THE EFFECT OF SELF-EFFICACY CHANGES IN EFL STUDENT ......classroom performance and in turn boost students' perception and learning. Data were collected through Bandura's teachers

WCIK E-JOURNAL OF INTEGRATION KNOWLEDGE 2013 (E-ISSN: 2289-5973)

http://worldconferences.net 12

THE EFFECT OF SELF-EFFICACY CHANGES IN EFL STUDENT TEACHERS ON THE STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS TOWARD THEIR PERSONAL

VARIABLES

Hajar Khanmohammad Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Iran

[email protected]

Arman Eilaghi Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Iran

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

People's beliefs about their efficacy can be extremely affected by experience and environment. Self-efficacy is thoroughly respected as one of the most powerful internal sources of human capabilities. Social cognitive theory sees self-efficacy beliefs as mediators of the choices people make and the courses of action they pursue. In this study, it was attempted to empirically determine the theoretically shown bidirectional effects of high and low levels of self-efficacy of student teachers on the perceptions of junior high school students. The level of their self-efficacy, therefore, manipulated by reflective practices during a four-month course. A total of 114 student teachers, 26 males and 88 females who majored in TEFL at Teacher Training University, Sananadaj Branch in northwestern Iran, were randomly chosen as the participants of this study. Of this sample, 64 were in the experimental group and 50 in the control group. A mixed-method research design was used to not only assess an in-depth quantitative knowledge about the participants' beliefs about their capabilities, but create a qualitative change in their points of view. This change in perspective was supposed to affect their classroom performance and in turn boost students' perception and learning. Data were collected through Bandura's teachers' and students' self-efficacy scales and by analyzing the student teachers' discussions in every other week focus groups. This study also tries to empirically answer that whether student teacher's self-efficacy improvement have any effect on the students' perception of teacher's capabilities and whether this teacher's feature helps them with their learning. The findings demonstrated that in question students' perceptions, due to the developmental changes in their student teacher's sense of efficacy, evidenced a hysterically conspicuous difference in statistics of 11.3% in their pretest and posttest perceptions toward their teachers' capabilities. Field of Research: Student teacher, self-efficacy changes, student perception, Student

Teacher's Capabilities

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction

Self-efficacy, due to its highly stimulated nature of social activities and participation, basically falls under the heading of the framework of Social Cognitive Theory which has been fuelled severely by the Canadian Psychologist, Albert Bandura. His works served as a linking bridge between behaviorists' assumption of learning and cognitivists' mental processing of information.

Bandura defines self-efficacy as “an individual's own expectations and judgments related to his/her capabilities to manage prospective situations” (1993). In fact, he believes that how people behave

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



can be better predicted by the beliefs they hold about their potential capabilities, what he called 'self-efficacy beliefs', than by what they are actually capable of doing, because these self-perceptions are of great help for crystalizing what individuals do with/without the knowledge and skills they have (1997).

This focus on students' self-beliefs as a principle component of academic motivation is grounded on the assumption that the beliefs that students create, develop, and hold to be true about themselves are vital forces in their success or failure in school. (Pajares, 2003, p. 140)

This creation and change of self-efficacy hugely relies on the practices and contexts that each individual experiences. Bandura (1997) also gives a theoretical definition for self-efficacy that accounts for most other definitions throughout the literature:

Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments. Such beliefs influence the course of action people choose to pursue, how much effort they put forth in given endeavors, how long they will persevere in the face of obstacles and failures, their resilience to adversity, whether their thought patterns are self-hindering or self-aiding, how much stress and depression they experience in coping with taxing environmental demands, and the level of accomplishments they realize. (p. 3)

He proposed that these beliefs play the role of determinants of how individuals think, behave, and feel in a specific context (Bandura, 1994).

