79

MEASURING THE SELF-EFFICACY OF IN-SERVICE

TEACHERS IN SLOVAKIA1

PETER GAVORA

Comenius University, Bratislava

Abstract: The paper describes the construct of teacher self-efficacy, which draws
on Albert Bandura´s social-cognitive theory. Self-efficacy is defined as teacher
judgement about teacher’s capacities to bring about the desired outcomes of
instruction. It has been proved in many studies that high self-efficacy positively
affects pupil’s motivation and learning. The process of adaptation of the Slovak
version of Gibson’s and Dembo´s Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) is described in
detail. The wording of scale items as used in our earlier research (Gavora 2009,
2010) has been altered to reflect the more internal/external orientation of TES
dimensions rather than personal teaching efficacy/general teaching efficacy
dimensions. The new version of the TES was factor-analysed to assess its
construct validity, and reliability coefficients were calculated. A sample of 217
teachers in 5 regions of Slovakia filled in the TES. The data were categorized
according to teachers´ years of practice, gender, and the level of school (primary/
lower secondary). The findings are not dissimilar from those in North American
and Western European studies showing that (1) an above-average level (as
assessed theoretically) of perceived self-efficacy of teachers is a characteristic of
the majority of in-service teachers, (2) general teaching efficacy scores are lower
than those of personal teaching efficacy, (3) in-service teachers are superior to
the pre-service teachers in our previous sample (Gavora, 2009, 2010) in terms of
personal teaching efficacy but not in general teaching efficacy, and (4) likewise,
female teachers are superior to male teachers in personal teaching efficacy
while no statistical difference was detected in general teaching efficacy.

Key words: self-efficacy, teacher self-efficacy, in-service teachers, the Teacher

Efficacy Scale (TES)

1 The study reported here was funded by grant No. 1/0026/11 from the VEGA agency in Bratislava.

ORBIS SCHOLAE, 2011, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 79–94, ISSN 1802-4637

80 Peter Gavora

The Concept of Self-Efficacy

It is generally accepted that overt teacher behaviour in the classroom has an
invisible complement – teacher beliefs. The latter constitute a very important
determinant of the former, i.e., teachers’ actions are influenced by their beliefs
and assumptions about the school, teaching and pupils. A significant teacher
characteristic within the area of beliefs and assumptions is self-efficacy.
The concept of self-efficacy was originally developed by Albert Bandura to
constitute a part of his social-cognitive theory. Bandura defined self-efficacy as a
belief in one’s own ability to organize and perform a certain task (Bandura, 1997).
As such, self-efficacy is a self-system that controls most personal activity, including
appropriate use of professional knowledge and skills. Teacher self-efficacy is the
belief that teachers have in their own abilities and skills as educators. Self-efficacy
beliefs influence thought patterns and emotions, which, in turn, enable or inhibit
actions.

According to social-cognitive theory, teachers who do not expect to be successful

with certain pupils are likely to put forth less effort in preparation and delivery
of instruction, and to give up easily at the first sign of difficulty, even if they
actually know of strategies that could assist these pupils if applied. Self-efficacy
beliefs can therefore become self-fulfilling prophesies, validating beliefs either of
capability or of incapacity. (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007)

According to Bandura’s theory, self-efficacy has two components: efficacy

expectation and outcome expectancy. The former is the conviction that one has
the ability, knowledge, and skills to perform successfully actions required to
produce desired outcome(s). The latter represents a person’s estimate of the
likely consequences (impact) of performing a task at the self-expected level of
performance. That is, outcome expectancy is the belief that a given behaviour or
action will indeed lead to (an) expected outcome(s). To be successful, the teacher
must have both high efficacy expectations and high outcome expectancy. If the
teacher has the former but not the latter, it is unlikely that the teacher will be
successful even if he/she is professionally well-qualified.
It should be stressed that self-efficacy judgements are examples of belief in one’s
own capabilities; they are not necessarily accurate assessments of these capabilities
on the part of the teacher. In theory, if a teacher has good self-efficacy this may or
may not coincide with his/her real teaching capabilities, and, ultimately, with his/
her actions in the classroom. The actual relationship depends on the person and
educational situation. However, as we shall show in the next section, it is not typical
that good self-efficacy and ineffective teacher action should coincide: a strong
sense of self-efficacy usually correlates positively with effective teacher action.
Measuring the self-efficacy of in-service teachers in Slovakia 81

