IMPACT OF TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL SELF-EFFICACY

79 Table 4.4. 9 Subject wise teachers’ general teaching efficacy and their students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two-tailed) Students’ academic achievement and teachers general teaching efficacy Science teacher 120 0.340 0.000 General teacher one 120 0.352 0.000 General teacher two 120 0.674 0.000 The table 4.4.9 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for general teaching efficacy of science teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.340, p<0.05), general teacher one and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.352, P<0.05) and general teacher two and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.674, P<0.05). It means that general teaching efficacy of science teachers, general teacher one and general teachers two has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of general teaching efficacy on students’ academic achievement of different subject” was rejected. 4.5 Impact of Teachers’ Professional Self-Efficacy on Students’ Academic Achievement within Different Categories Impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy and its different aspects on students’ academic achievement was examined by using questionnaire related with teacher professional self- efficacy scale (TSES) with the student result score at SSC level with different categories of secondary schools’ teachers. This impact has been shown in the following tables.

80 Table 4.5.1 Male and female teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and Professional self-efficacy Male 216 0.060 0.378 Female 144 0.000 0.996 The table 4.5.1 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for male teachers’ professional self-efficacy and students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.060, p>0.05) and professional self-efficacy of female teachers and student’s academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.000, P>0.05) It means that professional self-efficacy of male and female teachers has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy on students’ academic achievement of male and female teachers” was accepted.

81 Table 4.5.2 Male and female teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ engagement on student academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and professional self-efficacy in student engagement Male 216 0.078 0.253 Female 144 0.067 0.424 The table 4.5.2 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for male teachers’ professional self-efficacy in students engagement and students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.078, p>0.05) and professional self-efficacy in students engagement of female teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.067, P>0.05) It means that professional self-efficacy of teachers in students engagement has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement in terms of male and female teacher. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy in student’s engagement on students’ academic achievement of male and female teachers” was accepted.

82 Table 4.5.3 Male and female teachers’ professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies and their students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies Male 216 0.869 0.000 Female 144 0.882 0.000 The table 4.5.3 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for male teachers’ professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies and students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.869, p>0.05) and professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies of female teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.882, P>0.05). It means that professional self-efficacy of teachers in instructional strategies has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement in case of male and female teacher. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies on students’ academic achievement of male and female teachers” was accepted

83 Table 4.5. 4 Male and female teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom management and their students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and professional self-efficacy in Classroom Management Male 216 0.135 0.048 Female 144 0.174 0.037 The table 4.5.4 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for male teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom management and students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.135, p>0.05) and professional self-efficacy in classroom management of female teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.174, P>0.05). It means that professional self-efficacy of teachers in classroom management has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement in case of male and female teacher. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy in classroom management on students’ academic achievement of male and female teachers” was accepted.

84 Table 4.5.5 Urban and rural of teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and Professional self-efficacy Urban 60 0.028 0.668 Rural 60 0.222 0.015 The table 4.5.5 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for urban teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.028, p>0.05) and professional self-efficacy of rural teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.222, P<0.05) It means that professional self-efficacy of urban and rural teachers has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy on students’ academic achievement of urban and rural teachers” was accepted.

85 Table 4.5.6 Correlation showing impact of urban and rural teachers’ professional selfefficacy on students’ academic achievement in student engagement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and professional self-efficacy in student engagement Urban 60 0.671 0.000 Rural 60 0.029 0.652 The table 4.5.6 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for urban teachers’ professional self-efficacy (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.671, P<0.05) in student engagement and students’ academic achievement and professional self-efficacy in students engagement of rural teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.029, p>0.05) It means that professional self-efficacy of urban teachers in students engagement has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. On the other hand, professional self-efficacy of rural teachers in students’ engagement has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional selfefficacy in student engagement on students’ academic achievement of urban and rural teachers” was partially rejected.

86 Table 4.5.7 Urban and rural teachers’ professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies and their students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies Urban 60 0.806 0.000 Rural 60 0.893 0.652 The table 4.5.7 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for urban teachers’ professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies and students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.806, P<0.05) and professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies of rural teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.893, p>0.05). It means that professional self-efficacy of urban teachers in instructional strategies has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. However professional self-efficacy of rural teachers in instructional strategies has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional selfefficacy in instructional strategies on students’ academic achievement of urban and rural teachers” was partially.

87 Table 4.5.8 Urban and rural teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom management and students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and professional self-efficacy in classroom management Urban 60 0.279 0.000 Rural 60 0.716 0.000 The table 4.5.8 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for urban teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom management and students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.279, p<0.05) and professional self-efficacy in classroom management of rural teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.716, P<0.05). It means that teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom management has significant impact on students’ academic achievement in case of urban and rural teachers. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy in classroom management on students’ academic achievement of urban and rural teachers” was rejected.

88 Table 4.5.9 Subject wise teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two-tailed) Students’ academic achievement and teacher professional efficacy Science teacher 120 0.670 0.000 General teacher (one) 120 0.796 0.000 General teacher (two) 120 0.600 0.000 The table 4.5.9 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for different subjects taught by teacher, the statistics shows that science teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.670, p<0.05), professional self-efficacy of general teachers one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.796, P<0.05) and general teachers two professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.600, P<0.05).It means that teachers’ professional self-efficacy of different subjects has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy on students’ academic achievement of different subjects’ teachers” was rejected.

89 Table 4.5.10 Different subject teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic achievement in student engagement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two- tailed) Teacher performance and teacher Professional efficacy in student engagement Science teacher 120 0.601 0.000 General teacher (one) 120 0.589 0.000 General teacher (two) 120 0.859 0.000 The table 4.5.10 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for science teachers’ professional self-efficacy in student engagement and students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.601, p<0.05), professional self-efficacy in student engagement of general teachers one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.589, p<0.05) professional self-efficacy in student engagement of general teachers two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.859, P<0.05) and their students’ academic achievement. It means that teachers’ professional self-efficacy in student engagement has significant impact on students’ academic achievement in terms of different subject teachers. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy in student engagement on students’ academic achievement of science and general teachers” was rejected.