Among the types of thoughts that affect action, none is more central or pervasive than people's judgments of their capabilities to exercise control over events that affect their lives. The self-efficacy mechanism plays a central role in human agency. (Bandura, 1989a, p. 59)

People with high self-efficacy see obstacles as opportunities rather than threats, to motivate and challenge themselves, and guide their actions by visualizing success (Bandura, 1997). Similarly, O'Donnell, Reeve, and Smith (2009) emphasize that individuals with higher self-efficacy perception have stronger self-esteem to cope with encountered situations and also those with low self-efficacy may find themselves unable to manage the situation or take any appropriate educational decision (as cited in Nihal & Altun, 2011). Although self-efficacy should not be confused with self-esteem or self-concept since it is a task-specific evaluation, whereas self-esteem and self-concept reflect more general affective evaluations of the self (Fisher, 2010). In accordance with this notion, Nihal and Altun (2011) add that it is self-efficacy that controls the individuals' tendency to spend a specific amount of time and energy in facing a repulsive task or challenging situation. People are more likely to attempt to control the circumstances that affect their lives if they believe that control is possible (Bandura, 1997).

We have known for some time that teachers' sense of efficacy is positively related to their students' achievement, motivation and self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Zimmerman, 2011). Moreover, "teachers with a strong sense of efficacy are open to new ideas and more willing to experiment with new methods to better meet the needs of their students" (Tschannen-Moran et al., p. 223).

Some decades have passed since Bandura (1977) first introduced the construct of self-efficacy with publishing "Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change" while he refuted the traditional learning theory for understanding learning only via behaviors. In Social Cognitive Theory, three variables are considered as its constituents (Pajares, 2002, para. 2):



HUMAN

BEHAVIOR

behavioral factors

environmental factors (extrinsic)

personal factors (intrinsic)

These three variables are normally intertwined with each other and this interaction results in learning happening within learners. In addition, this theory claims that new experiences are to be evaluated by the learners by means of analyzing their past experiences based on the three abovementioned factors. Thus, learning is a result of a holistic reflection/evaluation of the present experiences versus those of the past. The interactions among three variables of Social Cognitive Theory are presented in the following picture:

Bandura later divided self-efficacy to be practiced into two general categories: Personal (Individual) Efficacy and Collective Efficacy (1994). He writes that collective systems such as classrooms, teams of teachers, schools, and school districts develop a sense of collective efficacy. Pajares (2002) adds that “there is also evidence to suggest that the collective efficacy of teachers is related to personal teaching efficacy and satisfaction with the school administration” (p. 36). Modern study of self-efficacy has got indispensable impact on contemporary collective and individual psychological research and related fields of study, mostly educational, sociological, medical, occupational, and even to some extent political sciences. In the present study, Yavuz's (2010) taxonomy of self-efficacy with three dimensions was used for its clearly cutout sketch; Classroom Management (CM), effective use of Instructional Strategies (IS), and capabilities of teacher for Student Engagement (SE).

2. Statement of the problem

In spite of worldwide changes in teaching and drawing it into a more thoughtful and effective practice for teachers as well as students, the act of self-reflection and the construct of self-efficacy still remain some matters of course books and articles for a quite great number of student teachers. While there have been so many reflection investigations in the contemporary studies, the territory of teacher's own development, generally known as “self-efficacy” after Bandura's (1977) work needs more empirical exploration (e.g., Cook et al., 2001; Egel, 2009). It would be even more demeaning if it was practiced in the real classrooms where reflection activities might have a dim realization. Unfortunately, many studies that have been done for adult educators' use are mainly concerned with increasing the understanding of the concept of the reflective practitioner in professional groups

Figure 1.1: Model Illustrating Relations between Social Cognitive Theory Determinants

(Pajares, 2005, p. 341)

PERSONAL FACTORS

(Cognitive, affective, and biological events)

ENVBIRONMENTAL

FACTORS

http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html



(including teachers) but not its implementation (Ecclestone, 1996, 1992; Knight, 1996; Shermis, 1999). According to Henson (2001) although the concept of self-efficacy is theoretically well-grounded, much more empirical work and model testing is required to explore its foundations in a comprehensive way (as cited in Egel, 2009). Fisher (2010) confirms this lack of experimental grounded studies and adds that there is no empirical evidence on the change in professional self-efficacy during training programs, even though Bandura (1977) emphasizes that there could be a change in one's self-efficacy over the years.