Relationship of self-efficacy to teacher behaviour and pupils’ learning

The construct of teacher efficacy has been a subject of broad research for
approximately three decades. Ever since the theory of self-efficacy was first
introduced, attempts have been made to identify its empirical value, i.e., to assess
how it functions in the everyday practice of teachers and its impact on pupils’
learning. A great many research projects have accumulated facts about the effects
of teacher self-efficacy in various school situations and environments. It has been
proved that teachers’ belief in their own abilities positively affects the actions and
efforts of teachers, as well as motivation, styles of teaching, classroom management,
pupils’ learning, and other teacher characteristics.
Research has shown that teacher efficacy has positive effects on:

teacher effort and persistence in the face of difficulties (Podell & Soodak,
1993; Gibson & Dembo, 1984);
the implementing of new instructional practices (Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic,
2002);
pupils’ academic achievement and success (Ross, 1992; Caprara et al., 2006).

Teachers with high levels of self-efficacy:

frequently experiment with new teaching methods;
have a tendency to be less critical of their students;
are usually more supportive, both instructionally and emotionally;
typically work longer with problematic pupils;
are usually more enthusiastic;
usually are more committed to the profession than other teachers (Ashton &
Webb, 1986; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998);
deal with the needs of low-ability students (Ross & Gray, 2006);
exhibit greater levels of planning (Allinder, 1994);
tend to be more open to new ideas (Cousins & Walker, 2000);
use less teacher-directed whole-class instruction (Ashton & Webb, 1986);
adopt a more humanistic approach to the classroom (Woolfolk, Rosoff, &
Hoy, 1990).

In summary, a strong sense of self-efficacy in a teacher is a crucial factor in

instruction. A teacher’s personal beliefs and attitude relate to teacher success and
use of effective teaching strategies, and they affect pupil performance. Effective
teachers display behaviours which are typical for quality instruction. A highly
effective teacher does not only believe that he/she can influence actions but also
actually demonstrates this belief through his/her behaviour. To put it in Bandura´s
diction, teacher belief mediates teacher action.
82 Peter Gavora

History of teacher self-efficacy measurement

Self-efficacy research has a thirty-year history. Its beginnings are very well
documented in several review papers (e. g., Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998;
Woolfolk Hoy& Spero, 2005). To outline the history, we should start with two Rand
Corporation projects which evaluated innovative educational programs funded
by the US federal government (Armor et al., 1976; Berman et al., 1977). In these
studies, teachers’ level of efficacy was determined in a questionnaire by computing
a total score for their responses to two 5-point Likert scale items:

(a) When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because
most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home
environment.
(b) If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated
students.

The theoretical basis for these items was Julian Rotter’s (1966) locus of control
theory. Teacher efficacy was seen as the extent to which teachers believed that
factors which they could control had a larger impact on teaching outcomes than
beliefs that the environment held greater power. Thus, the first-cited questionnaire
item reflected an external control orientation, whereas the second one reflected
an internal control orientation, emphasizing the power of the teacher to teach
students regardless of environmental conditions.
To the great surprise of researchers, the efficacy items proved to be strongly
related to pupil achievement, teacher behaviours which fostered this achievement,
and teacher willingness to adopt innovative instructional proposals (Berman et
al., 1977). As we shall see, the locus of control theory influenced developments
in further research in teacher self-efficacy, and again surprisingly, caused some
methodological confusion.
The second part of the story of empirical research in self-efficacy is linked to
Bandura´s (1997) social cognitive theory. To recapitulate, the concept of self-efficacy
is considered by Bandura as the primary motivational force behind an individual’s
actions. As defined by the author (Bandura, 1977, s. 79), self-efficacy is “the
conviction that one can successfully execute the behaviour required to produce
outcomes”. Based on his theory, two American authors, Gibson and Dembo (1984),
developed a questionnaire called The Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) which was
intended to measure this construct. They designed a 30-item scale which when
factor-analysed, yielded two dimensions. Though the dimensions were expansions
of the RAND locus of control items, Gibson and Dembo interpreted them as faithful
to Bandura´s self-efficacy theory.
Gibson and Dembo labelled their first dimension personal teaching efficacy
and assumed that this dimension assessed self-efficacy. Personal teaching efficacy
(PTE) represents a teacher’s belief that he/she possesses the skills and abilities to
facilitate student learning. Examples of items:
Measuring the self-efficacy of in-service teachers in Slovakia 83

When the grades of a pupil improve, it is because I have found a way to

teach him/her.
If a pupil did not remember the information I gave in a previous lesson, I
would know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson.

