IMPACT OF TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL SELF-EFFICACY

29 dissatisfaction and teaching difficulties because teachers’ subject knowledge can strongly influence students’ learning by developing professional activities for improving students’ performance (Hill, Rowan and Ball, 2005). Thomas (2009) conducted a study by classifying teachers as certified, uncertified, or alternatively certified. The academic credentials of the first-year teachers were compared. Researchers calculated teachers’ effectiveness, student achievement, and student background factors by using a regression formula. They found that there is little average difference in impact of certified, uncertified and alternatively certified teachers on academic achievement. The study explored that content knowledge or the lack thereof has no significant impact on student achievement while oppositely, Hill et al., (2005) found that content knowledge and courses taken during training have contributed to student achievement. They also found that degrees and courses taken have more impact on teachers’ teaching at the secondary level than the elementary level. Bailey (1999) measured classroom goals, strategies, and credentials, and found that teachers having graduate degree in mathematics, graduate/undergraduate degree with minors in mathematics, and graduate/undergraduate degree with no minor/major in mathematics showed strongest, appropriate, and lowest mathematical background level respectively. More importantly, teachers without mathematics content knowledge reported lower levels of vigilance to teach mathematics than math content teachers with sufficient math background. Colbeck, Cabrera & Marine (2002) also explored similar results like Bailey (1999). These studies concluded that content knowledge is positively correlated with effective teaching Colbeck et al., (2002). Marsh et al., (2008) explored that content knowledge of a teacher is not the only thing needed to teach students effectively. Thomas (2009) explored that student outcomes are not consistently related to

30 teachers’ content knowledge Howard (2001) has the view that content knowledge is only one thing for justifying that a teacher is highly-qualified. 2.8 Pedagogical Knowledge Shavelson and Stern (2006) stated that majority of teachers are competent in their subject matter but may not be competent in transferring their knowledge to their students effectively i.e. they did not know the way that makes their knowledge accessible to their students. Having pedagogical knowledge is the way to convey ideas and the subject matter knowledge so that students are able to understand them. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2002) has the opinion that pedagogical knowledge is process of learning that a teacher possesses or teachers’ belief about their teaching that influences learners’ learning. This process includes teaching strategies; time and classroom management skills; problem solving techniques, ability to plan and prepare materials; implementation, and different assessment strategies like questioning, bouncing, one-minute paper, one sentence summary, midpoint assessment, muddiest point, telling neighbors etc. Howard (2001) concluded that pedagogical knowledge is essential for teacher to teaching effectively. Schmidt, Cogan, and Houang (2011) believed that pedagogical knowledge can be changed throughout in educational fieldwork and pedagogical knowledge can be learnt from these fieldworks through classroom. Shoukat and Iqbal (2012) showed that throughout undergraduate study fieldwork and coursework is influenced greatly by pedagogical knowledge. Pedagogical knowledge can be improved by experience. Bess (1996) studied the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and their experience. Singer (1996) found that the experienced teachers apparently have more pedagogical knowledge than less experienced or beginner level teachers. This study also explored that fieldwork and teaching courses are supportive in developing teachers’

31 pedagogical knowledge and immense experience is necessary to make it more useful and specialized. Schon (2005) conducted two studies and surprisingly found that more years of experience indicated a lower pedagogical knowledge in regard to higher-order thinking and teachers’ pedagogical knowledge following a professional development course. Schmidt et al., (2011) explored that teachers’ subject belief showed increased pedagogical knowledge. Pedagogical knowledge is the knowledge of effectively teaching in all scenarios. Courses offered in teacher education programs and certification courses improve teachers’ knowledge about their effectiveness and these programs and practices help teachers improve their pedagogy knowledge just as content classes that help to develop content knowledge. Lenhart (2010) studied that there is a positive correlation between student learning in the area of measurement and geometry and teacher pedagogical content knowledge. The beliefs that teachers hold about their way of teaching influence their instructional decisions and their thoughts (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Decisions regarding instruction influence teachers’ planning of learning experiences for learners and hence learner’s ability to avail opportunity to learn. Various research studies have proved that teachers’ decisions regarding instruction depend on their teaching experience and gender (Ross, 2001). It is also important to quote that teachers’ teaching practices also depend on their beliefs regarding school contextual variables (Shulman, 1987). During teacher training, training should be designed in such a way that teachers are able to understand characteristics, contextual factors and beliefs that have shown potential influence on the students’ learning outcomes. Moreover, teachers should involve in exploring the relationships between these variables. Some of these characteristics and beliefs may have combine greater effects on instructional practices than they individually have on teachers’ instructional practices and hence on students’ learning

32 opportunities. For example, the combination of teacher factors such as low efficacious teachers but more structured in their approach and lacking the experience to teach students in low socioeconomic areas may have greater implications than the teachers’ simply lacking certificate by the supervisor the teaching experience for student learning. Hence, it is central to focus teachers’ beliefs in wider angle, to examine the relationships in terms of students learning and students’ learning outcomes. Teachers’ expectations regarding students’ academic performance are curriculumspecific future-oriented judgments. These teachers’ expectations are the teachers’ judgments about the level of students’ academic progress they believe achieved by the end of course. When researchers investigate teachers’ specific expectations about curriculum, they often related them to writing, numeracy, geometry, reading specific curriculum area etc. (Bailey, 1999). Teacher expectations are vital relationship because teacher has varied expectations about different students in the classroom. Sometime teachers have low expectations, sometime high and some time at class level for all their students. Bailey (1999) has the view that low and high expectation beliefs of teachers discriminate them. Teachers with high expectation believed that students should work in flexible ability and mixed groups. Choices, clear learning goals, and challenging learning experiences should be given to students about the activities they completed. On the other hand, low expectation teachers believed that strict ability group students learnt best. Teacher planned quite distinct activities for all students. The teachers with low expectation believed that he has to decide about how, when and what students should learn, and with whom. These divergent beliefs resulted in very varied instructional environments for students in the classroom (Shulman, 1987). Teacher expectations are not same i.e. not equally low or high for all their students. Teachers with

33 high expectation expect that all their students have to make significant academic gains while teachers with low expectation do not expect that their students have to make significant gains after the end of year. Hill, et al (2005) have the view that class level expectations are more important for student outcomes than individual level expectations. Norton (2013) has the view that students learning does not depend on student characteristics but depends on the teacher characteristics. Postareff and Lindblom (2008) conducted meta-analyses of studies related to expectations of naturalistic teacher and they explored that at class level teacher expectations largely effects students’ achievement in reading and a little effect for low expectation teachers. Efficacious teacher is goal orientated which structure their interaction with students, instruction within classrooms, and motivates (Kaplan 2009), Performance goal orientation teachers, formally, more focus on assessing students’ ability to achieve goal while mastery goal orientation teachers, generally, focus on students learning and consider students learning an active process in which students are totally involved in their learning and focused on understandings of acquiring skills (Postareff, Lindblom-Ylanne, & Nevgi, 2007). In teacher viewpoint, teacher expectations indicate their believes about the students to achieve something and efficacy of teacher indicate students’ needs to do to imagined something and teacher goal orientation indicate structure of assessments and classroom lessons in order for students to reach their goals. A teacher with high expectations has confidence that s/he can make a large difference to their learning for all students within the classroom (teacher-efficacy) to result in larger, discriminated and significant student gains (Saban, 2007). Landio (1988) revealed a strong positive correlation between language proficiency and teachers sense of efficacy. Efficacious teachers directly influence their instructional