3. Research Hypotheses In line with determining types of effect(s) student teacher's practices of self-reflection may have on their level of self-efficacy and also the level of students' perception toward this mental construct, it was attempted to deal with the following operational alternative hypotheses;

1. Self-reflective practices (in here, group discussion and journal writing of the student teacher) in/on the classroom influence teacher's level of self-efficacy.

2. Student teachers with higher sense of self-efficacy can positively manage to enhance students' perception of teacher's capabilities, and vice versa, those with lower sense of self-efficacy can negatively influence students' perception.

4. Limitations of the study The limitation of this study is addressed here as implicit recommendation for future Research. Hence, the researchers acknowledge one limitation which might directly or indirectly influenced the results. This study is limited in scope. The population studied in the present study were a limited number of student teachers in just one language department and with almost no significant difference in age, education, and daresay, in their conceptions of the variable of this study, i.e. self-efficacy. However, a much larger group of student teachers in various universities would help to widen the scope and probably disclose interesting comparable findings that can broaden and validate the spectrum of reflection use in teacher training programs.

5. Methodology

5.1 Participants

All 114 participants were junior or senior TEFL students and at the time of the study were in last year of their four-year English bachelor course during fall 2012 semester in Humanities Faculty at Teacher Training University, Sanandaj Branch in northwestern Iran. This sample was chosen randomly through using an IELTS test. All these student teachers succeeded in passing the test with score 6, i.e. competent English user, or higher and voluntarily signed the consent form to participate actively in this study. Of this sample, 64 were in the experimental group and the rest in the control group. Sample participants ranged in age from 21 to 42, and by excluding just 5% all were in their twenties.

5.2 Instrumentation

In this study, following instruments were administered to collect both quantitative and qualitative data on the student teachers and their students.



5.2.1 IELTS Test. An IELTS test was administered to select a homogeneous sample of the student teachers and diagnose those with unsatisfactory level of English proficiency.

5.2.2 Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. “Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale” (TSES) developed by Bandura (2006) with Cronbach's alpha of .81, which was designed to help teachers and teacher trainers to gain a better understanding of their self-efficacy perception. It consisted of 28 items, six sub-categories which were answered on a 100-per cent range to examine self-efficacy components, i.e. CM, IS, and SE; from 'cannot do at all' to 'moderately can do' and finally to 'highly certain can do'. Its subcategories made it possible to classify them under the three dimensions of Yavuz's (2010) taxonomy of self-efficacy.

Six subcategories of the scale were as follow; Efficacy to Influence Decision Making, Disciplinary Self-Efficacy, Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement, Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement, which can be classified under the Classroom Management dimension; Instructional Self-Efficacy under the Instructional Strategies, and Efficacy to Create a Positive Climate under the Student Engagement.

5.2.3 Self-Efficacy: Student Perception Scale. The first scale was entitled “Self-Efficacy: Student Perception Scale” which was created with a minor modification to Bandura's (2006) original work. Its pilot reliability was calculated (0.79) using Cronbach alpha coefficient Method and then was applied to this study. The number and content of items were unchanged but modified to numerically measure students' perception.

Self-reflection treatment here was limited to two techniques, i.e. Journal Writing and Group Discussion. These two techniques were considered in literature to have beneficial consequences on the process of student teachers' growth and reflectivity. This procedure lasted for four months and thus the researcher succeeded to complete eight sessions of focus group along with journal writing. Finally, their recorded sessions were analyzed via “Reflective Thinking Model” adopted from Taggart and Wilson (2005, p. 37). This pyramid model displayed consensual modes of reflective thinking among researchers of the field and comprised of three major levels; Technical that dealt with simple description of methodological problems and theory development; Contextual which stepped forward and dealt with reflection on pedagogical matters as examined, search for alternatives and relate theory to practice; And ultimately Dialectical which was on the top of the pyramid and coped with questions of moral and ethical issues.