The second factor, teaching efficacy, was assumed to capture outcome

expectancy. Teaching efficacy represents the belief that teaching (as an organisational
form of education) can affect pupils positively, even in the light of external factors
or conditions such as the low motivation or poor home environment of a pupil.
Examples of items:

The amount the pupil can learn is primarily related to family background.
If parents do more for their children, I can do more.

Teaching efficacy was later renamed general teaching efficacy (GTE) by Woolfolk
and Hoy (1990) to be better distinguished from personal teaching efficacy (PTE).
General teaching efficacy is different from personal teaching efficacy. While PTE
focuses on teachers´ beliefs that they can complete tasks to initiate learning, GTE
is the belief that teaching itself can initiate learning. Gibson and Dembo (1984)
describe this as “the belief that any teacher’s ability to bring about change is
limited by factors external to the teacher”. The distinction between the two types
of efficacy is important. While it is one thing to believe in one’s ability to teach, it
is another to believe in the power of teaching. A teacher can have high personal
teaching efficacy and low general teaching efficacy, and vice versa. However, as
Bandura (1997) points out, PTE is a better predictor of teacher actions than outcome
expectancy because the outcomes that teachers anticipate depend largely on their
judgement of how they will be able to perform in a given situation.
The first version of the TES had 53 items. After factor analysis was performed, the
instrument was reduced to 30 items only. Later the authors developed a short form
with only 16 items but better psychometric qualities. Still later, other researchers
developed a 10-item version that was found to have psychometric qualities roughly
equivalent to those of the 16-item version. In the study by Gibson and Dembo
(1984) the factors PTE and GTE explained 28.8% of the total variance, which is less
than expected in an ideal research instrument. Other research studies produced
similar – i.e., rather low – total explained variance.
The TES has been used in various forms in diverse school environments and
types of schools; it has been administered to in-service teachers of a variety of
school subjects, and it has also been used with pre-service teachers. In principle,
the research supports the construct validity of the TES, i.e., it proves the existence
of two dimensions, PTE and GTE, and their relative independence as documented
by low correlation between them (usually below 0.20). On the other hand, a couple
of studies conducted in a variety of environments showed that some questionnaire
items were not consistent with the original dimensions, or that the factor structure of
the questionnaire was different from the original assumption. In some studies factor
84 Peter Gavora

analysis produced one factor only (e. g., Deemer & Minke, 1999), or three factors
(e. g., Denzine, Cooney, & McKenzie, 2005), or even four factors (e. g., Brouwers &
Tomic, 2003). Some authors interpreted the factors of the results in a way different
from Gibson and Dembo’s (1984). This is true especially of GTE, which suffers from
theoretical inconsistency, and in some situations yielded fluctuating data.
Several authors (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990; Soodak & Podell, 1996) challenged the
original conception of GTE, which Gibson and Dembo (1984) maintained was in
agreement with Bandura´s outcome expectancy. They found that GTE was different
from Bandura´s notion of outcome expectancy because it concerned teachers’
belief that they could overcome external influences, and it did not concern the
outcomes of their behaviours. Consequently, new models of self-efficacy were
proposed. Soodak and Podell (1996) postulated a 3-factor model comprising (a)
personal efficacy, (b) outcome efficacy, and (c) teacher efficacy. Personal efficacy
pertains to a teacher’s belief that he/she possesses teaching skills, while outcome
efficacy refers to the belief that, when teachers implement these skills, they lead
to desirable pupil outcomes. The third factor, teacher efficacy, is the belief that
teaching can overcome the effects of outside influences.
Some authors (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Deemer & Minke, 1999; Brouwers &
Tomic, 2003) point out that the problem with GTE rests in the wording of its
items. They have found that the items in PTE are worded in the first person, (When
a pupil gets better grades, it is usually because I have found better ways of teaching
that pupil), while items in GTE refer to a third person – a teacher (A teacher is very
limited in what he/she can achieve because it is the home environment that shapes
a pupil’s motivation.). Furthermore they note that the majority of items in GTE are
formulated in negative terms (The hours in my class have little influence on students
compared to the influence of the home environment), while items in PTE are mostly
worded in positive terms (When a pupil does better than usual, often it is because I
exert a little extra effort). These are important objections to the conceptualisation of
the original TES. However, subsequent research has not proved that either “I” versus
“teacher”, or positive versus negative orientation items play a decisive role in factor
analysis of TES data (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Deemer & Minke, 1999).
To sum up the research situation, the TES is based on an excellent construct –
self-efficacy – but the instrument by which it is measured shows some instability
and sometimes produces inconsistent results. This situation issues a challenge to
researchers to discuss these inconsistencies and, in turn, improve the psychometric
quality of the TES. The research reported in this paper represents a contribution to
these efforts.