34 practices. Efficacious teachers felt confident about their abilities and enjoy teaching willingly. S/he implements new and innovative practices and use different new tasks d to affect student learning. Norton (2013) showed that teachers’ efficacy for instructional strategies was higher than his/her efficacy for classroom management and students’ engagement. There is, as well, association between the goal orientated teachers’ beliefs and their observed practices. Krows (1999) found that low mastery beliefs teachers consider learning individualized process achieved by learners only listening to the teacher and passively following instructions. Low mastery beliefs teachers consider student-teacher interaction as wastage of time rather than helpful. They do not encourage students during learning process to share answers or collaborate. Students’ status was recognized by only obeying and following teachers’ procedures. They do not care about their achieving success and performance on tasks. In contrast high mastery beliefs teachers always give much weightage for developing students’ understanding and improvement by collaborating and sharing answers and questions because they considered mistakes as source of information for improving students learning. Conversations and interaction with students were considered as constructive, supportive, and focused on improvement in learning. Students were encouraged to work together actively and participate in class. Students get back feedback for their task and activities rather than for procedures to be followed. Thus, it can be seen that teacher practice are influenced by teacher beliefs. In summary, researches indicate that teachers may change or modify their instructional practices according to their beliefs and a few teachers’ characteristics appear to be associated with distinct beliefs. For example, teachers’ teaching experience and teachers’ gender associated with differential teacher beliefs. Ross (2001) second these results by exploring

35 that more teaching experienced teacher tended to be more efficacious teacher. Similar results are explored by different study in different countries of the world that higher levels of teacher efficacy attributed to their teaching experience (Calderhead, 1991; Darling-Hammond 2000; König, 2011). Similarly, Postareff and Lindblom (2008) have explored that no differences in teacher efficacy by gender but Ross (2001) has the view that teacher efficacy was low in males than in females. Shulman, (1987) found that teachers’ beliefs also influenced by the school context for example, class level allotted to the teacher and socioeconomic status of the school been shown to relate to practices and teachers’ specific beliefs. Ross (2001) explored that elementary school teachers showed higher and consistent teacher efficacy than secondary school teachers. Further, Shulman (1987) stated that teachers working in low socioeconomic schools had lower expectations for the success of their students while teachers working in middle class schools had, comparatively, high expectations. Postareff and Lindblom (2008) explored that teachers in the beginning of their job in primary school appeared to have higher expectations of their students while teachers who spent some time or middle in the job of primary school appeared to have lower expectations of their students. Darling-Hammond (2000) found that the culture of the school determined instructional practices of teachers in secondary classrooms. In schools with competitive culture, teachers’ instructional practices in focused on demonstrating ability consequently students become more performance oriented while in school supportive culture teachers focus their instructional practices for students to mastery in learning. Further, confident teachers showing confidence in their teaching abilities, show high levels of personal efficacy to focus on mastery practices and student learning by creating classroom

36 environments. However, the same link was not found between teachers’ performance practices and their personal efficacy. Further, government funded at a higher rate the schools in low socioeconomic areas than schools in high socioeconomic areas. It means that almost all schools are equally wellresourced. This scenario motivates many experienced and high-quality experienced teachers in choosing to teach in low socioeconomic areas. 2.9 Classroom Management Classroom management is often understood as important and necessary techniques for disciplining misbehavior of individual students (Chism, Lees & Evenbeck 2002). Crow and Crow (1969) stated that classroom management and student misbehavior are important problems for all teachers irrespective of their teaching experience but disciplining individual students’ misbehavior is not only the overall goal for classroom management (Obidah and Manheim, 2001). Discipline is only a very small part among many key aspects of management. In the early third decade of nineteenth century, teachers have reported that student misbehavior and classroom management are most demanding issues for experienced teachers. Classroom management still remains the most frustrating issue for new teachers although many improvements have been seen in classroom teaching in previous many decades (Colback et al. 2002). Classroom management has many dimensions. One dimension related to a teacher’s ability to stimulate student cooperation by engaging students in learning, balancing the menial tasks of the classroom, and keeping order in the classroom (Bandura.1997). Research shows that teachers’ classroom management effected by off task activities, classroom procedural matters, discipline situations, and transitions between activities (Adeyemo, 2005). Acom (2007) has the view that classroom management is a

37 dichotomous element based on behavioral management and instructional management. These two dichotomous elements are necessarily interwoven for students and teachers to form a healthy classroom atmosphere. Behavioral management related to management of learning situations such as non interest of teaching material, interruption of teacher, cheating, collective answers, not participating, preparing the assignments during the lesson, slowness in completing work, not completing the assignments, and reading another subject during the lesson (Begley, 2007). Behaviors related to behavioral management include: non interest of classroom cleanliness, using a cell phone, changing sitting locations, side talks, eating in the classroom, issuing annoying voices, joking during the lesson, lying, theft, too many requests, occupation in side matters, stubbornness, laughing without reason, pretending of sickness, bullying and assaulting other students, and many other like these (Obidah & Manheim 2001). Troublemaking classroom behaviors include over activity, laboratory environment, failure of instruments, inattention, unplanned events, frequent visits of observers in the classrooms and nonfulfillment of requested resources (Bancluta, 1986). As a manager of the classroom, a teacher is required to direct students towards learning and to control the learning environment in order to ensure academic and behavioral achievements among students. One of the emerging trends of modern educational research especially teacher success in teachinglearning process regards the influence of teacher self-efficacy regarding his/her classroom management. Effect of teacher self-efficacy on classroom management is a concept that is relatively new to the field of education. The current research will examine the prevailing relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy, teachers’ efficacy and their classroom management as well as the effects of these relationships on the academic achievement of students of secondary classes in the province of Khyber PakhthtunKhwa. The definitive

38 purpose of teachers’ self-efficacy and efficacy towards classroom management is to equip students with the necessary skills to be successful socially and academically by providing a safe and healthy learning environment (Obidah and Manheim, 2001). 2.10 Importance of Classroom Management Classroom management has become important feature of teaching-learning process since last fifty years because without good classroom management, teachers cannot teach effectively and students cannot learn efficiently (Marzano & Marzano, 2003). Community is monitoring teachers as well as students’ performance keenly and extreme pressuring teachers for their students to perform up to the required standards. High stakes testing and strict accountability held responsible teachers to meet a desired level of academic performance and up to mark success. This task seems near impossible without a properly managed classroom. Learning material is one component of classroom management so if teacher cannot ensure that the students have proper and sufficient learning material, students may not perform up to the standards or mile stone. Poor classroom management may also lead to increased teachers’ stress, exhaustion and attrition levels and violence or victimization within school students (Obidan & Manheim-Teel, 2001). The school culture also has a forceful impact on teachers’ classroom management procedures. Classroom bullying and violence is directly linked with general classroom management. Teachers’ classroom management struggle can minimize this (Calderhead, 1991). 2.11 Factors that Effect Classroom Management There is no agreed upon or set strategy that compares good classroom management. Classroom management requires safe and orderly learning environment by developing enhancing management skills and strategies because classroom management is complex

