a small sample of educators (n = 9) during the interviews that were conducted. In each of these avenues of research, this factor – having an impact on the learners in their classes – was indicated as the most problematic for the teachers. Generally, contextual issues were cited as the main reason for poor learner performance.

This trend links with Rotter’s (1966) notion that locus of control is either internal or external. Given the context in which these teachers operate, we believe that external factors play such a big role that the majority of these educators’ sense of self-ef cacy regarding learner performance is externally driven – hence the relatively poor performance for the learner-performance cluster, when compared with the other two clusters.

The results further show that, from the pre- to the post-test, there was a general increase in ef cacy in the mean scores for all three clusters. This would indicate that the intervention strategy of the PSPL201 module generally had a statistically signi cant, positive effect on the students’ sense of self-ef cacy. It is interesting to note that the increase in ef cacy was most pronounced (0.59, which represents a 12% increase on the ve-point Likert scale) in the development-related clusters, while the learner-performance cluster showed the smallest increase, 0.15, which is a 3% increase. The execution-related cluster improved by 0.26 (5%). These increases correspond very closely with the results generated for the portfolios produced by the smaller group of students selected from the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 16:

27 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Neville Rudman and Paul Webb

292

three off-campus centres, namely Durban, Kokstad and Lusikisiki, while these two sets of quantitative and qualitative data triangulate very well with the qualitative comments made by the students during the focus-group interviews, as they re ected a stronger sense of ef cacy-increase for the development and execution-related items, while they had a much more subdued response to the learner-performance items.

Finally, another interesting factor to emerge from the analysis of centre-speci c ef cacy results (n = 36) is the distribution of increased, decreased and unchanged ef cacy scores. It is clearly demonstrated that the greatest number of increases (29 students) occurred in the development cluster, followed by 20 students who increased in the execution cluster. The lowest increase (11) was recorded for the learner performance. Conversely, the highest number of students (15) recorded a decrease in ef cacy in terms of the learner-performance cluster. This information ts the pattern that emerged in both the written responses in the portfolios as well as in the focus-group interviews.

The written responses by the students in their portfolios are consistent with the results indicated by the shift in ef cacy scores in that they record the feelings of insecurity experienced by many of the students at the start of the module intervention. Many expressed concerns about their inability to plan the time frames of the lessons effectively, and also struggled to come to grips with the concept (or layout) of work schedules and lesson plans. These comments also echo the verbal input we received from the focus-group interviews.

Similarly, contextual factors are a common thread throughout this research. The interesting aspect, however, is that despite the increased ef cacy generally attained by the students in the three clustered sets of items, this factor continued to be cited, even by those who had shown an increase in their ef cacy levels.

Researchers (Guskey & Passaro 1993; Rotter 1966) have noted the effect of internal versus external sources of ef cacy on an individual’s ability to take responsibility for his or her actions. Teachers with high ef cacy levels will assume responsibility for poor learner performance, while those with low ef cacy levels will attribute failure to external factors. While this may be true under ‘normal’ circumstances, we believe that context plays such a central role in the lives of most of these teachers that it impacts on both groups. In this regard, the ndings of Henson (2001), namely that teacher ef cacy is a joint, simultaneous function of a teacher’s analysis of the teaching task, support our belief. Teachers consider a variety of issues, including context, in the determination of their response. Similarly, Housego (1992) and Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) reported general changes in teacher ef cacy attributable to a growing pessimism about the overpowering negative constraints that can hamper a teacher’s efforts.

Therefore, the abiding sense that we gained from this study is that, despite the impact of the intervention (PSPL201) on the lives of the students, the context in which they operate will always have a negative impact on their ef cacy levels. Class size, language problems, teaching multi-level classes and lack of equipment and facilities all add up to a context that militates against effective delivery in the classroom.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 16:

27 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Self-effi cacy and the recognition of prior learning

293

As such, we believe that context will have a negative effect over time on the (increased) ef cacy levels of these students, and probably will reduce their improved levels of teaching and sense of self-ef cacy, and also that they will become disempowered to the extent that they re ect the feelings so eloquently expressed in the poem Last lesson of the day by D.H. Lawrence: “What good is this teaching of mine and this learning of theirs? It all goes down the same abyss! … I shall sit and wait for the bell” (De Sola Pinto & Roberts 1972, 74).