Other instruments

Self-efficacy was researched in a variety of educational and cultural settings. For

these reasons the authors developed specific instruments which were tailored for
particular purposes. Below is a list of some of them. We shall refer to some of them
in subsequent sections of this paper.
Measuring the self-efficacy of in-service teachers in Slovakia 85

Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale – OSTES, sometimes labelled TSES

(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) – concentrates on three kinds of
efficacy: (a) for instructional strategies, (b) for classroom management, (c)
for student engagement
Bandura Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale – a 28-item scale which has six subscales
measuring instructional efficacy (Bandura, 2006)
Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument – STEBI (Riggs & Enochs, 1990)
Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument – MTEBI (Enochs, Smith, &
Huinker, 2000)
Teacher Self-Efficacy in Behaviour Management and Discipline Scale – SEBM
(Emmer & Hickman, 1991)
Teachers’ Efficacy Beliefs System-Self – TEBS-Self (Dellinger et al., 2008) –
intended to distinguish between efficacy and self-efficacy in the classroom
context
Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale – CRTSE (Siwatu, 2007) –
intended to reflect cultural aspects of instruction
Teacher Interpersonal Self-Efficacy Scale (Brouwers & Tomic) – consists of
three subscales: (a) teacher-perceived self-efficacy in managing student
behaviour in the classroom, (b) teacher-perceived self-efficacy in eliciting
support from colleagues, (c) teacher-perceived self-efficacy in eliciting
support from school principals
Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale – NTSES (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010) –
has 24 items in 6 dimensions
Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Schmitz, 2004) – a ten-item
scale of German origin comprising four areas: (a) job accomplishment, (b)
skill development on the job, (c) social interaction with pupils, parents and
colleagues, (d) coping with job stress
Collective Efficacy Scale (Goddard, 2002) – designed to measure the
perceived collective efficacy of teachers
Teacher Efficacy for Moral Education – TEME (Narvaez et al., 2008)
Character Efficacy Belief Instrument – CEEBI (Milson, 2003)

This review shows that individual authors expanded the original concept of
teacher self-efficacy, adopted it to specific conditions and environments, and
added new dimensions to catch broader teacher roles and positions. Moreover,
many of the instruments were used in studies conducted not only in the country
of their origin but also in other nations of Europe and Asia. This practice produced
important data for cross-country comparisons of the functioning of teacher self-
efficacy, of both in-service and pre-service teachers.

Research Purposes
This research had several purposes. First, it was our aim to adapt the TES for
application to the environment of Slovak education and to gather data on the self-
86 Peter Gavora

efficacy of Slovak teachers. As no data on these teacher characteristics in Slovakia

existed already, one purpose of our research was the initial effort to obtain these. In
addition, we wanted to explore the relationships of the TES to teacher gender, level
of school (primary or lower secondary) and years of practice in a sample of Slovak
teachers. Furthermore, we wanted to examine empirically the construct of GTE as
concerned its properties of internality/externality versus efficacy expectations/
outcome influences.

The sample

The sample consisted of 217 teachers from 5 regions of Slovakia. The average of
their years of practice was 18.1 years (SD 11.1; range was 42 years). Teachers filled in
the Slovak version of the TES with additional questions attached for the gathering of
demographic information. The TES was administered by headteachers, staff of district
education offices, and the author. Teachers filled in the instrument anonymously and
on a voluntary basis. The structure of the sample is given in Table 1.