39 aspect of teaching and its meanings are different for different teachers and varies for every classroom situation and based on maintaining routines, planning, enforcing rules and procedures, and establishing learning environment (Obidah and Manheim, 2001). Teaching experience of a teacher is the most influential aspect for good classroom management as various studies have explored that experienced teacher’s face fewer problems regarding classroom management and poor classroom manager have change the teaching profession (Calderhead, 1991). Besides experience, organizational culture; school policies, certification methods, and teacher preparation programs heavily influence the classroom management abilities of newly inducted teachers. 2.11.1 New Trends in Classroom Management Globally teachers’ self-efficacy is necessary to survive in a proactive and constructivist world. Our teacher education institutions have to re-design their teacher training programs to foster reasonable internal attributions for development of self-efficacy in prospective teachers (Henson, 2001). Teachers training institutes and teachers training programs can effectively impact teacher self-efficacy, therefore such institutions should focus on to inculcate this aspect into training programs for prospective teachers (Knoblauch, & Woolfolk, 2008). Evertson, (1985) revealed that without self-efficacy induction teachers tend to revert to traditional interventions and modes of instruction. Inexperienced or newly inducted teachers often complain about students’’ misbehavior in the classroom due to insufficient knowledge of classroom management skills and practice of these skills. Teacher training institutions focusing on classroom management skills can be help inexperienced teachers improve their skills (Evertson, 1985 & Henson, 2001). Therefore, it is vital to interweave classroom management into all coursework in the teacher education programs

40 because in cause of classroom management less curriculum teachers may question good teaching methods. Teachers’ confidence in their ability to manage troublemaking conduct can develop by special classroom management training programs and this change may lead to an increase in teachers’ levels of self-efficacy (Roche & Marsh, 2002). 2.11.2 Classroom Management and Self-efficacy The tasks of teachers are demanding and heavily considered as accountable for students’ success. Globally, each year, many teachers exhausted and feel unable to carry their teaching profession. For example, USA teacher burnout has become a topic receiving national attention. Students may find some disturbing manners of their favorite teachers. Scharlach (2008) finds that students describe good instruction, personality, and classroom management as characteristics of ‘good’ teachers. students felt uncomfortable when teacher talk to them in a reproachful manner, speak too fast, speak in an unvaried tone, and give too many projects or assignments. Students like teacher who do not get furious unless they misbehaved severely (Calderhead,1991). They expected to solve the problem of disruptive student or students without showing angriness with the whole class. All teachers wanted to solve the students’ learning problems. This shows that teachers believed in their capabilities to deal with challenging situations more than they can do. Sarangapani (2003) found that most of the teachers express a need to improve their classroom management skills. Milner (2002) explains that teachers with high self-efficacy are likely to be successful in providing order in the classroom due to their positive beliefs and less interventionist attitudes toward classroom management. Both low and high efficacious teachers use rewards but low efficacious teachers use severe punishments to maintain order in their classrooms. High efficacious teacher may

41 use “positive reinforcement” or “helping strategies” and low efficacious teacher “punishment” as rewards. 2.12 Student Engagement Various research studies documented that teachers profoundly affect student achievement and teachers affect student achievement in different way, the reason is that some teachers are less effective than others teachers. Shoukat and Iqbal (2012) found that vast literature recommended a high level of student engagement is the basis of effective classroom instruction by effective teachers. Milner (2002) has the view that relationship between teachers and students play an important role in determining a students’ level of engagement in teaching-learning process. 2.12.1 Categories of Student Engagement Henson (2001) classified students’ engagement research studies into behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement categories. Behavioral engagement covers doing work according to the rules, emotional engagement encompasses emotions, interest, and values while cognitive engagement includes strategy use, motivation, and effort to succeed. Behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement are helpful in understanding student engagement. In student-centered approach, learning demands that students have to take responsibility for their work rather than teachers to drive the learning process. Students have to self-engage in learning and teachers controlling in the learning settings. Teachers motivate learners and minimize his role as the director in learning. Teachers’ appropriate teaching strategies are useful in encouraging students to take their learning responsibility rather than teacher to lead the learning process. Shoukat and Iqbal (2012) have the view that teacher efficacy is associated with student engagement in teaching-

42 learning process. The student engagement and teacher efficacy have an impact on their commitments, performances and professional retention. Self-efficacious teachers have the ability to organize appropriate learning activities and help the students especially students who are struggling. Therefore, efficacious teachers remain committed to their work by showing better performance. Walker (1992) found that teachers with low self-efficacy show poor performance than high self-efficacious because they did not use adequate classroom management approaches and did not implement didactic innovations and teaching methods. Ashton and Webb (1986) explored that high self-efficacy teachers keep students on task to achieve learning goals. Schunk (2012) defines teachers’ instructional self-efficacy as teachers’ beliefs about their capacity to help their students to learn. Ashton and Webb (1986) said that teachers’ instructional self-efficacy influences classroom activities, effort, and persistence with students. Teachers’ instructional self-efficacy implies teachers believe in their abilities to enhance students learning effectively while low self-efficacious teachers may not prepare their teaching materials effectively (Henson, 2001; Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001). An effective teacher prepares lessons and comes to the classroom likely show a positive impact on learning and student engagement than teacher who sees s/he position as simply a job to be endured. Effective teachers develop students’ learning rather than teach to earn a salary therefore predictor of student achievement is teacher self-efficacy. Calderhead (1991) stated that, various research studies in different settings confirm the results that students of highly efficacious teachers found to have autonomy, motivation a high level of academic achievement. Highly efficacious teacher is comfortable with new ideas because are ambitious in their work and. They work at most abilities and show patience while facing challenges in new conditions and situations because they show interests and influence by their

43 desire to see students successful. Efficacious teachers’ remains do not the practice to punish students when they make errors or corporal punishment. Punishment of students in learning process contradicts the findings of most research studies regarding teacher efficacy. Ashton and Webb (1986) have suggested that beliefs of these teachers were often linked to strict and harsh punishment procedures, such as sending students out of the classroom, abusing students verbally and physically. Highly efficacious teachers rarely criticize their students when they make errors and continue to show interest in all struggling students in their learning by devoting extra time to assisting students (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Calderhead, 1991) studied and stated that highly efficacious teacher understanding needs of their students in the learning environment. Highly efficacious teachers control undesirable classroom behavior and engage students in learning using various and innovative instructional methods. . Mashburn et al., (2008) identified following variables of efficacious teacher regarding students’ engagement; Wittiness: efficacious teacher observes the class and individuals and continued to assess while engaged with individual students or small groups. Overlapping: efficacious teacher remains capture students’ attention by performing more than one task at a time which helps him/her to conduct the lesson without disruption. Signal continuity and momentum during the lesson: efficacious teacher present content continually in well-planned manner by capturing student attention. Group alertness and accountability during lessons: efficacious teacher used different formative assessment strategies that improve students’ sense of responsibility for learning.