90 Table 4.5. 11 Subject wise teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic achievement in instructional strategies Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two-tailed) Students’ academic achievement and teacher professional efficacy in Instructional Strategies Science teacher 120 0.671 0.000 General teacher (one) 120 0.696 0.000 General teacher (two) 120 0.671 0.000 The table 4.5.11 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for science teacher professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies and students’ academic achievement of science (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.671, p<0.05), professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies of general teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.696, p<0.05) professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies of general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.671, P<0.05) and their students’ academic achievement. It means that teachers’ professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies has significant impact on students’ academic achievement in terms of science and general teacher one and general teacher two. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies on students’ academic achievement of science teachers and general teachers” was rejected.

91 Table 4.5.12 Subject wise teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their students’ academic achievement in classroom management Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two-tailed) Student academic achievement and teacher professional efficacy in classroom management Science teacher 120 0.710 0.000 Arts teacher (one) 120 0.692 0.000 Arts teacher (two) 120 0.797 0.000 The table 4.5.12 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for science teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom management and students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.710, p<0.05), professional self-efficacy in classroom management of general teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.692, p<0.05) professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies of general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.797, P<0.05) and their students’ academic achievement . It means that teachers’ professional self-efficacy in classroom management has significant impact on students’ academic achievement in terms of science and general teachers. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of professional self-efficacy in classroom management on students’ academic achievement of science teacher and general teachers” was rejected.

92 4.6 Relative impact of teachers’ efficacy and professional self-efficacy of different factors on students’ academic achievement Rogation analysis was applied for finding of relative impact of different factors i.e. locality, gender and subject area on students’ academic achievement. The results of analysis are presented and interpreted in the following tables: Table 4.6. 1 Recreation showing relative impact of different factors (locality, gender and subjects) on students’ academic achievement Predictors: Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig. B Std. Error Beta B (Constant) 10.598 4.242 2.499 .013 Teacher Professional Self Efficacy .951 .113 .195 8.420 .000 Teacher Efficacy .745 .096 .159 7.768 .000 Location 2.011 1.796 .033 1.120 .264 Gender .512 .778 .009 .658 .511 Subject .839 1.048 .024 .801 .424 A Dependent Variable: Student Achievement The tables (4.5.1) shows that B-Value regarding the impact of independent variables i.e. teacher professional self -efficacy, location, gender, and subject on teachers’ performance in term of student achievement. Statistical values for teacher’s professional self-efficacy

93 (B=.951, t= 8.420, p< 0.05) and teacher efficacy (B=.745, t= 7.786, p<0.05) indicate that teacher’s professional self-efficacy and teacher’s efficacy have significant impact on the academic achievement of students. On the other hand, statistical values for location (B=.2.011, t=1.120, p>0.05), gender (B=0512, t=.658, p>0.05) and subject (B=839, t=.801, p>0.05) indicate that location, gender and subjects have no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis “different factors (teachers’ professional efficacy, teachers’ efficacy, locality, gender and subjects)”, was rejected in the teachers’ professional efficacy and teachers’ efficacy and accepted in the case of locality, gender and subject of teachers. Table 4.6. 2 Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .970(a) .941 .939 7.086 Predictors: (Constant): Subject, gender, instructional strategies, teacher efficacy, classroom management, teacher Self efficacy, general teaching efficacy, location, personal teaching efficacy, student engagement 4.7 Discussion The main purpose of this research project was to identify impact of professional selfefficacy on students’ achievement at secondary school level. The researcher has tried to identify the professional self-efficacy level of the secondary school teachers in three areas i.e. classroom management, teaching instruction and students engagement at a same time during teaching learning process and its impact on secondary school students’ achievement. The

94 researcher has tried also to identify the teacher efficacy level in two area personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy. The both efficacy level variables and student achievement was taken as dependent variable and gender, location, subject areas (science and general) taken as independent variable. The high/ higher secondary schools sample included 120 male and female schools. Students sample included 2160 boys and 1440 girls. Total 360 sample teachers comprised of 216 male and 144 females. The study was quantitative (descriptive/survey based) in nature. Two questionnaires, (i) teacher’s efficacy scale consisted of twenty-two (22) items and teacher self-efficacy scale comprised of twenty-four (24) items were applied to sample of study. Sample student’s achievement data were collected from concerned Boards. The findings of the research study prove that urban teacher’s performance better than the rural teachers. Sarangapani (2003) provided an excellent analysis and found difference in performance of rural and urban teachers, according to her rural and urban teachers have different teaching style and urban teachers use different teaching techniques which effect their performance in better way. The mean score of female teachers was greater as compared to male teacher which proved that female teachers are more efficacious than male teachers and the study conducted by Singer (1996) on female teachers found that female teachers were more efficacious than male teachers as female teachers spend more time on activitiesbased learning such as planning, designing and assessing learning activates. The mean score of science teachers is higher than general teachers. Genc & Ogan-Bekiroglu (2006) also pointed out in his study students out performed in science field as compared to arts subjects, he expressed his view in his study on the effect of using different teaching models on the learning of science and other subjects at secondary school level of Niger State, he found a

95 significant difference in achievement score of students in science subject and humanities subjects. In his study he found that those students who belong to the science subject teachers achieved high score in physics and mathematics subject and on the other hand students of arts subjects’ teachers performed significantly better in verbal aptitude, English language. The findings of the research study prove that classroom management, student’s engagement, Instructional strategies, and total teacher’s professional self-efficacy, the teachers with science and general discipline had no significant difference. The findings of the analysis show that the p-value of students’ engagement, Instructional strategies, and total teachers’ professional efficacy is greater. Hence, in students’ engagement, Instructional strategies, and total teachers’ professional self-efficacy, the teachers with gender had no significant difference. It is proved from the findings of the research study that there is significant correlation between teachers’ performance and professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies. There is also significant correlation between teachers’ performance and professional selfefficacy in classroom management. Significant correlation also exist between teachers performance and teacher efficacy, between teachers performance and personal teacher efficacy, between teachers performance and general teacher efficacy, between teachers performance and professional self-efficacy, between teachers performance and professional self-efficacy in student engagement, between teachers performance and professional selfefficacy in instructional strategies, correlation between teachers performance and professional self-efficacy in classroom management, between teachers performance and teacher efficacy, between teachers performance and personal teacher efficacy, between teachers performance and general teacher efficacy, between teachers performance and general teacher efficacy,