However, in a more positive vein, it is clear that the module PSPL201 does provide an opportunity for teachers to review and re-contextualise their prior learning with regard to new methodologies in terms of work schedules and lesson plans proscribed by the national curriculum statement. Also, analysis of the changes from pre- to post-test suggests that the students were able to master (to a greater or lesser extent) new terminology and that they perceived a signi cant improvement in their teaching practice. Their varying levels of successes were achieved, despite the context in which they teach. Possibly, then, these students have not relinquished their locus of control and have become co-participants (with their learners) in their effort to achieve the expected learning outcomes against the odds; and, perhaps, through this, their self-ef cacy gains will be sustained.

ReferencesBandura, A. 1994. Self-ef cacy, in Encyclopedia of human behaviour, ed. V.S.

Ramachaudran. New York: Academic Press.Bless, C., Higson-Smith, C. & Kagee, A. 2006 Fundamentals of social research methods

– an African perspective. Cape Town: Juta & Co.Cohen, L. & Manion, L. 1994. Research methods in education. 4th edition. London:

Routledge.Cunningham, C.F. & Blakenship, J.W. 1979. Preservice elementary teachers’ self

concerns. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 16: 419–425.De Sola Pinto, V. & Roberts, W. 1972. The complete poems of D.H.Lawrence, vol. 1.

London: Cox & Wyman.Ernest, P. 1989. The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics, in Mathematics

teaching: the state of the art, ed. P. Ernest. London: Falmer Press.Evans, N. 2000. Experiential learning around the world: employability and the global

economy. Higher Education Policy Series 52: 419-425. Graham, S. & Weiner, B. 1996. Theories and principles of motivation, in Handbook of

educational psychology, ed. D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan: 63–84.

Guskey, T.R. & Pasaro, P. 1993. Teacher ef cacy: a study of construct dimensions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia, April.

Harris, J. 2006. Introduction and overview of chapters, in Re-theorising the recognition of prior learning, ed. P. Anderson & J. Harris. Warwickshire: Ashford Colour Press: 1–29.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 16:

27 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Neville Rudman and Paul Webb

294

Hendricks, N., Ralphs, A., Tisani, T. & Volbrecht, T. 2005. NPDE RPL research project: brie ng paper for discussion with the CEO ETDP SETA.

Henson, R.K. 2001. Teacher self-ef cacy: substantive implications and measurement dilemmas. Keynote address at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Exchange. University of North Texas.

Hone, E. 1970. Science scarecrows. School Science and Mathematics 70: 322–326.Housego, B. 1992. Monitoring student teachers’ feelings of preparedness to teach

and teacher ef cacy in a new elementary teacher education program. Journal of Education for Teaching 18(3): 259–272.

Hoy, A.W. 2004. What do teachers need to know about self-ef cacy? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, Calif., 15 April.

Hoy, W.K. & Woolfolk, A.E. 1990. Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal 27: 279–300.

Jain, G.L. 1998. Research methodology – methods, tools & techniques. Jaipur, India: Mangal Deep Publications.

Lerman, S. 2002. Situating research on mathematics teachers’ beliefs and on change, in Beliefs: a hidden variable in mathematics education?, ed. G. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Törner. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 233–243.

Mechling, D.R., Stedman, C. & Donneley, J. 1982. How much elementary science is really being taught? Science and Children 19: 40–41.

Michelson, E. 2006. Beyond Galileo’s telescope: situated knowledge and the recognition of prior learning, in Re-theorising the recognition of prior learning, ed. P. Anderson & J. Harris. Warwickshire: Ashford Colour Press: 141–162.

Pajares, F. 1997. Current directions in self-ef cacy research, in Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 10, ed. M.L. Maer & P.R. Pintrich. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press: 1–49.

Riggs, I. & Enoch, L. 1990. Towards the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching ef cacy belief instrument. Science Education 74: 625–637.

Rotter, J.B. 1966. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 74: 243–50.

Rotter, J.B. 1954. Locus of control. Available at url: http://wilderdom.com/personality/LocusOfControl.html (accessed on 22 August 2006).

Science, Mathematics and Technology Education (SMATE). 2006. Study guide: Recognition of Prior Learning in Science and Mathematics PSPL201. Port Elizabeth: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Faculty of Education.

South African Quali cations Authority (SAQA). 2002. The development, implementation and quality assurance of RPL systems, programmes and services by ETQA’s, assessors and providers. Draft policy discussion document. Pretoria: Department of Education.

South African Universities Vice-Chancellors’ Association (SAUVCA). 2002. Study team on the implementation of the National Quali cations Framework, recognition of prior learning – draft 3, April. Pretoria.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Fond

ren

Lib

rary

, Ric

e U

nive

rsity

] a

t 16:

27 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014