44 Challenge and variety in assignments: efficacious teacher encourage their students and engage them in diversity of assignments to challenge their cognitive abilities. Conveying purposefulness: efficacious teacher takes advantage of the allotted teaching time and encourage students to finish their work in time by evaluating either students are participating or not. Teaching appropriate conduct: efficacious teachers communicates an understanding of what they expected from students. He/she concentrated on important work that students have to do, and on teaching them how to do their work. Maintaining attention: efficacious teacher quickly identified confused and non-serious students in class. He/she changes the tone and pitch of her/his voices during teaching and move around the class also. He/she changes seating arrangements to engage confused and non-serious students. Effective and efficacious teacher focus on students’ expectations, encouraging and supporting students they demanded and needed and instruct their students to abide by rules and procedures. According to Schunk (2012) student engagement is a significant predictor of efficacious teachers’ ability in motivating students, engaging the struggling learner, and pursuing effective instruction. 2.12.2 Factors Affecting Student Engagement Different research studies have explained the following factors which affect students’ engagements during the class 2.12.2.1 Job Dissatisfaction According to Raisani (1988) dissatisfied teachers display less commitment and greater risk for leaving the profession. Effective engaging students using effective instructional strategies, maintaining efficacy, and managing classes is not expected by dissatisfied teacher.

45 2.12.2.2 Class Size Class size is a significant factor that can affect student performance and engagement. Overcrowded classes make it difficult for teachers to interact with students regularly. In overcrowded class teacher with high efficacy even by employing various teaching methods to engage students in learning, cannot be successful (Henson, 2001). 2.12.2.3 Student involvement in teaching learning process Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) stated that a number of research studies have explored consistent relationships between the behaviors or learning of students and characteristics of teachers and teachers’ sense of efficacy is one of the important characteristics and teachers’ efficacy level predict student achievement. A number of studies have been correlated student achievement and teachers’ beliefs and his efficacy levels (Ali, 2011; Prieto & Altmaier, 1994; Shoukat & Iqbal, 2012). Students of efficacious teachers generally outperform than their peers in other classes. Roche and March (2002) found that teacher efficacy had a major effect on how teachers made academic predictions about certain students. Low efficacious teacher demonstrated a bleak outlook on students reading by feeling that inattentive students less likely to achieve academically as compare to highly efficacious teacher did not identify inattentive students. Highly efficacious teacher did not predict poorer academic outcomes based on student characteristics (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Roche and March (2002) qualitatively studied and found that those teachers of highly performing schools are aware of the curriculum standards and that they achieve these standards in their classrooms and consider the standards merely the bare minimum. Teachers of low performing schools feel that curriculum standards are forced students and it difficult that achieving these standards timely. Saban (2003) found that efficacious teachers used a wider variety of teaching techniques, provided additional support for the difficult to teach students and took more

46 responsibility to ensure their students are learning. They teach lower than curriculum standards because s/he confused about the nature of the standards themselves. Comments of teachers from high and low performing schools explored that the efficacy levels of the teachers of high performing schools are higher than the efficacy levels of teachers of low performing schools and efficacious teachers are more apt to demonstrate a number of excellent behaviors include experimenting with a variety of teaching material, using varied methods of instruction, instructional strategies that emphasized creativity, comprehension, and meaningfulness and seeking out new information on improved teaching methods. Teachers with high sense of efficacy teachers make every attempt to avoid disengagement. Marzano and Marzano (2003) stated that efficacious teachers provide timely formative feedback. These teacher use feedback that is crucial to the continued success and improvement of students because too much time between the lesson, assessment and the feedback has a critical effect on students’ achievements. 2.13 Summary The beliefs are referred to “one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations,” The teacher’s belief regarding their own perspective that he possesses the ability to influence student learning and achievement of all students, including those students who may be considered unmotivated and difficult is commonly referred to as teacher self-efficacy. The construct teacher efficacy roots from the late seventy of nineteenth century’s studies foundation on sense of self-efficacy is positively related to student achievement (Denham & Michael, 1981). Teacher efficacy construct is twodimensional, one dimension relates to teachers’ teaching as general teaching efficacy that perceived as the power of teaching to achieve desired and objective results, and second

47 dimension is teachers’ own teaching efficacy that is perceived as his/her belief in his/her personal ability to achieve that desired results. Teachers having high levels of self-efficacy have a strong peoples and academic orientation (Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Klein, 2011). Efficacious teachers’ ability in student engagement can be seen by considering how s/he encourage their students to think critically, motivate students for learning, and how foster student creativity. Hoy (2000) defined the term ‘teacher’s efficacy’ as a teacher’s confidence to promote students’ learning. Gavora (2010) explained teachers’ efficacy as having two major dimensions i.e. Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) and General Teaching Efficacy (GTE). Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) refers to a teacher’s overall sense of effectiveness of his/her teaching. It represents a teacher’s belief in his/her competencies to assist students’ learning. On the other hand, General Teaching Efficacy is about the teaching as a profession itself and not about the person who is teaching. Gavora (2010) explained General Teaching efficacy to be the confidence that teaching as an activity or form of education in an organizational setup has its positive effects on students’ learning even in presence of external factors like lack of motivation and unsupportive home environments etc. Metz (1986) theory presupposes that people should follow the obligations to one’s individual or society because upholding one’s duty is what is considered ethically correct. It is possible by analyzing an ethical dilemma, meaning that a person should adhere to their obligations and duties under the core values of the code of conduct, and being committed, and having a positive perception. Bandura,and Albert (1977) as an expert of cognitive theory in social setup, states that that people are competent in human activity that operates in “triadic” reciprocal causation process. The triad stems from behavior, environmental influences and

48 internal personal factors. These three inter-related forces resulting from affective, cognitive and biological processes and impact of the actions they will take as well as what people believe about themselves. The teacher efficacy related research explored that teachers’ certain beliefs and biases can affect ways the students are treated in their presence or feelings about students. Teachers’ beliefs and efficacy influence what they do in the classroom. Teachers’ actions are generally based on their belief system, which can affect their students and their classroom practices. External factors like content of the subject, diverse nature of students and family influence and local guidelines can affect teacher beliefs. (Cagle, 1998; Henson, 2001; Gordon, 2001; George & Aaronson, 2003; Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004; Scharlach, 2008). The tasks of teachers are demanding and heavily considered as accountable for students’ success.) Gordon, 2001 found that students describe good instruction, personality, and classroom management as characteristics of ‘good’ teachers. Shell, Murphy, and Bruning (1989) explored that that students felt uncomfortable when teacher talk to them in a reproachful manner, speak too fast, speak in an unvaried tone, and give too many projects or assignments. Students like teacher who do not get furious unless they misbehaved severely Demato (2001) and they expected to solve the problem of disruptive student or students without showing angriness with the whole class. All teachers wanted to solve the students’ learning problems. This shows that teachers believed in their capabilities to deal with challenging situations more than they can do. Evertson (1985) found that most of the teachers express a need to improve their classroom management skills because Henson (2001) explains that teachers with high self-efficacy are likely to be successful in providing order in the classroom due to their positive beliefs and less interventionist attitudes toward classroom