96 between teacher performance and subject teacher professional self-efficacy, between teacher performance and teacher professional efficacy student engagement, between teacher professional self-efficacy instructional strategies and teacher performance, between teacher self-efficacy in classroom management and teacher performance, between teacher efficacy and teacher performance, between teacher performance and personal teacher efficacy , between general teacher efficacy and teacher performance. It is proved from the findings of the research study that there was significant correlation between teacher professional efficacy regarding instructional strategies and teacher performance, teacher professional efficacy regarding classroom management and teacher performance, teacher efficacy and teacher performance and teacher efficacy regarding personal teacher efficacy and teacher performance. This variable may affect the teacher performance in term of their achievement of students. This finding is aligned with the studies Freeman (2008) that that teacher efficacy truly is the heart of school reform, Mojavezi and Tamiz (2012) that teacher self-efficacy has a positive influence on the students’ motivation and achievement and Shahzad and Naureen (2017) that self-efficacy has a positive impact on the students’ academic achievement. There was insignificant between teacher professional efficacy and teacher performance, teacher professional efficacy regarding student engagement teacher performance, teacher efficacy regarding general teacher efficacy and teacher performance. These variables may not affect the teacher performance in term of their achievement of students. This finding is not aligned with Hassan and Akbar (2019) that overall 67 % teachers’ self-efficacy effect on students’ academic achievements, including 58 % effect on students’ engagement, 65 % effect on instructional strategies and 60 % effect on classroom management for the sake of students’ better achievements.

97 Majority of findings support various studies of past conducted by Angela (2013), Adu, et.al, (2012), Shoukat and Iqbal (2012), Eren (2009), Akinsola (2008), Adediwura and Bada(2007), Goddard (2002),Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, (2007),, Allinder (1995), Ashton & Webb, (1986), Tracz & Gibson, (1986), Dembo& Gibson(1985), and Gibson &Dembo, (1984).

98 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 SUMMARY The main purpose of this research project was to identify impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy on students’ academic achievement at secondary school level. The researcher has tried to identify the professional self-efficacy level of the secondary school teachers in three areas i.e. class room management, instructional strategies and student’s engagement during teaching learning process. The researcher has also tried to identify the teacher efficacy level in two areas personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy. The research project is seemed successful in identifying impact of teachers’ professional efficacy on secondary school students’ academic achievement by achieving the following research objectives: i) To assess the academic achievement of students belonging different categories of teachers. ii) To measure efficacy and professional self-efficacy of secondary school teachers. iii) To compare the students’ academic achievement belonging to teachers of different categories (based on gender, locality, and discipline of study i.e. science and general). iv) To examine the impact of teachers’ efficacy and teachers’ professional selfefficacy on their students’ academic achievement. v) To examine the relative impact of teachers’ gender, locality, and subject areas (science and general), on efficacy, and professional self- efficacy on their students’ academic achievement. This study has also two research questions (i) What is the academic achievement of students belonging to different

99 categories of teachers? (ii) What is the efficacy and professional self-efficacy of secondary school teachers? Due to time constrain and limited resources, this study was delimited to: (i.) Secondary schools of six districts i.e. Mardan, Abbotabad, Mansehra, Peshawar, Kohat and D.I Khan of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. (ii) Students of 10thcalss session (2013-14), and their respective teachers. Total 360 teachers provided complete response on all variables of the study. All the public sector secondary schools’ teachers and students of grade 10th of six districts were the population of the study the population of the study contained of: 1. Total numbers of High and Higher Secondary Schools (Boys and Girls) in the selected six districts were 1667. 2. Total Secondary Schools Teachers (general) were 4974 and total Secondary Schools Teachers (Science) were 1574. 3. Total number of students (Science and general) appeared in SSC exam (10th grade) boys and girls were 97,460 in the selected six districts. For selecting sample of study Multi Stage Stratified Random Sampling Technique was used. Two districts were randomly selected from each zone. 1. The high/ higher secondary schools sample included 72 male and 48 female schools. 20 schools from each district 12 for boys and 8 for girls. 2. Gender wise students sample included 2160 boys and 1440 girls 3. Total sample teachers include 216 male and 144 females 4. Total sampled subject teachers included 120 SST science and 240 SST general

100 5. Location wise teachers sample included 180 rural schools’ SSTs and 180 urban school SSTs. To investigate this impact the research used Urdu version of an international researcher questionnaires. Which were translated in National Language (Urdu) for the better understanding and proper replay from the sample teachers. These questionnaires were pilot tested before collection of data on large scale. Research questionnaires were distributed among teachers (science and general) of secondary schools of six districts. Students’ achievement data was taken from concerned Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE). Data was inserted into SPSS to create tables and graphs for analysis. Formula of Pearson correlation coefficient, Independent Samples t-test, One Way ANOVA and linear regression were used, the results were interpreted accordingly. 5.2 Findings Following finding were drawn by the analysis, interpretation, and inference of data, and discussed with supervisor. 5.2.1 Academic Achievement of Students Related to Different Categories of Teachers i. Overall calculated mean score (9.68), science teacher (11.19>15 and p<0.05), general teacher one (10.00>15 and p<0.05) and general teacher two (7.84>15 and p<0.05) was lower than assumed mean. The statistical values showed that students belonging to all the three categories of teachers have low academic achievement. (Table 4.1.1). 5.2.2 Level of Efficacy and Professional Self-Efficacy of Secondary Schools Teachers i. The calculated mean score of general efficacies (26.86>24 and p<0.05) and personal efficacy (51.63>42 and p<0.05) of secondary schools’ teachers were greater than assumed mean score.