Table 1
The structure of the research sample
category n %
school level primary (grades 1–4) 27 12.4
lower-secondary (grades 5–9) 179 82.0
ns 11 5.0
gender female 161 74.2
male 40 18.4
ns 16 7.3

Adaptation of the TES

In this study we used the TES as the research instrument. We opted for this
measure even though, as explained above, we were aware of its shortcomings,
the reason being that it is the instrument used most frequently to measure the
self-efficacy of teachers and is considered to be a standard instrument in efficacy
investigations. As it has been used in many countries, it would be possible to
compare the data from Slovakia with those collected in other locations. In addition,
we wanted to contribute to an improvement in the conceptualisation of the TES,
in particular by looking closely at its confounding properties related to internality-
externality versus efficacy expectations/outcome expectancy.
The first Slovak version of the TES was used in research applied to pre-service
teachers in Bratislava (Gavora, 2009, 2010). For this purpose, the original, 30-item
TES had been translated into Slovak by an experienced translator who rendered
a substantive but not entirely literal version of the items; the items were adapted
to reflect the Slovak educational environment. The translated version was then
Measuring the self-efficacy of in-service teachers in Slovakia 87

reviewed by several university-based education professionals. Subsequently, some

item wordings were modified to improve comprehensibility. As in the original
version, we used two dimensions, PTE and GTE, and 6-point Likert scales from
‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree”. For both dimensions, the higher the score,
the better the sense of teacher efficacy. We factor-analysed both the 16- and the
10-item TES; the short version provided somewhat better validity and reliability.
In the research reported in this study we used the Slovak 16-item version from
the previous research2, which we extended by adding three items to the GTE
dimension with the hope of increasing its reliability. Another modification was
the rewording of items in the GTE dimension. Following the procedure of Guskey
and Passaro (1994)2 and Deemer and Minke (1999), all original items that referred
to “a teacher” were converted to the first person singular (“I”). PTE items were
originally worded in the first person singular and they remained unchanged in our
instrument. With this arrangement we wanted to test the hypothesis that if GTE
is worded in the first person singular, in the factor analysis only one factor will be
extracted. This would be consistent with Rotter´s (1966) locus of control theory on
which the TES was said to be constructed by Gibson and Dembo. However, Rotter
conceptualised locus of control as a bi-polar continuum of internality-externality,
not as two distinct dimensions. In accord with this theory we hypothesised that
both the original PTE items and the reworded GTE items will load on one factor.
In the case that this did not happen and we received two factors that were low-
correlated, we would have a solution that the TES measured two dimensions and
its conceptualisation, as described above, was not quite clear.

Instrument validation

Before the analysis the scores of six items which had negative wordings (e.g.,
Even if I have excellent knowledge and skills, it has little influence on pupils’ learning)
were re-coded to be in line with positively worded items, i.e., the score 1 was re-
coded to 6, the score 2 was re-coded to 5, etc.
To examine the factor structure of the TES, a principal component factor analysis
was conducted with varimax rotation. A cut-off load of 0.35 was used to identify
items contributing to a given factor. Two criteria – Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalues
greater than one rule and the scree test – were used to determine the number of
factors to be retained. Kaiser’s criteria showed 5 factors; the scree test indicated two
or five factors. With five factors the total explained variance was 56.9%, which was
a good result. Unfortunately, the loadings were difficult to interpret – some items
were loaded on several factors, and the factor structure was unclear. Therefore,
the option with five factors was refused. Likewise, solutions with four and three
factors were not ideal. The best solution was with two factors, which yielded a total
explained variance of 37.6%. For comparison: the overall total variance in Gibson

2 The reason for returning to the 16-item version of the TES rather than using the 10-item version
was simple: we wanted to begin validation anew. The 10-item version was the result of a validation
procedure with pre-service teachers; in this research the sample is given by in-service teachers.
88 Peter Gavora

and Dembo’s (1984) TES validation study was only 28.8%, which is considered less
than a criterion for a good instrument. The usual standard for a good instrument
is over 50% of overall explained variance. However, in the majority of studies the
TES showed smaller total explained variance than the authors would have wished.

The two factors extracted showed a structure identical with the original PTE and
GTE dimensions. With this solution three items had to be eliminated, two because
they were crossloaded, the third because it was loaded below the cut-off load
of 0.35. All of them belonged in the GTE dimension. Thus the final version of the
instrument had 16 items, 10 for PTE and 6 for GTE.3 We found a small correlation
between the two dimensions (0.18), which shows that they are independent.
The internal consistencies (Cronbach alpha) of the dimensions were 0.81 and
0.61 respectively. While the PTE reliability is satisfactory, the GTE reliability is only
moderate, which may be caused by the small number of items retained in this
dimension or by the low homogeneity of items. (The reliabilities of the two factors
in Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) TES validation study were 0.78 and 0.75 respectively.)
To sum up the results, the validation of the Slovak TES gave two dimensions
which are consistent with the original structure of the TES as proposed by Gibson
and Dembo (1984). The conversion of GTE items from “teacher” reference to “I”
reference did not prove efficient, thus the hypothesis of internality-externality
orientation was disproved. With these validation results we can proceed to a
presentation of descriptive statistics.