49 management. Both low and high efficacious teachers use rewards but low efficacious teachers use severe punishments to maintain order in their classrooms. High efficacious teacher may use “positive reinforcement” or “helping strategies” and low efficacious teacher “punishment” as rewards. Woolfolk and Hoy, (1990) stated that a number of research studies have explored consistent relationships between the behaviors or learning of students and characteristics of teachers and teachers’ sense of efficacy is one of the important characteristics. A number of studies have been correlated student achievement and teachers’ beliefs and his efficacy levels (Salomon, 1984; Schon, 2005; Shell et al. (1989); Tollerud, 1999). Teachers’ efficacy level predicts student achievement students of efficacious teachers generally outperform than their peers in other classes. Stajkovic and Luthans, (1998) found that teacher efficacy had a major effect on how teachers made academic predictions about certain students. Low efficacious teacher demonstrated a bleak outlook on students reading by feeling that inattentive students less likely to achieve academically as compare to highly efficacious teacher did not identify inattentive students. Highly efficacious teacher did not predict poorer academic outcomes based on student characteristics (Epsiten, et al. 1998; George and Aronson, 2003). DeChenne (2010) qualitatively studied and found that those teachers of highly performing schools are aware of the curriculum standards and that they achieve these standards in their classrooms and consider the standards merely the bare minimum. Teachers of low performing schools feel that curriculum standards are forced students and it difficult that achieving these standards timely. Demato (2001) found that efficacious teachers used a wider variety of teaching techniques, provided additional support for the difficult to teach students and took more responsibility to ensure their students are learning. They teach lower than curriculum

50 standards because s/he confused about the nature of the standards themselves. Comments of teachers from high and low performing schools explored that the efficacy levels of the teachers of high performing schools are higher than the efficacy levels of teachers of low performing schools and efficacious teachers are more apt to demonstrate a number of excellent behaviors include experimenting with a variety of teaching material, using varied methods of instruction, instructional strategies that emphasized creativity, comprehension, and meaningfulness and seeking out new information on improved teaching methods. Teachers with high sense of efficacy teachers make every attempt to avoid disengagement. Marzano and Marzano (2003) stated that efficacious teachers provide timely formative feedback. These teacher use feedback that is crucial to the continued success and improvement of students because too much time between the lesson, assessment and the feedback has a critical effect on students’ achievements. Efficacious teachers’ ability in instructional strategies can be consider by how he responds to difficult questions posed by students, how teachers gauge student comprehension, and how teachers are able to adjust lessons to the appropriate level for individual students. Self-efficacy beliefs play a considerable role in shaping the personality of individual by, how people think, motivates them, and ultimately acts. People with high self-efficacy beliefs will visualize successful scenarios when planning courses of action, increase the difficulty and specificity of task-related goals, and decrease the amount of stress experienced in challenging situations (Bandura, 1993).Efficacious teachers’ ability in student engagement can be seen by considering her/his ability to control disruptive behavior in the classroom, how well teachers can establish routines to foster student compliance, and how well teachers can make expectations clear about student behavior (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy 2007). There is a

51 positive relationship between efficacious teachers’ ability in student engagement and student academic achievement. There is a positive relationship between efficacious teachers’ ability in instructional strategies and student academic achievement. There is a positive relationship between efficacious teachers’ ability in classroom management and student academic achievement. There is a positive relationship between total years of teaching experience of efficacious teachers and student academic achievement. Efficacious teachers’ ability in student engagement can be seen by considering how s/he encourage their students to think critically, motivate students for learning, and how foster student creativity. Efficacious teachers’ ability in instructional strategies can be consider by how s/he respond to difficult questions posed by students, how teachers gauge student comprehension, and how teachers are able to adjust lessons to the appropriate level for individual students. Efficacious teachers’ ability in student engagement can be seen by considering her/his ability to control disruptive behavior in the classroom, how well teachers can establish routines to foster student compliance, and how well teachers can make expectations clear about student behavior (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy 2001). There is a positive relationship between efficacious teachers’ ability in student engagement and student academic achievement. There is a positive relationship between efficacious teachers’ ability in instructional strategies and student academic achievement. There is a positive relationship between efficacious teachers’ ability in classroom management and student academic achievement. There is a positive relationship between total years of teaching experience of efficacious teachers and student academic achievement.

52 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This research study aimed to identify the impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy on students’ academic achievement at secondary school level. The objectives also include the exploration of differences among two types of schools’ teachers (science and general) in teachers’ professional efficacy and teacher efficacy. Additionally, this study also tries to examine the relative impact of gender, location and different subject areas (science and general) on teachers’ professional efficacy and teacher efficacy. This chapter describes research design, research instruments used, sampling rationale, selected sample and the method implemented to carry out the study. 3.1 Research Design The research design adopted in this research is co-relational descriptive survey in nature. The design comprises an identification of three types of correlations; first, it examines the impact of secondary school teachers’ professional efficacy (in terms of student engagement) and student academic achievement. Secondly, it explores the impact of secondary school teachers’ professional-efficacy (in terms of instructional strategies) and student academic achievement. Thirdly, it finds the impact of secondary school teachers’ professional-efficacy (in terms of classroom management) and student academic achievement. Differences in teachers’ professional efficacy and teachers’ efficacy with respect to genders, location, and subject (science and general) are also explored. Science and general teachers from male and female Government Secondary Schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province have been selected as part of this study.

53 3.2 Population of the Study Total numbers of High and Higher Secondary Schools (Boys and Girls) in the selected six districts were 1667. Total Secondary Schools Teachers (SSTs) general (Male and Female) were 4974 and total Secondary Schools Teachers (SSTs) Science (Male and Female) were 1574. Total number of students (Science and general) appeared in SSC exam (10th grade) boys and girls were 97,460 in the selected six districts (EMIS, 2013-14) who formulated the total population of the study. 3.3 Sample of the Study Multi Stage Stratified Random Sample Technique was used for constituted sample of the present study. Among the selected six districts twenty (20) high and higher Secondary Schools from each district were randomly selected. Each cluster of twenty (20) schools comprised of twelve (12) male and eight (8) female schools. From each selected school three Senior School Teachers (SST), one Science and two generals were selected by using random sampling. SST Science included in the sample were those who taught Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. There were two types of general teachers included in the sample; ‘general teacher one’, who taught Mathematics, General Science, and Pakistan Studies, while ‘general teacher two’ taught English, Urdu and Islamic Studies/ Home economics to their students in this research study. Thus, a total of three hundred and sixty (360) teachers have (216 male and 144 female) constituted the proposed sample under study. All 10th grade students being taught by the selected teachers in the academic year 2013-14 were also included in the sample of study.

54 3.4 Research Instruments Three instruments were used for this research. Data were collected from sampled teachers using two questionnaires i.e. Teacher Efficacy Scale and Teacher Self Efficacy Scale. In addition, result sheets of sampled students from concerned Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education were also used. The researcher used the original versions of both questionnaires i.e. Teachers’ Efficacy Scale (TES) and the Teachers’ Self Efficacy Scale (TSES) prepared by Anita Woolfolk Hoy, Professor Educational Psychology & Philosophy, School of Educational Policy & Leadership, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Proper permissions to use the original scales were obtained through email from Anita Woolfolk Hoy. The original scales were translated into national language (Urdu) for the better understanding of sampled teachers with her permission. Translation of the questionnaires into Urdu was initially carried out by the language experts. The Urdu versions were translated back into English to see if they maintain their originality. Both version of the research instruments was presented to six experts in the relevant field. They were requested to review the research tools in the light of research objectives and theory and practice of the relevant field. The experts suggested some changes in the statements and indicated duplication of context at some points. The research instrument was refined and improved in the light of feedback from the experts. Two research instruments were used in this research; Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) and Teacher Self Efficacy Scale (TSES). Here is a detailed description of the two scales. The TES structured around two dimensions i.e. Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) and General Teaching Efficacy (GTE). Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) represents a teacher’s belief in his/her skills and capabilities to help students’ learning achievement. It shows the teachers’