101 Which was statistically proved that secondary school teachers were highly efficacious. (Table 4.2.1). ii. The calculated mean score (81.74>72 and p<0.05) was significantly greater than the assumed mean score for all the three dimensions of teachers’ professional self-efficacy (students’ engagement (30.44>24 and p<0.05), instructional strategies (24.19.>24 and p<0.05) and classroom management (27.11.>24 and p<0.05)). Thus, this proved that secondary school teachers were professionally efficacious. (Table 4.2.2). 5.2.3 Comparison of Academic Achievement of Students Belonging to Teachers with Different Categories i. The mean score of students’ academic achievement of urban teachers’ (622) was greater than rural teachers (604) and the value of t (5.586) was also significant at p<0.05 level of significance students’ academic achievement. Statistical results showed that students of urban teachers’ performers’ better than students of rural teachers, thus urban teachers were more professionally efficacious as compared to rural teachers (Table 4.3.1). ii. The mean score of students’ academic achievement belonging to female teachers’ (654) was greater than the students of male teachers (585) and value of t (21.909) was also significant at p<0.05 level of significance. Results showed that students of female teachers performed better than students of male teachers, thus female teachers were professionally more efficacious than male teachers (Table 4.3.2). iii. The mean score of academic achievement of students belonging to science teachers (649.28) was greater than the students’ academic achievement of general teachers (576.47) and the value of t (23.954) was significant at p<0.05 level of significance. Thus, teachers of science subject were professionally more efficacious as there was significant difference between the academic achievements of students belonging to teachers of different subject (Table 4.3.3).

102 iv. The comparison showed no significant difference between different subjects’ teachers (science and general) with total teachers’ professional self-efficacy and its different aspects i.e. classroom management (t=0.961, p>0.05), students’ engagement (t=0.599, p>0.05), and instructional strategies (t=979, p> 0.05) (Table 4.3.4). v. The comparison of science teachers and teachers of general with total teachers’ efficacy (t=.198, p>0.05) and its two aspects i.e. teacher’s personal efficacy (t=.158, p>0.05) and teacher general efficacy (t=.328, p>0.05) indicated no significant difference (Table 4.3.5). vi. Comparison of male and female teachers with their total professional self-efficacy (t=.417, p>0.05) and its different factors, classroom management (t=2.525, p>0.05), students’ engagement (t=0.302, p>0.05), and instructional strategies (t=1.831, p> 0.05) showed no significant difference. (Table 4.3.6). vii. The comparison indicated no significant difference between male and female teachers regarding total efficacy (t=3.115, p>0.05) and its different aspects i.e. teacher’s personal efficacy (t=3.135, p>0.05) and teacher general efficacy (t=3.381, p>0.05) (Table 4.3.7). viii. Comparison of statistical values of urban and rural teachers with their total professional selfefficacy (t=.728, p>0.05) and its different aspects i.e. classroom management (t=1.503, p>0.05), students’ engagement (t=.133, p>0.05), and instructional strategies (t=.127, p> 0.05) indicated no significant difference between them (Table 4.3. 8). ix. The comparison statistical values of the urban and rural teachers regarding teacher’s total efficacy (t=2.130, p>0.05) and its two aspects i.e. personal teaching efficacy (t=1.206, p>0.05) and general teaching efficacy (t=1.472, p>0.05) indicated no significant difference. (Table 4.3. 9).

103 5.2.4 Impact of Teachers Efficacy on their students’ Academic Achievement within Different Categories i Efficacy of male teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.262, p<0.05) and female teachers (Pearson ‘r’=0.314, P<0.05) has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement (table 4.4.1). ii Personal teaching efficacy of male teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.751, p<0.05) and female teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.648, P<0.05) has significant impact on students’ academic achievement (table 4.4.2). iii General teaching efficacy of male teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.152, p<0.05) and female teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.022, P<0.05) has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.4.3). iv Efficacy of urban teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.370, p<0.05) has significant impact on students’ academic achievement, however efficacy of rural teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.092, P>0.05) has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.4.4). v Personal teaching efficacy of urban teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.370, p<0.05) and rural teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.400, P<0.05) has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.4.5). vii General teaching efficacy of urban teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.434, p<0.05) has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement. On the other hand, general efficacy of rural teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.019, P>0.05) has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.4.6).

104 viii Efficacy of science teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.761, p<0.05), general teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.789, P<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.713, P<0.05) has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.4.7). ix Personal teaching efficacy of science teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.340, p<0.05), general teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.482, P<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.377, P<0.05) has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.4.8). x General teaching efficacy of science teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.340, p<0.05), general teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.352, P<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.674, P<0.05) has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.4.9). 5.2.5 Impact of Teachers Professional Self-Efficacy on their Students’ Academic Achievement within Different Categories i Professional self-efficacy of male teachers’ (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.060, p>0.05) and female teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.000, P>0.05) has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.1). ii Professional self-efficacy of male teachers’ (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.078, p>0.05) and female teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.067, P>0.05) in students engagement has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.2). iii Professional self-efficacy of male teachers’ (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.869, p>0.05) and female teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.882, P>0.05) in instructional strategies has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.3) iv Professional self-efficacy of male teachers’ (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.135, p>0.05) and female teachers in classroom management (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.174, P>0.05 has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.4).

105 v Professional self-efficacy of urban teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.028, p>0.05) and rural teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.222, P<0.05) has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.5). vi Professional self-efficacy of urban teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.671, P<0.05) in student engagement has significant impact on students’ academic achievement on the other hand the professional self-efficacy of rural teachers in student’s engagement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.029, p>0.05) and their students’ academic achievement has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.6). vii Professional self-efficacy of urban teachers’ (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.806, P<0.05) in instructional strategies has significant impact on students’ academic achievement, however the professional self-efficacy of rural teachers in instructional strategies has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.7). viii Professional self-efficacy of urban teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.279, p<0.05) and rural teachers (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.716, P<0.05) in classroom management has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.8). ix Professional self-efficacy of science teacher (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.670, p<0.05), general teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.796, P<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.600, P<0.05) has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.9). x Professional self-efficacy of science teacher (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.601, p<0.05), general teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.589, p<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.859, P<0.05) in students engagement has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.10).