Results

The TES is scored on a 6-point scale; the higher the score, the better the self-
efficacy. The basic descriptive statistics are given in Table 2. The mean score of PTE
is higher than that of GTE, which means that the teachers in this sample have a
greater belief in their ability to facilitate learning in pupils than in their power to
overcome external factors of instruction such as low motivation or the poor home
environment of pupils. This finding is in agreement with similar studies on the
self-efficacy of both in-service and pre-service teachers, which consistently show
higher scores in TES than in GTE. Both dimensions have a theoretical midpoint
score of 3.5. As shown in Table 2, overall item means exceeded the midpoint for
both dimensions, which indicates that the overall self-efficacy of teachers in this
sample is quite good.
The minimum score in PTE was 2.29 (one teacher only). In this sample 33
teachers (17%) scored one standard deviation below the mean in PTE. On the other
hand, there were 49 teachers (25.2%) who scored one standard deviation above
the mean.
As concerns the minimum score in GTE, two teachers scored only 1.67; the
low level of belief they show in their teaching abilities and skills is disappointing.
There were 28 teachers (14.4%) in this sample who scored one standard deviation
3 The Slovak version of the TES is available from the author on request.
Measuring the self-efficacy of in-service teachers in Slovakia 89

below the mean in GTE. On the other hand, there were 22 teachers (11.3%) who
scored one standard deviation above the mean. The range between minimum and
maximum scores was much wider in GTE than in PTE.

Table 2
Scores on the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES)
Dimensions valid n mean minimum maximum range SD
personal teaching efficacy 194 4.47 2.90 5.80 2.90 0.63
general teaching efficacy 195 3.74 1.67 5.67 4.00 0.79
SD = standard deviation

As we had at our disposal the TES scores of Slovak pre-service teachers from
our previous research project (Gavora, 2009, 2010), we were able to compare these
with the scores of in-service teachers in this sample. The pre-service teachers were
students in Years 2 through 5 at the Faculty of Education in Bratislava (n=135).
Table 3 shows that in-service teachers outperformed pre-service teachers in both
PTE and GTE. The difference between PTE and GTE scores in pre-service teachers
is somewhat higher than in in-service teachers. This finding is in agreement with
those of many studies of in- and pre-service teacher self-efficacy, which show
higher scores in both PTE and GTE in in-service teachers when compared with pre-
service teachers.

Table 3
Scores of in-service and pre-service teachers on the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES)
in-service teachers pre-service teachers
(this sample) (2009, 2010)
Dimensions mean SD mean SD
personal teaching efficacy 4.47 0.63 4.22 0.73
general teaching efficacy 3.74 0.79 3.69 0.87
SD = standard deviation

In further analysis we divided the in-service sample into two subsamples

according to years of teaching. One subsample consisted of teachers with 1–5 years
of practice, the other of those with above 5 years of teaching practice. Table 4 shows
that in PTE the teachers with above 5 years of practice scored significantly higher
than the subsample of teachers with 1–5 years of practice. In the GTE dimensions
the scores were almost identical. It is interesting to note that the subsample of
teachers with 1–5 years of practice scored very much like pre-service teachers in
our 2009 and 2010 studies. Though the sample of novice teachers was small, which
could affect the scores, this result was expected because teachers with few years of
practice are less experienced than older teachers. Similar findings were obtained
by Soodak and Podell (1996) when they used a modified version of the TES and
by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy when they used the TSES. Tschannen-
90 Peter Gavora

Moran and Woolfolk Hoy found somewhat lower mean self-efficacy belief among
novices (teachers with 1–3 years of teaching practice) than among career teachers.
They concluded: “This lower assessment (of novice teachers) of their teaching
capabilities is not surprising given the relative inexperience of these teachers. It is
also possible that teachers who start their careers with low self-efficacy either tend
to find better instructional strategies to improve their teaching performance over
time, thus increasing their sense of efficacy, or, if they do not, leave the profession.”