Strictly in line with pyramid model used for analyzing audiotapes, their journal writings were classified under “Four Writing Styles” proposed by Hattan and Smith (as cited in Taggart and Wilson, 2005, p. 36); First, Descriptive Writing which was not considered as a reflective one and only describe the process of activities; Second, Descriptive Reflection focused on experienced-based justification of events; Third, Dialogic Reflection which tried to judge the event justly and from multiple perspectives; and Forth, Critical Reflection which scrutinized the event with a connection to multiple contexts such as pedagogical.

5.3 Briefing 3.3.1 How to Teach English. In each session, it was tried to briefly involve some teaching techniques and strategies from “How to Teach English” book by Harmer, 2007. It was of great inspirations for student teachers and in addition to their own techniques in real classroom, the most prominent strategies of this source were briefly and clearly discussed.



5.4 Research Design

A mixed methods research design was used to establish causality between qualitative and quantitative data gathered on variables of this study since the quantitative approach or the qualitative approach per se was inadequate to this study. Through the use of this methodology, the researcher hoped to assess a more in-depth quantitative knowledge about the participants' self-efficacy, gain accurate results and make them potential holders of high level of self-efficacy. Furthermore, it was attempted to create a qualitative change in their students' point of view by changing their teachers' level of self-efficacy.

6. Results & Discussion

6.1 Testing of Hypothesis I

Table 6.1 illustrates collected descriptive statistics (both measures of central tendency and measures of variability) for the experimental and control groups from Bandura's Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (2006).

Table 6.1: Descriptive Group Statistics of Self-Efficacy in Pretest (H2)

Group N Range Minimum Maximum Mean

Median

Mode Std.

Deviation Variance

Std. Error

Mean

Experimental 64 35 56 91 68.95 69.00 68 6.124 37.506 .76552

Control 50 19 61 80 68.48 74.00 Mode 4.635 21.479 .65543

Table 6.1 shows that the general mean score for self-efficacy among the experimental group of student teachers was 68.95 in their pretest, which was comparable to that of control group, 68.48. This fact shows that both of them were chosen from almost a similar and homogenous population with almost the same perception of efficacy.

Table 6.2: Independent Samples Test for Comparing Self-Efficacy of Two Groups in Pretest (H2)

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference Lower Upper

Equal variances assumed

.989 .322 -.454 112 .651 -.47313 1.04228 -2.53827 1.59202

To run T-test for the comparison of the means of the experimental and control groups, two assumptions of equality of variances and normality should be met. Equality of variances in this hypothesis is supported because the P-value in Levene's Test, shown in Table 6.2, is .32 which is



higher than the critical value of this test, i.e. α = .05. In statistics, Levene's Test is an inferential statistic used to assess the equality of variances in different samples.

As it is clear from the statistical findings presented in Table 6.2 for T-test, Sig level which is .65 is greater than .05. Besides the t-value which is .45 is lower than the t-critical (1.98). So it does not show any significant difference in calculated means of two groups. Therefore, it can safely be claimed that the control and experimental groups are not statistically different in their pretest.

It daresay the equality of self-efficacy among both the experimental and control groups is the main reason for justifying their pretest of the second hypothesis.

Table 6.3: Descriptive Group Statistics of Self-Efficacy in Posttest (H2)

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean

Median

Mode Std.

Deviation

Variance Std. Error

Mean

Experimental 64 34 60 94 78.48 79.00 79 7.076 50.063 .88444

Control 50 30 61 91 73.38 74.00 76 6.350 40.322 .89802

Table 6.3 manifests this fact that the general sense of self-efficacy in both groups of student teachers has improved during the action course of this study, but differently. This enhancement is to a great extent in reflection practices' debt, though the general presence of activities in the language department for sure affected the student teachers in both groups and unintentionally fueled the process.

In order to compare the mean scores of posttest in both the experimental and control groups, first the Levene's test is used to determine the equality of variances and to show that the data are homogeneous. Then T-test is used to determine the difference/equality of the means.