55 overall sense of his/her teaching effectiveness. Fourteen (14) items represent personal teaching efficacy. General Teaching Efficacy (GTE) represents the belief that teaching has positive effect on students in the light of external factors like lack of motivation, nonsupportive home environment etc. There are eight (8) items in the instrument that measure general teaching efficacy. Teacher Self Efficacy Scale (TSES) provides a measure of teachers’ self-perceived capability that they can contribute to students’ learning achievement. Self-Efficacy is about self-knowing. Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Scale has three domains such as instructional strategies, classroom management and student’s engagement. Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Scale is comprised of 24 items each based on 5-point Likert scale. These 24 items represent the 3 domains i.e. 13 items represent instructional strategies, 6 items belong to classroom management and 5 items describe students’ engagement. 3.5 Validity Efficacy and self-efficacy scales should have face validity. They should measure what they purport to measure, that is, perceived capability to produce given attainments. But they should also have discriminative and predictive validity. The construct of self-efficacy is embedded in a theory that explains a network of relationships among various factors. Construct validation is a process of hypothesis testing. People who score high on self-efficacy should differ in distinct ways from those who score low in ways specified by the theory. Verifications of predicted effects provide support for the construct’s validity. 3.6 Reliability The pre testing helps to indicate mistakes in the process of data collection. For pilot testing, both instruments were administered to the 30 teachers (10 from science subjects and

56 20 from general subjects) that were the part of population but not included in the sample of the study. Time for completion of questionnaire was noted and the points which needed clarification for understanding of the respondents were also highlighted. In the light of feedback from pilot testing, both the research instruments were further improved and made appropriate under the guidance of the supervisor. Reliability places an upper limit on the maximum possible correlation that can be obtained between variables. Internal consistency reliabilities should be computed using Cronbach’s alpha. If the reliability coefficients are low, discard or rewrite the items with low correlates. Including only a few items will limit the alpha level. Increase the number of items. For finding the reliability of research instrument, the reliability co-efficient Chronbach Alpha was calculated. Its values for Teachers efficacy scale was found to be 0.731, and for Teachers self-efficacy scale it was found to be 0.803. 3.7 Data Collection Researcher visited each and every school to collect the primary data on teachers’ efficacy and teachers’ self-efficacy from the sampled teachers via the selected research instruments. To measure the impact of teachers’ professional self-efficacy on students’ achievement, results sheets of selected students from corresponding Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education were used as secondary data. 3.8 Data Analysis Collected data was analyzed using SPSS 15 software. To test the stated hypotheses Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, Linear Regression Model, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Independent Sample t-test were used. In addition, an alpha (p) level of 0.05 and 0.01 was used in all hypothesis’s tests.

57 The performance score of a teacher was calculated using GPA formula devised by the Govt. of Punjab (1996) for the calculation of teacher performance. The formula is as: GPA= (A+ × 10 + A × 7 +B ×5 +C × 3 + D × 2 +E ×1) × 10 ÷ (Total Number of Students) Where A+= Number of students with A+ grade; A= Number of students with A grade; B= Number of students with B grade; C= Number of students with C grade; D= Number of students with D grade; and E= Number of students with E grade. 3.9 Statistical Techniques Applied for Hypotheses Testing The following statistical techniques were applied to hypotheses for testing purpose: Table 3.9.1: Statistical Techniques Used for Hypotheses Testing S. No Hypotheses Statements Statistics Applied 1 Secondary School Teachers have high professional self-efficacy. Independent Sample t-test Formula used 2 Secondary school teacher of different categories (gender wise, locality wise and subject wise) have no significant difference Independent Sample t-test (two tailed) and ANOVA

58 S. No Hypotheses Statements Statistics Applied in term of their student academic achievement. 3 There is no significant correlation between teachers’ professional self-efficacy and their performance in terms their students’ achievement. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient 4 There is no significant correlation between professional self-efficacy and performance in terms their students’ achievement for the male and female teachers. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient

59 S. No Hypotheses Statements Statistics Applied 5 There is no significant correlation between professional self-efficacy and performance in terms their students’ achievement for the teachers from urban and rural area. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient 6 There is no significant correlation between professional self-efficacy and performance in terms their students’ achievement for the teachers from science and arts discipline. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient 7 There are no significant predictors of secondary schools’ teachers’ professional Regression

60 S. No Hypotheses Statements Statistics Applied self-efficacy as well as their students’ academic achievement.

61 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION This chapter deals with the analysis of data collected from teachers and students. The teacher efficacy and professional self-efficacy questionnaires were piloted before administration to the sample of the study and it was reviewed by the experts and approved by the supervisor. The questionnaires were administered to identify the professional self-efficacy level of secondary school teachers at Government sector. Secondary schools’ students’ achievement data were collected from six Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE). A comparison of means scores was carried out to measure differences. The data were analyzed by applying independent sample t-test and one sample t-test at 0.05 level of confidence to measure significant mean score differences for independent variables. To calculate the magnitude of correlation between student’s achievement and teacher’s efficacy and between efficacy sub scales Pearson correlation were applied (at0.05 level of confidence). Linear Regression model was also use to find the relationship between teacher professional self- efficacy/teacher, efficacy and teacher performance in term of their students’ achievement. 4.1 Academic Achievement of Students Related to Different Categories of Teachers Students’ academic achievement was measured by using the result score of BISE in science and general subjects, i.e. Science subjects included Biology, Chemistry, and Physics and general subjects included English, Mathematics, Urdu, General Science, Pakistan Studies, and Islamic Studies (in case of male students)/ Home economics (in case of female students).

62 Table 4.1. 1 Academic achievement of students related to different categories of teachers Variable Category N Assumed Mean Calculated Mean SD t P Students’ academic achievement Science teacher 120 15 11.19 6.111 30.068 0.000 General teacher one 120 15 10.00 6.378 17.179 0.000 General teacher two 120 15 7.84 7.032 12.228 0.000 Total teacher 360 15 9.68 6.647 27.638 0.000 Table 4.1.1 shows that overall calculated mean of students’ academic achievement was 9.68>15, mean score of students belonging to science teacher was 11.19>15, general teacher one was 10.00>15 and general teacher two was 7.84>15. In all cases calculated mean is lower than the assumed mean (p<0.05), thus students belonging to all the three categories of teachers have relatively low academic achievement and this result is statistically significant at p<0.05. 4.2 Level of Efficacy and Professional Self-Efficacy of Secondary Schools Teachers Teachers’ professional self-efficacy was measured by using two rating scales i.e. Efficacy scale (covering general and personal teacher efficacy), and professional self-efficacy scale (covering classroom management, teaching instruction, and student engagement) with different categories of teachers i.e. subjects, gender and locality. The data obtained through these scales have been analyzed in underlying tables.