106 xi Professional self-efficacy of science teacher (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.671, p<0.05), general teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.696, p<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.671, P<0.05) in instructional strategies has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.11). xii Professional self-efficacy of science teacher (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.710, p<0.05), general teacher one (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.692, p<0.05) and general teacher two (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.797, P<0.05) in instructional strategies has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.12). 5.2.6 Relative Impact of Teachers’ Efficacy and Professional Self-Efficacy of Different Factors on the Academic Achievement of Students i Statistical values for teacher’s professional self-efficacy (B=.951, t= 8.420, p< 0.05) and teacher efficacy (B=.745, t= 7.786, p<0.05) have significant impact on the academic achievement of students. On the other hand, statistical values for location (B=.2.011, t=1.120, p>0.05), gender (B=0512, t=.658, p>0.05) and subject (B=839, t=.801, p>0.05) have no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. (Table 4.5.1). These findings are aligned with the studies conducted by Akinsola (2002), Adediwura and Bada (2007), Isiksal (2005); Tschannen-Moran & Hoy (2001), Allinder (1995), Ashton & Webb, (1986), Larrivee (2008);, Dembo & Gibson (1985), and Gibson &Dembo, (1984). 5.3 Conclusions Keeping in comprehension and interpretation of the statistical/numerical exploration of the data, and after the findings of the study the researcher leads to draw these conclusions. i. The secondary school students of all the categories of teachers have low academic achievement.

107 ii. Secondary school teachers are professionally highly efficacious. iii. Urban secondary school teachers are more professionally efficacious as compared to rural teachers based on the comparatively good academic achievement level of urban teachers’ students. iv. Female secondary school teachers are more professionally efficacious as compared to male teachers because of comparatively good academic achievement level of female teachers’ students. v. Secondary school teachers of science subjects are professionally more efficacious as compared to general subjects’ teacher because of good academic achievement level of science teachers’ students. vi. Different subjects’ teachers (science and general) with teachers’ professional self-efficacy and its different aspects (classroom management, students’ engagement, and instructional strategies) are of the same performance position. vii. The performance of different science teachers and general teachers with teachers’ efficacy and its two aspects i.e. personal teaching efficacy and teacher general teaching efficacy is same in their respective schools. viii. The performance of male and female teachers with professional self-efficacy and its three factors (classroom management, students’ engagement and instructional strategies) is same in their institutions. ix. There is similar performance of male and female teachers regarding total efficacy and its different aspects i.e. personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy in their schools. x. There is similar performance of urban and rural teachers with their professional self-efficacy and its different aspects i.e. classroom management, student’s engagement and instructional strategies.

108 xi. The performance of urban and rural teachers regarding teachers’ efficacy and its two aspects i.e. teachers personal teaching efficacy and teacher general teaching efficacy is same. xii. There is impact of efficacy of male and female teachers on secondary school students’ academic achievement. xiii. There is impact of personal efficacy of male and female teachers on students’ academic achievement. xiv. The general efficacy of male and female secondary school has impact on students’ academic achievement. xv. The efficacy of urban secondary school teachers has impact on students’ academic achievement and efficacy of rural secondary school teachers has not any impact students’ academic achievement. xvi. There is impact of personal teaching efficacy of urban and rural teachers on students’ academic achievement. xvii. General teaching efficacy of urban teachers has an impact on students’ academic achievement. On the other hand, general efficacy of rural teachers has no impact on students’ academic achievement. xviii. Efficacy of science teacher, general teacher one and general teacher two has an impact on students’ academic achievement. xix. Personal teaching efficacy of science teacher, general teacher one and general teacher two has an impact on students’ academic achievement. xx. General efficacy of science teacher, general teacher one and general teacher two has an impact on students’ academic achievement. xxi. Teacher professional self-efficacy has no impact on students’ academic achievement for male and female teachers.

109 xxii. Teacher professional self-efficacy has no impact on student academic achievement for male and female teachers in student engagement. xxiii. Teacher professional self-efficacy has no impact on students’ academic achievement for male and female teachers in instructional strategies. xxiv. Teacher professional self-efficacy has no impact on students’ academic achievement for male and female teachers in classroom management. xxv. Teacher professional self-efficacy has no impact on students’ academic achievement for urban and rural teachers. xxvi. Teacher professional self-efficacy has an impact on students’ academic achievement for urban teachers in student engagement, however the teacher professional self-efficacy has no impact on student academic achievement for rural teachers in student’s engagement. xxvii. Teacher professional self-efficacy has an impact on students’ academic achievement for urban teachers in instructional strategies, however the professional self-efficacy has no impact on students’ academic achievement for rural teachers in instructional strategies. xxviii. Teacher professional self-efficacy has an impact on students’ academic achievement for urban teachers and rural teachers in classroom management. xxix. Teacher Professional self-efficacy has an impact on students’ academic achievement for science teacher, general teachers. xxx. Teacher professional self-efficacy has an impact on students’ academic achievement for science teachers and general teachers in student’s engagement. xxxi. There is impact of teacher Professional self-efficacy on students’ academic achievement for science teachers and general teacher in instructional strategies. xxxii. There is impact of teacher professional self-efficacy on students’ academic achievement (for science and general teachers) in instructional strategies.

110 xxxiii. There is impact of teacher professional self-efficacy and teacher efficacy on the student academic achievement. Whereas there is no impact of teacher professional self-efficacy on the students’ academic achievement for locality, gender and subject area. 5.4 Recommendations for future i. The findings of the present study show that there is insignificant impact of the efficacious teachers and their categories science subject teachers and general subject teachers. Therefore, further detailed investigation is needed by giving their details regarding teachers’ achievements during job period, number of training received, setting boards papers, receiving assessment trainings, participation in seminars, writing or reviewing textbooks, development of additional study materials etc. Further, this study may replicate by adding more time-series board results associated with teachers teaching as independent variable that may have significant effects. Exploration of correlation between efficacious teachers’ experience, age, academic qualification, professional qualifications, number of trainings received etc. are suggested for future studies. Students’ associated variable like their liberty of asking questions, friendly class environment, teachers’ feeling towards students’ training of affective domain and values. ii. It is proved by the results of present study that teacher performance in term of their student achievement has relationship with teacher self-efficacy (Instructional Strategies, Classroom Management) and teacher efficacy (teacher personal efficacy) therefore, it is recommended such variables may be included in the training of teachers in Pakistan at all levels.