As it is shown in Table 6.4, the equality of variances is achieved because the P-value is .78 which is higher than α = .05. Table 6.4 also provides enough criteria for the acceptance of the second hypothesis of this study, because P-value which is .000 is less than .05 (Sig< α). So it shows significant

Table 6.4: Independent Samples Test for Comparing Self-Efficacy of Two Groups in Posttest (H2)

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



.072 .789 -3.996 112 .000 -5.10438 1.27737 -7.63532 -2.57343



difference between the experimental and control groups in their posttest. Furthermore, the observed t-value, i.e. 3.99, is more than the critical t-value at the .05 level of significance (1.98).

Considering the primary homogeneity of two groups and in the light of statistical data resulted from the applied treatment in this study, it is obviously shown through Figure 6.1 that a considerably meaningful difference has been observed between the experimental and control participants in their posttest. While the general mean for self-efficacy in the control participants was 73.4, it was 78.5 for those in the experimental group.

Figure 6.1: Mean Bar Graph of Student Teachers' Self-Efficacy of Two Groups in Posttest (H2)

Therefore, the first operational alternative hypothesis which states “Self-reflective practices in/on the classroom influence teacher's level of self-efficacy” is accepted.

6.2 Testing of Hypothesis II

To show the authenticity of the second hypothesis, Bandura's Self-Efficacy: Student Perception Scale (2006) with none but one minor modification was given to junior high school students. They were students in the classes in which student teachers of this study were determined to.

Table 6.5: Descriptive Group Statistics of Perception in Pretest (H3)

Group


Median

Mode Std. Deviation Variance

Std. Error Mean

Experimental 64 58.5 30.5 89.0 53.727 51.500 51.0 12.5246 156.865 1.56557

Control 50 41.0 30.0 71.0 50.680 51.000 61.0 9.9590 99.181 1.40841

As it is obvious from Table 6.5, the general calculated means for students in both the experimental and control groups of student teachers have 3% difference.



Table 6.6: Independent Samples Test for Comparing Perception of Two Groups in Pretest (H3)

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

F Sig. T Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



2.160 .144 -1.407 112 .162 -3.04656 2.16547 -7.33716 1.24403

Table 6.6 displays that the variances of two groups are equal since the Sig level for Levene's test is 0.14 which is higher than the critical value, i.e. α = .05. In addition, Table 6.6, for T-test section, manifests that Sig (P-value) which is .16 is higher than .05 and furthermore, the t-value which is 1.40 is lower than the t-critical (1.98). So it does not show any significant difference in groups' means and thus the observed mean difference in Table 6.5 is considered insignificant. Therefore, we can aptly claim that the experimental and control groups are not statistically different in their pretest.

It is worth mentioning that the majority of 2078 junior high school students depersonalized their perceptions and/or at least in this study had the same quality recognition of their teachers. General consensus among students in both phases of the study and in both groups demonstrates this fact that students' perception is uniquely and justly laid on teacher's personal variables and quality of teaching.

Unlike the equal means calculated on the pretest, Table 6.7 clearly depicts that with the development of self-efficacy in the student teachers in their posttest, their students' perception toward their general capabilities also improved, as shown statistically in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7: Descriptive Group Statistics of Perception in Posttest (H3)

Group


Median

Mode Std. Deviation Variance

Std.

Error Mean

Experimental 64 67.0 30.0 97.0 66.508 67.000 54.0 14.2055 201.798 1.77569

Control 50 56.0 31.0 87.0 55.240 54.000 59.0 11.7222 137.411 1.65777

In order to compare the mean scores of posttest in both groups, first Levene's test is used to determine the equality of variances and to show the homogeneity in data. Then T-test is used to determine the equality of the means.



Table 6.8: Independent Samples Test for Comparing Perception of Two Groups in Posttest (H3)

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

F Sig. T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



2.806 .097 -4.531 112 .000 -11.26781 2.48707 -16.19562 -6.34001

Table 6.8 reveals that two groups have equal variances because the Sig level for Levene's Test is.09 which is higher than α = .05. Also it demonstrates that P-value which is .000 is less than .05 (Sig< α) and besides the t-value which is 4.53 is higher than the t-critical (1.98). So it shows a significant difference in means for both groups. Furthermore, the observed t-value, which is 4.53, is higher than the critical t-value at the .05 level of significance (1.98).