63 Table 4.2. 1 Efficacy of secondary school teachers Aspect of TE N Assumed Mean Calculated Mean SD tvalue pvalue GTE 360 24 26.86 4.689 103.58 0.000 PTE 360 42 51.63 6.120 151.83 0.000 Table 4.2.1 indicates that the calculated mean score of general and personal teaching efficacy of secondary schools teachers are greater than assumed mean score of general teaching efficacy (26.86>24 and p<0.05) and personal teaching efficacy (51.63>42 and p<0.05) , thus the teachers of secondary schools were highly efficacious. Table 4.2.2 Professional self-efficacy of secondary school teachers Aspect of Professional SE N Assumed Mean Calculated Mean SD t-value p-value Student Engagement 360 24 30.44 3.895 148.08 0.00 Instructional strategies 360 24 24.19 3.587 106.275 0.00 Classroom Management 360 24 27.11 3.891 131.998 0.00 Table 4.2.2 indicates that the calculated mean score of three dimensions of teachers’ professional self-efficacy i.e. students’ engagement, instructional strategies and classroom management and greater than assumed mean score. For student engagement (30.44>24 and p<0.05), instructional strategies (24.19.>24 and p<0.05) and classroom management

64 (27.11.>24 and p<0.05) for all dimensions calculated mean is significantly higher than the assumed mean, thus secondary school teachers were professionally highly efficacious. 4.3 Comparison of Academic Achievement of Students Belonging to Teachers with Different Categories Data was collected from teachers having different categories i.e. gender, location, and subject area. The efficacy and professional self-efficacy of these teachers has been compared in the following tables. Table 4.3.1 Academic achievement of students belonging to teachers with different locality Variables Category N Mean SD t-value p-value Students’ academic achievement Urban teacher 180 622 101.133 5.586 0.000 Rural teacher 180 604 94.287 Table 4.3.1 shows mean difference of academic achievement of students belonging to teachers with different locality. The mean of students’ academic achievement belonging to urban teachers was 622 and students’ academic achievement of rural teachers was 604.The value of t (5.586) is significant at p<0.05 level of significance, the mean score of students’ academic achievement belonging to urban teachers was greater as compared to the students’ academic achievement of rural teachers, which indicated that academic achievement of students belonging to urban teachers’ was greater than the academic achievement of students’ belonging to rural teachers.. Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference between the academic achievement of students belonging to urban and rural teachers,” was rejected.

65 Table 4.3.2 Academic achievement of students belonging to teachers with different gender Variables Category N Mean SD t-value p-value Students’ academic achievement Male teacher 216 585 93.408 Female teacher 144 654 90.441 21.909 0.000 Table 4.3.2 shows mean difference of academic achievement of students belonging to teachers with gender. The mean of students’ academic achievement belonging to male teachers was 585 and students of female teachers was 654.The value of t (21.909) is significant at p<0.05 level of significance, the mean score of students’ academic achievement belonging to female teachers was greater as compared to the students’ academic achievement of male teachers. Which indicated that academic achievement of students belonging to female teachers was greater than the students of male teachers. Hence the hypothesis that “there is no significant difference between the academic achievement of students belonging to male and female teachers,” was rejected.

66 Table 4.3.3 Academic achievement of students belonging to teachers with different subjects Variables Category N Mean SD t-value p-value Students’ academic achievement Science teachers 120 649.28 96.329 General teachers 240 576.47 85.740 23.954 0.000 Table 4.3.3 shows mean difference of academic achievement of students belonging to teachers with different subjects. The mean of students’ academic achievement of science teachers was 649.28 and students’ academic achievement of general teachers was 576.47. The value of t (23.954) is significant at p<0.05 level of significance, the mean score of students’ academic achievement of science teachers was higher as compared to the students’ academic achievement of general teachers, which indicated that academic achievement of students belonging to science teachers was greater than the students’ academic achievement of general teachers. Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference between the academic achievements of students belonging to teachers of different subject,” was rejected.

67 Table 4.3. 4 Comparison of teachers’ professional self-efficacy with in science and general subjects Aspect Teacher Group Name N M SD t-value p-value Class room management Science 120 26.96 3.886 0.961 0.337 General 240 27.37 3.901 Students engagement Science 120 30.35 3.679 0.599 0.550 General 240 30.60 4.262 Instructional strategies Science 120 19.98 3.531 0.979 0.328 General 240 20.36 3.685 Total teachers’ professional selfefficacy Science 120 81.31 9.596 General 240 82.50 10.078 1.105 0.270 Table 4.3.4 shows the comparison of the science teachers and general teacher with professional self-efficacy and its different aspects. Statistical values for professional selfefficacy in classroom management (t=0.961, p>0.05), in students’ engagement (t=0.599, p>0.05) and in instructional strategies (t=979, p> 0.05) indicate that there is no significant difference between science teachers and general teachers regarding professional self-efficacy in classroom management, student’s engagement, and instructional strategies. Similarly, there is no significant difference (t=1.105, p>0.05) between science teachers and general teachers regarding total teachers’ professional self-efficacy.

68 Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference between professional self-efficacy of science teachers and general teachers” has been accepted. Table 4.3. 5 Comparison of teachers’ efficacy with in science and general subjects Aspect Teacher Group Name N M SD t-value p-value Personal teaching Efficacy Science 120 53.75 5.499 General 240 53.87 7.549 .158 0.874 General teaching efficacy Science 120 34.290 3.470 .328 0.743 General 240 34.149 4.479 Total teaching efficacy Science 120 99.79 11.318 .198 0.843 General 240 100.05 12.956 Table 4.3.5 shows the comparison of the science teachers and general teachers with efficacy and its different aspects. Statistical values for personal teaching efficacy (t=.158, p>0.05) and general teaching efficacy (t=.328, p>0.05) indicate that there is no significant difference between science teachers and general teachers regarding personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy. Similarly, there is no significant difference (t=.198, p>0.05) between science teachers and general teachers subjects regarding total teacher efficacy. Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference between efficacy of science teachers and general teachers” was accepted.

69 Table 4.3. 6 Comparison of professional self-efficacy of male and female teachers Aspect Teacher Group Name N M SD t-value Df p-value Class room management Male 216 26.69 4.217 Female 144 27.74 3.252 2.525 358 0.012 Students engagement Male 216 30.49 3.924 Female 144 30.36 3.863 .302 358 0.763 Instructional strategies Male 216 20.40 3.776 Female 144 19.69 3.246 1.831 358 0.068 Total teachers’ professional efficacy Male 216 81.56 10.610 Female 144 82.00 8.384 .417 358 0.677 Table 4.3.6 shows the comparison of the male and female teachers with their professional self-efficacy and its different aspects. Statistical values for professional self-efficacy in classroom management (t=2.525, p>0.05), professional self-efficacy in students engagement (t=.302, p>0.05), and professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies (t=1.831, p> 0.05) indicate that there is no significant difference between male teachers and female teachers regarding professional self-efficacy in classroom management, students engagement, and instructional strategies. Similarly, there is no significant difference (t=.417, p>0.05) between male teachers and female teachers regarding total professional self-efficacy.