Table 4
Scores of teachers on the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) according to years of teaching
1–5 years above 5 years
dimensions n mean SD mean SD signif.
personal teaching efficacy 32 4.21 0.70 4.52 0.61 p < 0.025
general teaching efficacy 156 3.72 0.85 3.75 0.78 p > 0.10
SD= standard deviation

Next we explored differences in self-efficacy between female and male teachers

(Table 5). In both genders the scores in PTE were higher than those in the GTE
dimension, which is consistent with the results presented above. Female teachers
scored higher than male in both dimensions, but only differences in PTE were
statistically significant. Higher scores by female teachers in self-efficacy instruments,
and specifically in the TES dimension, is a frequent finding in literature. Probably
the exception to this is in science teaching, which Riggs (1991) characterises as
a male domain. In his study, in which the STEBI instrument was used, both pre-
service and in-service men have significantly higher scores than women in
efficacy belief, but this is not the case in outcome expectancy. In a Turkish sample
(Azar, 2009) that used STEBS – with pre-service science teachers, however – no
differences were identified between genders. Ross et al. (1996, p. 389) conjecture
that women are more satisfied with their profession and thus develop a high sense
of efficacy. Furthermore, they speculate that women teachers “are more in tune
with the dominant ideology of schools”. However, results sometimes vary. Based on
their findings with the TSES instrument Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2007)
claim that demographic variables such as race and gender were not found to be
systematically related to the self-efficacy beliefs of either novice or career teachers.
The authors probably refer to the US environment; other environments may differ
in this regard. For instance, Kiviet (2006) in South Africa, who used STEBI, found
significant differences in self-efficacy between rural and urban school teachers.

Table 5
Scores on the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) according to gender
female male
dimensions mean SD mean SD signif.
personal teaching efficacy 4.52 0.62 4.27 0.60 p < 0.05
general teaching efficacy 3.77 0.84 3.60 0.69 p > 0.10
Measuring the self-efficacy of in-service teachers in Slovakia 91

Finally in this research we looked at the self-efficacy of teachers at different

school levels. For this purpose we divided the sample into two subsamples. One
consisted of primary teachers (grades 1–4), the other of lower-secondary teachers
(grades 5–9). As Table 6 indicates, almost identical PTE scores were recorded in
both subgroups and slightly higher GTE scores in the lower-secondary teachers
subgroup than in the primary teachers subgroup, although this difference is not
statistically significant. The primary-school teacher in Slovakia is a generalist teacher,
whereas the lower-secondary teacher specialises in one or two school subjects.
We had hypothetised that this could cause differences in favour of primary-school
teachers, but this was proved wrong.

Table 6
Scores on the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) according to level of school
primary lower-secondary
dimensions mean SD mean SD signif.
personal teaching efficacy 4.46 0.62 4.45 0.60 p > 0.10
general teaching efficacy 3.70 0.77 3.94 0.77 p > 0.10

Discussion
The findings gathered in this study are not dissimilar from North American and
Western European studies showing that (1) an above-average level of perceived
teacher self-efficacy is a characteristic of the majority of highly qualified in-service
teachers, (2) GTE scores are worse than PTE scores, (3) in-service teachers with
above 5 years of teaching experience are superior to pre-service teachers in PTE,
and (4) female teachers are superior to male teachers likewise in PTE.
This research was based on an investigation performed by questionnaire, as
were all the sources of literature we have referred to in this article. The self-rating
of respondents has been the prevailing method in self-efficacy research since its
very beginning. Such an investigation is relatively easy to administer, as it can
cover a large sample and quantitative data analysis can be conducted routinely
with standard software. However, questionnaire research also has significant
drawbacks: it confines respondents to items prepared ahead, thus not permitting
them to answer beyond the boundaries of the researcher’s frame structure.
There is only a limited amount of research on teacher self-efficacy based on
qualitative methodology. One of the few examples of such research is a study by
Charalambous et al. (2004) in Cyprus. Using the constant comparative method
with a small sample of pre-service teachers, they traced factors which affected the
development of their self-efficacy beliefs in the course of fieldwork. Apart from
being qualitative, this study was also longitudinal; the researchers interviewed the
participants three times over a longer period. Such a research design produces
different data and makes it possible to view teacher self-efficacy from different
perspectives. In this research, data were obtained for how the self-efficacy of
92 Peter Gavora

pre-service teachers was affected during their own teaching and in interactions
with mentors, tutors, and peers. Rather than providing a generalised picture, the
researchers presented individual testimonies of how the participants overcame
their initial concerns and uncertainties as they gained stronger self-efficacy beliefs.