It can be aptly claimed that those student teachers who have gained higher scores in their sense of self-efficacy could positively influence their students' perception because of the treatment applied in the present study. While the total progress in the experimental students was almost 13%, the observed difference of perception between pretest and posttest for the control students was only about 5%.

Figure 6.2 definitely illustrates this difference in means. This is directly connected to reflection activities in this study, though other extraneous variables may also have their own effects on the whole process of the study. Therefore, third hypothesis which states that “Student teachers with higher sense of self-efficacy can positively manage to manipulate students' perception of teacher's capabilities” is strongly accepted.

Figure 4.16: Mean Bar Graph of Students' Perception of Two Groups in Posttest (H3)



7. Conclusion and Future Recommendation

There was no abnormality among both the experimental and control participants regarding their abilities or physical conditions. Thus, none of the participants was omitted from the course. Student teachers' perception of reflective activities in response to Reflective Teaching Scale over the four-month period and in receiving the researcher feedback was overwhelmingly positive which indicates that the overall experience was positive. Moreover, this jovial state is reinforced more by students' approval of the teachers and observed changes in the class. Probably this sense of satisfaction in students was due to an increase in teachers' awareness of students and perception of having more control over their learning, and in getting more individualized feedback from the teacher than before.

Approximately ninety-seven percent of participants in the experimental group showed an increase about 10% in their sense of self-efficacy, while ninety percent of the control student teachers had an increase of about 5% that was to a great extent due to observing the experimental group's activities and gatherings for group discussions in the language department.

While ninety-seven percent of students displayed improvement in their satisfaction with the experimental student teachers with a total difference of 13% between pretest and posttest, only seventy-eight percent of students in the control group reported improvement in their teachers to the maximum of 4% or less. This difference between experimental and control means was restrictively limited to the applied course of four-month action and it would drastically increase during the teaching years of a teacher. These limited resources for teaching in student teachers would be a can of worms with no runway.

8. Implications

Findings from the present study and analyses of its data responded to the study’s research questions and hypotheses and help to achieve its goals, which were to identify and manipulate self-reflection and self-efficacy; determine the extent to which they have influenced each other; and consequently work out their articulation with the perception of the core constituent of education, i.e. students.

These findings have several significant implications for both teacher training programs and the Ministry of Education. While the former directly address teachers and tries to prepare these new appointees for the real application of their achieved faculties, the latter mostly focus its attention on the students in the educational system and the maximum growth of their talents. Although concerning these qualities and their potential benefits to a healthy system is inevitable, Iranian educational system is yet to develop a more accountable operational working engine for this ordeal in its schools.



References

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review 1977, Vol. 84, No. 2, 191-215: Stanford University, USA.

Bandura, A. (1989a). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Cook, P. F., Young, J. R., Evensen, N. (2001). International Conference on Learning Potential; Unlocking Human Potential to Learn: Using Mediated Learning to improve the level of Reflection of Preservice Teachers. Brighan Young University, Canada.

Egel, I. P. (2009). The prospective English language teacher’s reflections of self-Efficacy. World Conference on Educational Sciences 2009. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 1561–1567. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.274

Fisher, Y. (2010). Springer Science Business Media: The sense of self-efficacy of aspiring principals: exploration in a dynamic concept. Soc Psychol Educ (2011) 14:93–117. DOI 10.1007/s11218-010-9136-9.

Pajares, F (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retreived September 19, 2012, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html

Pajares, F (2003). SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS, MOTIVATION, AND ACHIEVEMENT IN WRITING: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19: 1397158, 2003. DOI: 10.1080/10573560390143085

Yavuz, M. (2010). An analyze of teacher candidate students’ perception of self-efficacy. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 1394–1398. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.207

Zimmerman, J. A. (2011). PRINCIPALS PREPARING FOR CHANGE: THE IMPORTANCE OF REFLECTION AND PROFESSIONAL LEARNING. American Secondary Education 39(2) SPRINc 2011.

Documents

THE EFFECT OF SELF-EFFICACY CHANGES IN EFL STUDENT ......classroom performance and in turn boost students' perception and learning. Data were collected through Bandura's teachers