70 Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference between professional self-efficacy of male teachers and female science teachers” was accepted. Table 4.3. 7 Comparison of the efficacy of male and female teachers Aspect Teacher Group Name N Mean SD t-value p-value Personal teaching efficacy Male 216 52.93 6.118 3.135 0.002 Female 144 55.16 6.397 General teaching efficacy Male 216 33.68 3.969 3.381 0.001 Female 144 35.09 3.543 Total teachers’ efficacy Male 216 98.31 11.110 3.115 0.002 Female 144 102.26 12.712 Table 4.3.7 shows the comparison of the male and female teachers regarding efficacy and its different aspects. Statistical values for personal teaching efficacy (t=3.135, p>0.05) and general teaching efficacy (t=3.381, p>0.05) which indicate that there is no significant difference between male and female teachers regarding personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy Similarly, there is no significant difference (t=3.115, p>0.05) between male teachers and female teachers regarding total teacher efficacy. Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference between efficacy of male and female teachers” was accepted.

71 Table 4.3. 8 Location wise comparison of secondary school teachers’ professional selfefficacy. Aspect Teacher Group Name N M SD t-value Df p-value Class room management Urban 180 26.89 3.971 1.503 358 0.134 Rural 180 27.55 3.702 Students engagement Urban 180 30.42 3.879 .133 358 0.894 Rural 180 30.48 3.942 Instructional strategies Urban 180 20.10 3.879 .127 358 0.899 Rural 180 20.15 3.942 Total teachers’ professional efficacy Urban 180 81.47 9.717 .728 358 0.467 Rural 180 82.27 9.908 Table 4.3.8 shows the comparison of the urban teachers and rural teachers regarding professional self-efficacy of teachers and its different aspects. Statistical values for teachers professional self-efficacy in classroom management (t=1.503, p>0.05), teachers professional self-efficacy in students engagement (t=.133, p>0.05), and teachers professional self-efficacy in instructional strategies (t=.127, p> 0.05) indicate that there is no significant difference between urban teachers and rural teachers regarding their professional self-efficacy in classroom management, students engagement, and instructional strategies. Similarly, there is no significant difference (t=.728, p>0.05) between urban teachers and rural teachers regarding total their professional self-efficacy. Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference

72 between teacher’s professional self-efficacy of urban teachers and rural teachers” has been accepted. Table 4.3. 9 Location wise comparison of secondary school teachers’ efficacy Aspect Teacher Group Name N M SD t-value p-value Personal teaching efficacy Urban 180 53.97 5.975 1.206 0.229 Rural 180 55.00 7.282 General teaching efficacy Urban 180 34.56 3.442 1.472 0.142 Rural 180 35.25 4.188 Total teachers’ efficacy Urban 180 99.79 10.723 2.130 0.034 Rural 180 101.77 13.871 Table 4.3.9 shows the comparison of the urban and rural teachers regarding efficacy and its different aspects. Statistical values for personal teaching efficacy (t=1.206, p>0.05) and general teaching efficacy (t=1.472, p>0.05) which indicate that there is no significant difference between urban and rural teachers regarding personal teacher efficacy and general teacher efficacy similarly, there is no significant difference (t=2.130, p>0.05) between urban teachers and rural teachers regarding total teacher efficacy. Hence the hypothesis “there is no significant difference between efficacy of urban and rural teachers” was accepted.

73 4.4 Impact of Teacher’s Efficacy on Students’ Academic Achievement Within Different Categories Impact of teachers’ efficacy and its different aspects on their students’ academic achievement was examined by using teacher efficacy scale (TES) questionnaire with the student result score at SSC level with different categories of secondary schools’ teachers. This impact has been shown in the following tables. Table 4.4. 1 Male and female teachers’ efficacy and their students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and teacher efficacy Male 216 0.262 0.000 Female 144 0.314 0.000 The table 4.4.1 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for male teachers’ efficacy and students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.262, p<0.05) and female teacher efficacy and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.314, P<0.05) It means that efficacy of male and female teachers has 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 rejected.

74 Table 4.4. 2 Male and female teachers’ personal teaching efficacy and students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement And personal teaching efficacy Male 216 0.751 0.000 Female 144 0.648 0.000 The table 4.4.2 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for personal teaching efficacy of male teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.751, p<0.05) and personal teaching efficacy of female teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.648, P<0.05). It means that personal teaching efficacy of male and female teachers has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of personal teaching efficacy on students’ academic achievement of male and female teachers” was rejected. Table 4.4. 3 Teachers’ general teaching efficacy and their students’ academic achievement of male and female teachers Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and teacher general teaching efficacy Male 216 0.152 0.000 Female 144 0.022 0.000 The table 4.4.3 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for general teaching efficacy of male teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.152, p<0.05) and general teaching efficacy of female teachers and their students’ academic achievement

75 (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.022, P<0.05). It means that general teaching efficacy of male and female teachers has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of general teaching efficacy on students’ academic achievement of male and female teachers” was rejected. Table 4.4.4 Urban and rural teachers’ efficacy and their students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and teacher efficacy Urban 60 0.370 0.000 Rural 60 0.092 0.319 The table 4.4.4 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for efficacy of urban teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.370, p<0.05) and efficacy of rural teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.092, P>0.05). It means that efficacy of urban teachers has significant impact on students’ academic achievement, on the other hand and rural teachers has no impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of teachers efficacy on students’ academic achievement of urban and rural teachers” was partially rejected

76 Table 4.4.5 Locality wise teachers’ personal teaching efficacy and their students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and teachers personal teaching efficacy Urban 60 0.370 0.000 Rural 60 0.400 0.000 The table 4.4.5 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for personal teaching efficacy of urban teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.370, p<0.05) and personal teaching efficacy of rural teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.400, P<0.05). It means that personal teaching efficacy of urban and rural teachers has significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of teachers personal teaching efficacy on students’ academic achievement of urban and rural teachers” was rejected. Table 4.4.6 Locality wise teachers’ general teaching efficacy and their students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ p-value Students’ academic achievement and teachers general teaching efficacy Urban 60 0.434 000 Rural 60 0.019 0.770 The table 4.4.6 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for general teaching efficacy of urban teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.434, p<0.05) and

77 general teaching efficacy of rural teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.019, P>0.05). It means that general teaching efficacy of urban teachers has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement. On the other hand rural teachers has no significant impact on students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of teachers general teaching efficacy on students’ academic achievement of urban and rural teachers” was partially rejected. Table 4.4.7 Subject wise teachers’ efficacy and their students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two-tailed) Students’ academic achievement and teacher efficacy Science teacher 120 0.761 0.000 General teacher (one) 120 0.789 0.000 General teacher (two) 120 0.713 0.000 The table 4.4.7 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for efficacy of science teachers and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.761, p<0.05), general teacher one and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.789, P<0.05) and general teacher two and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.713, P<0.05). It means that efficacy of science teacher, general teacher one and general teacher two has significant impact on their students’ academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis, “there is no significant impact of teachers efficacy on students’ academic achievement of different subject,” was rejected.

78 Table 4.4.8 Subject wise teachers’ personal teaching efficacy and their students’ academic achievement Variable Category N Pearson ‘r’ Sig (two-tailed) Students’ academic achievement and teacher personal teaching efficacy Science teacher 120 0.340 0.000 General teacher one 120 0.482 0.000 General teacher two 120 0.377 0.000 The table 4.4.8 indicates the magnitude of correlation coefficient for personal 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’ = 0.482, P<0.05) and general teacher two and their students’ academic achievement (Pearson ‘r’ = 0.377, P<0.05). It means that personal 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 personal teaching efficacy on students’ academic achievement of different subject teachers” was rejected.