111 iii. Training and development programs design may be thoroughly reviewed to introduce courses to repeat teacher professional efficacy in the prospective teachers. Because efficacy most variable affect the teacher performance in term of their student achievement. Training of in-service teachers focused to improve their understanding of efficacy for better development of students’ academic achievement is also recommended. iv. The students of urban teachers have better performance than the students of rural teachers. This study investigated student teachers' professional efficacy beliefs, to determine if school setting (i.e., rural, and urban) impacted teachers' sense of professional efficacy. Each setting group exhibited significant increases in teachers' sense of professional efficacy following student teaching. The urban student teachers exhibited significantly higher teachers' sense of professional efficacy. We also examined the attributions the student teachers made following student teaching. The rural student teachers did not make more external attributions than the urban student teachers, and the patterns of the self-serving attribution bias as well as the fundamental attribution error were apparent. v. It is recommended that education department of Pakistan when appoint teachers from rural sector they focus on their special professional efficacy training in order to improve the students learning achievement as compare to urban teachers. The TORs of training should be strong for rural teachers as compared to urban teachers. vi. It is also recommended that state conduct study on large scale and prepare the list of low performance teachers and investigate the reasons. They must be train in the

112 weak area. I think in this way in future teachers will perform better and produce good result. vii. It is essentially important to note the boundaries of this study. This study used validated and working measures for data. The same issue may qualitatively research or the same design may be followed with addition of interviews for data collection. The data were collected from secondary school teachers and students. Considering respondents from other educational levels as well as private sector schools may add more insight into this research effort.

113 REFERENCES Acom, E. M. (2007). Relationship between job factors and employee commitment in private primary schools in greater Kampala district. Unpublished Masters of Science (HRM) dissertation …, 2007, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. Adams, R.D. (1982). Teacher development: A look at changes in teacher perceptions and behavior across time. Journal of Teacher Education, 33 (4), 40-43. Adediwura, A. A. & Bada, T. (2007). Perception of teachers’ knowledge, attitude and teaching skills as predictor of academic performance in Nigerian secondary schools Educational Research and Review, 2 (7), 165-171. Adepoju, T. L. (2001). Locational factors as correlates of private cost and academic performance of secondary school students in Oyo State, Nigeria. TL Adepoju - Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Ibadan, 2002. Adeyemo, D.A. (2005). Parental involvement interest in schooling and school environment as predictors of academic self-efficacy among fresh secondary school student in Oyo State, Nigeria. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5-3 (1), 163-180. Adu, E, O., Tadu, R. & Eze, I. (2012). Teachers’ self as correlates of secondary school students ‘’ academic achievement in southwestern Nigeria. Discovery, 2012, 2 (4), 8- 16. Ajayi, I.A. (1988). Unit cost of secondary education and students’ academic achievement in Ondo State (1991-1995). A Ph.D Seminar Paper Presented at the Faculty of Education. University of Ibadan, 7 (5), 170-171.

114 Akinsola, M.K. (2002). In-service elementary teacher’s mathematics anxiety and its relationship to teachers’ attitude towards the studying and teaching of mathematics. Nigerian Journal of Applied Psychology. 7 (1), 188-202. Akinsola, M.K. (2008). Relationship of some psychological variables in predicting problem solving ability of in-service mathematics teachers. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 5 (1), 79-100. Ali, M. A. (2011). A Study of Job Satisfaction of Secondary School Teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 2 (1), 2011. Allinder, R.M. (1995). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and Curriculum-based measurement and student achievement. Research article Remedial & Special Education, 16 (4), 141-152. Angela, R. (2013). Teacher characteristics on student achievement: An examination of high schools in Ohio, (2013) MPA/MPP Capstone Projects. 49. Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (5), 28-32. Ashton, P. T. & Webb, R. B. (1986). Teachers' sense of efficacy, classroom behavior, and student achievement. In P.T. Ashton and R. B. Webb (Eds.). Teachers' Sense of Efficacy and Student Achievement, 17 (7), 125-144. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1984). Teachers’ sense of efficacy, classroom behavior, and student achievement. In P. T. Ashton & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement, 17 (7),125–144. Bailey, J. G. (1999). Academics' motivation and self-efficacy for teaching and research. Higher Education Research & Development, 18 (3), 343-359.

115 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation" of thought and action." A social cognitive theory. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Journal Annual review of psychology ,52 (1), 1-26 Bandura, A & Albert. J. (1977). A self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Journal Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Journal of Educational Psychologist, 28 (2) 117–148. Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: And Angetic. Annual Review of Psychology, 54 (1), 1-26. Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 3(1), 1-46 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company: NY: Cambridge University Press, 3 (1), 114-149. Begley, S. (2007). Studies take measure of how stereotyping alters performance. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on January 12, 2014. Bess, J. L. (1996). Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach effectively. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins. Bulmahn, B. J., & Young, D. M. (1982). On the transmission of mathematics anxiety. Arithmetic Teacher, 38 (1), 34-35. Cagle, J. (1998). One teacher’s perspective on the differences of academic expectations for Hispanic students: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Non Journal Reports - Research; Speeches/Meeting Papers, 4 (1), 1-29

116 Calderhead, J. (1991). The nature and growth of knowledge in student teaching. Journal Teaching and Teacher Education, 7 (5/6), 531-535. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (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 (1), 473-490. Certo, J. L. & Fox, J. E. 2002. Retaining quality teachers. High School Journal, 86 (1), 57-75 Cheng, Y.C. (1993). Profiles of organizational culture and effective schools. In School effectiveness and school improvement 4 (2), 85 –110. Chism, N. V., Lees, N. D., & Evenbeck, S. (2002). Faculty development for teaching innovation. Liberal Education, 88 (1) , 34–42. Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., & Marine, R. J. (2002, April). Faculty motivation to use alternative teaching methods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 2 (1), 1-20. Cooke, M. (2011). CEA Pat Clifford Award Winner: Positive teacher- student relationships play a unique role for students with special needs. Retrieved January 07, 2014, from CEA: http://www.cea-ace.ca/press-release/2011-cea-pat. Crow, L.D. and Crow,(1969). Adolescent development and adjustment, Mc Grow – Hill Book Company, United States. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 3(2), 101-107. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Journal of Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1), 1-44.