References
Allinder, R. M. (1994). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy
and curriculum-based measurement and student achievement. Remedial and
Special Education, 27, 141–152.
Armor, D. J., Conry-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N. J., McDonnell, L. M., Pascal, A. H.,
Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. L. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program
in selected Los Angeles minority schools. Report No. R-2007 LAUSD. Santa Monica:
RAND Corporation. (cited after Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A., 2001).
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and
student achievement. New York: Longman.
Azar, A. (2009). In-service and pre-service secondary science teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs about science teaching. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(4), 175–188.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In T. Urban & F.
Pajares (Eds.). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal
programs supporting educational change. Vol. VII Factors affecting implementation
and continuation (Report No. R-1589/7-HEW) Santa Monica, CA: The Rand
Corporation.
Brouwers, A. & Tomic, W. (2003). A test of the factorial validity of the teacher efficacy
scale. Research in Education, 69(May), 67–79.
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, 473–490.
Charalambous, Y., Philippiou, G., & Kyriakides, L. (2004). Tracing the development
of preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs during fieldwork. Educational Studies in
Mathematics (on-line). Retrieved November 9, 2007, from [Link].
com/content/3g043158m382444
Cousins, J. B. & Walker, C. A. (2000). Predictors of educators’ valuing of systematic
inquiry in schools. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, Special Issue, 25–53.
Deemer, S. & Minke, K. (1999). An investigation of the factor structure of the teacher
efficacy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 3–10.
Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, Ch. D. (2008). Measuring teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24, 751–766.
Measuring the self-efficacy of in-service teachers in Slovakia 93

Denzine, G., Cooney, J., & McKenzie, R. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
teacher efficacy scale for prospective teachers. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75, 689–708.
Emmer, E. & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and
discipline. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 755–765.
Enochs, L., Smith, P. L., & Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing factorial validity of
the mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs instrument. School Science and
Mathematics, 100(4), 194–202.
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: Study on
teachers’ beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the
Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 227–243.
Gavora, P. (2009). Profesijná zdatnosť vnímaná učiteľom. Adaptácia výskumného
nástroja [Teachers’ self-efficacy. Adapting a research tool]. Pedagogická revue,
61(1–2), 19–37. Retrieved June 29, 2011, from [Link]
uploads/media/Profesijna_zdatnost_vnimana_ucitelom_Adaptacia_nastroja.
pdf
Gavora, P. (2010). Slovak pre-service teacher self-efficacy: Theoretical and research
considerations. The New Educational Review, 21(3), 17–30.
Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
Goddard, R. D. (2002). A Theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement
of collective efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 2(1), 97–110.
Guskey, T. R. & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimension.
American Educational Research Journal, 31, 645–674.
Kiviet, A. (2006). Science teaching self-efficacy beliefs in selected south African schools
and their implications for professional practice. Paper at International Congress of
School Effectiveness and Improvement. Florida Atlantic University.
Milson, A. (2003). Teachers´ sense of efficacy for the formation of students´ character.
Journal of Research in Character Education, 1(2), 89–106.
Narvaez, D., Khmelkov, V., Vaydich, J., & Turner, J. (2008).Teacher self-efficacy for
moral education: Measuring teacher self-efficacy for moral education. Journal of
Research in Character Education, 6(2), 3–15.
Podell, D. & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals.
Journal of Educational Research, 86, 247–253.
Riggs, I. (1991). Gender differences in elementary science teacher self-efficacy. Paper at
annual meeting of AERA, Chicago. ERIC document No. ED 340 705.
Riggs, L. & Enochs L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary education
teachers’ science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6),
625–637.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student
achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17, 51–65.
Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within teacher predictors of teacher
efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 385–400.
94

Ross, J. A. & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment

to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179–199.
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalised expectances of internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28.
Schwarzer, R. & Schmitz, G. S. (2004). Perceived self-efficacy and teacher burnout:
A longitudinal study of ten schools. (Manuscript). Retrieved December 19, 2007,
from [Link]
Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy
and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1086–1101.
Skaalvik, E. M. & Skaalvik. S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A
study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059–1069.
Soodak, L. C. & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of
a multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 401–411.
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of
self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23, 944–956.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the
early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, 346–356.
Woolfolk, A. E. & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs
about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81–91.
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their
beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137–148.

Contact information
Peter Gavora
Faculty of Education
Comenius University
Račianska 59, 813 34, Bratislava,
Slovakia
[Link]@[Link]