117 DeChenne, S. E. (2010). Learning to teach effectively: Science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduate teaching assistants’ teaching self-efficacy. (Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, 2010). Demato, S D. (2001). Job satisfaction among elementary school counselors in Virginia Ph. D Dissertation University of Virginia. Retrieved April 7, 2012 from http://www.martin.uky.edu/centers_research/Capstones_2013/Rockstroh.pdf Dembo, M.H. & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86 (2), 173-184. Denham, C.H. & Michael, J.J. (1981). Teacher sense of efficacy: A definition of the construct and a model for further research. Journal of Educational Research Quarterly, 6 (1), 39-61. Driessen, G. (2007). The feminization of primary education: Effect of teachers’ sex on pupil achievement, attitudes and behavior. Journal of International review of education, 53 (2), 183-203. Education Department. (1996). Teachers Performance and assessment. The Punjab University Lahore Government of Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Assessing the Performance of Secondary School Headteachers, 37 (6), 766-783. Ejuu, H. (2005). Teachers‟ self-esteem, sex, qualification and level of commitment to teaching. Unpublished masters (of Arts Educ. Mgt.) Dissertation, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. EMIS, Education Management Information System, (2013-2014). Department of Education Elementary and Secondary Khyber Pukhtunkhwa.

118 Epsiten, D., Elwood, J., Hey, V. & Maw, J. (1998). School boy frictions: feminism and failing boys, in: D. Epsiten,,J. Elwood, V Hey and J.Maw (Eds) failing boys, (Buckingham, Open University press). Eren, A. (2009). Examining the Teacher Efficacy and Achievement Goals as Predictors of Turkish Student Teachers’ Conceptions about Teaching and Learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34 (1), 60-86. Evertson, C. M. (1985). Training teachers in classroom management: experimental study in secondary school classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 32 (1), 34-38. Freeman, C. (2008). Teacher Efficacy and its Impact on Student Achievement" (2008). All Regis University Theses. 16. https://epublications.regis.edu/theses/16 Friedman, I. (2000). Burnout in teachers: Shattered dreams of impeccable professional performance. Psychotherapy in Practice, 56 (5), 595-606. Gavora, P. (2010). Slovak pre-service teacher self-efficacy: Theoretical and research considerations. The New Educational Review, 21(2), 17-30. Genc,E., & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2006). Patterns in teaching styles of science teachers in Florida and factors influencing their preferences. George, P., & Aronson, R. (2003). How educators’ cultural beliefs systems affect underserved students’ pursuit of post-secondary education. Retrieved April 7, 2012 from http://www.prel.org Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.

119 Goddard, R. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 62 (1), 97-110. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. Gordon, L. M. (2001). High teacher efficacy as a marker of teacher effectiveness in the domain of classroom management. San Diego, CA. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the California Council on Teacher Education, (Fall 2001). Guskey, T.R. (1994). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 41-47. Hallak, J. (2007). Planning the location of schools: an instrument of educational policy Paris: UNSECO-HEP, 13-14, 33-39. Hamre, B. K. & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72 (1), 625- 638. Hassan, M. & Akbar, R. (2019). Effect of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy on Students’ Academic Achievements: Case of Male Public Sector Secondary Schools. Journal of Research in Social Sciences (JRSS). 7(2), 2305-6533. Hativa, N., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.) (2001). Teacher thinking, beliefs, and knowledge in higher education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

120 Henson,R. K. (2001, January). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas. Presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Exchange, Texas A & M University. Hill, H. C., Rowan,B. and Ball,D.L. (2005). Effect of Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on student’s achievement. American Education Research Journal 42 (1), 237-406. Housego, B.E.J. (1992). Monitoring student teachers’ feelings of preparedness to teach, personal teaching efficacy and teaching efficacy in a new secondary teacher education program. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38 (1), 49-64. Howard, G.P. (2001). We Can Not Teach What We Don’t Know: Multiracial schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Hoy, A. W. (2000). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(20), 356–372. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1–55. Hussain, S., Ali, R.,Khan, M.S., Ramzan, M.,& Qadeer, M.Z.(2011). Attitude of scholarly school teachers towards teaching profession. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(1), 985-990.

121 Ignat, A., & Clipa, O. (2010). The impact of self-efficacy and locus of control on the professional development of teachers. University Petrol-Gaze din Ploiesti, 1(A), 180- 185. Isiksal, M. (2005). Pre-service teachers’ performance in their university coursework and mathematics self-efficacy beliefs: What is the role of gender and year in program? The Mathematics Educator, 15(2), 8-16. Kaplan, D. (2009). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 20 (4), 721-745. Kinzie, M.B. & Delcourt, M.A.B. (1991). Computer technologies in teacher education: The measurement of attitudes and self-efficacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED331891). Klein, R. B. (2011). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). "May be I can teach those kids": The influence of contextual factors on student teachers' efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (1), 166-179. König, J., Blömeke, S., Paine, L., Schmidt, W.H., & Hsieh, F.-J. (2011). General pedagogical knowledge of future middle school teachers: On the complex ecology of teacher education in the United States, Germany, and Taiwan. Journal of Teacher Education, 62 (2), 188 -201.

122 Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 96-104. Krows, A. J. (1999). Pre-service teachers’ belief systems and attitudes toward mathematics in the context of a progressive elementary teacher preparation program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma. Landino, R. A., & Owen, S. V. (1988). Self-efficacy in university faculty. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33 (1), 1–14. Lanier, J. (1984). Research on Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 251450). Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9 (3), 341–360. Lenhart, S. T. (2010). The Effect of Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge and the Instruction of Middle School Geometry. Unpublished doctoral thesis. School of Education. Liberty University. Lynchburg, VA. Marsh, H.W., Martin,A.J., & Cheng,J.S. (2008). A multilevel perspective on gender in classroom motivation and climate: potential benefit of male teachers for boys? Journal of Education psychology 20 (1), 107-123. Marsh, H. W., and Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: lts multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20 (1), 107-123. Martin, O.L. (1989). Does teacher efficacy begin with teacher education: Implications from student teacher candidates? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 324273).

123 Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Early, D. M., & Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79 (4), 732-749. Marzano, R.J., & Marzano, J.S. (2003) the key to classroom management. Education leadership. 61(i),6-13. Maxton, S.P. (1996). The influence of teachers’ beliefs on literacy development for at-risk first grade students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Metz, E.R. (1986) Symposium addresses teacher preparation. Music Educators Journal, 72 (5), 53-4. Milner, R. (2002). A case study of experienced English teachers’ self-efficacy and persistence through “crisis” situations: Theoretical and practical considerations. The High School Journal, 86 (1), 28-35. Mojavezi, A. & Tamiz, M. P. (2012). The Impact of Teacher Self-efficacy on the Students’ Motivation and Achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2 (3), 483-49. Montague, M., & Rinaldi, C. (2001). Classroom dynamics and children at risk: A follow-up. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24 (3), 75–83. Morris, L. V. (2004). Self-efficacy in academe: Connecting the belief and the reality. Innovative Higher Education, 28 (3), 159–162. Mutchler, H. (2005). Teacher identity in Africa: the case of the Republic of Benin, Unpublished PhD thesis, Stanford University: USA.

124 Namutebi, B. (2006). Reward management practices commitment of teachers in senior secondary schools in Wakiso district, Uganda. Unpublished masters (of Arts Educ. Mgt.) dissertation, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. Narang, H.L. (1990). Beginning teachers’ perceptions of their proficiency in teaching skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 328515). Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Norton, S. M. (2013). A phenomenological investigation into the self-efficacy Beliefs of teachers who have persisted in the teaching. Unpublished doctoral thesis. School of Education. Liberty University. Lynchburg, VA. Obidan, J.E., & Manheim Teel, K. (2001). Because of kids: facing racial and cultural difference in schools, New York; Teachers College Press Omisade,Y.O. (1985). The impact of school management environment on students’ output Quality in Oyo State secondary schools. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, university of Ibadan. Osborne, J. W. (2002). Notes on the use of data transformations. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,8(6). Retrieved from http://PAR Eonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=6 Pajares, Owoeye-Joseph, Sunday and Yara, Philias Olatunde (2010). School location and academic achievement of secondary school in Ekiti State, Nigeria. Kampala international university Kampala, Uganda. Doi, 75(1),170-174. Pajares, F. (1996a). Assessing self-efficacy beliefs and academic outcomes. ‘The case for specificity and correspondent. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

125 Pajares, F. & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal Q/Educational Psychology, 8 (6), l93-203. Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102 (4), 225-238. Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. B. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher-child relationships and deflections in children's classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7 (1), 295-312. Pickens, T. (2010). Personal or professional? Reflecting on teacher-student relationship. Retrieved January 07, 2014, from Journal of Classroom Teaching & Learning: http://joctl.blogspot.com/2010/03/personal-or-professionalreflecting-on.html Pigge, F.L. & Marso, R.N. (1990). A longitudinal assessment of the affective impact of preservice training on prospective teachers. Journal of Experimental Education, 58 (4), 283-289. Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2008). Variation in teachers’ description of teaching: Broadening the understanding of teaching in higher education. Learning and Instruction, 18 (1), 109–120. Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 557–571. Prieto, L. R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1994). The relationship of prior training and previous teaching experience to self-efficacy among graduate teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 35(4), 481–497.

126 Raisani.H.M. (1988). A study of relationship between climate and demographic information to job satisfaction Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan University. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Sawyer, B. E. (2004) Primary grade teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes toward teaching and discipline practice priorities in relation to the responsive classroom approach. The Elementary School Journal, 104 (1), 321- 341. Roche, L.A., & Marsh, H.W. (2002). Teaching self-concept in higher education. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education 179–218. London, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton, Miffiin. Ross, J.A. (2001). The impact of an in-service to promote cooperative learning on the stability of teacher efficacy. Teaching & Teacher Education. 10 (2), 381-394 Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for intimal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 148~l54. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15 (1), 85–109. Saban, A. (2003). A Turkish profile of prospective elementary school teachers and their view of teaching. Teaching and teachers education, 19(8), 829.doi: 10.106/j.tate.2003.03.004. Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (2), 647-658.

127 Sarangapani, P.M.2003. Constructing school knowledge: An ethnography of learning in Indian village. New Delhi: Saga Publication India Private Ltd. Scharlach, T. D. (2008). These kids just aren’t motivated to read: The influence of pre-service teachers’ beliefs on their expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47 (2), 158-173. Schmidt,W. H., Cogan, L., & Houang, R.(2011). The role of opportunity to learn in teaching preparation. An international context. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 138-153. Schon, D. A. (2005). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schunk, D. (2012). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist. 26 (3), 207-231. Shahzad, K. & Naureen, S. (2017). Impact of teacher self-efficacy on secondary school students’ academic achievement. Journal of Education and Educational Development. 4 (1). Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (2006). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Education Research, 51(4), 455–498. Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. I-l. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (1), 91-100. Shoukat, S., & Iqbal, H. M. (2012). Teacher Self-Efficacy as a Function of Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10 (2), 82-85.

128 Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1),1-22. Singer, E. R. (1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Research in higher education 37 (6), 659-79. Smith, R. E. (1989). Effects of coping skills training on generalized self-efficacy and locus of control. Journal of Social Psychology, 6 (1), 223-233. Smylie, M. A. (1996). Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. Instructional Outcomes of school-based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18 (1),181-198. Sood, P. (2006). Educational choice in relation to academic stress, achievement motivation and academic self-concept. J. Comm. Gui. Res., 23(2): 141-152 Stajkovic, A. D. & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. In R. M. Steers, L. W. Porter, & G. A. Bigley (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior 7(1) 126– 140). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Steele, C. (2004). Steele discusses “stereotype threat.” College Street Journal. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2002). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Terry, A. (2008). More life through life management. Retrieved on 1-12, 2014, from Michigan Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.sageday.com/relationships-inthe-classroom/.