preservice teachers’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based teaching practice

Preservice teachers’ teacher efficacy beliefsand constructivist-based teaching practice

Tugba Temiz & Mustafa Sami Topcu

Received: 13 September 2012 /Revised: 3 December 2012 /Accepted: 14 January 2013 /Published online: 1 February 2013# Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business MediaDordrecht 2013

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between preservice teachers’(PTs) teacher efficacy beliefs and their constructivist-based teaching practices. Data weregathered through the questionnaire (Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale) and the observationprotocol (Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol) administered to the participants. A totalnumber of 101 PTs (53.5 % from science education and 46.5 % from mathematics education)from a university in eastern part of Turkey participated in the study. Also, qualitative data werealso used in order to clarify quantitative data. The semistructured interviews were conductedwith 20 PTs who voluntarily participated in these interviews. Results showed that PTs’constructivist-based teaching practice was positively correlated with their teacher efficacybeliefs. Also, qualitative findings confirmed that finding. To conclude, PTs with high teacherefficacy tend to employ constructivist approach in their teaching while PTs with low teacherefficacy tend to use traditional approach, lecturing in their teaching.

Keywords Teacher efficacy . Self-efficacy . Constructivist-based teaching . Preserviceteachers

The necessary qualifications by which a preservice teacher will learn to become an effectiveteacher in the future are attained through teacher education programs. In this respect,preservice teachers should learn how to instruct successfully with respect to constructivismin their classes before they graduate. In other words, preservice teachers are expected toimprove their knowledge and skills to instruct effectively while completing the compulsorycourses in their education programs. Moreover, it has been proved that teacher efficacy belief

Eur J Psychol Educ (2013) 28:1435–1452DOI 10.1007/s10212-013-0174-5

T. Temiz (*)Department of Elementary Education, Faculty of Education, Yuzuncu Yil University, 65080 Van, Turkeye-mail: [email protected]

M. S. TopcuDepartment of Elementary Education, Faculty of Education, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, 48170Mugla, Turkeye-mail: [email protected]

is consistently related to teachers’ commitment, enthusiasm, and instructional behaviors(Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001). It is thought that to determine the levels ofpreservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs, their constructivist-based teaching practices and therelationship between them is important, especially while they are training to become a realteacher. Thus, the preservice teachers can be educated efficiently while they are attending theirteacher education programs as future teachers.

When the history and the definitions of teacher efficacy belief are examined, theimportance of this belief can be comprehended efficiently. Initially, Bandura (1977) devel-oped Social Cognitive Theory assuming that “people are capable of human agency orintentional pursuit of courses of action and that such an agency operates in a process calledtriadic reciprocal causation” (Henson 2001, p.825). In light of this theory, Bandura (1986)described teacher efficacy as a kind of self-efficacy and identified self-efficacy as “beliefs inone’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospec-tive situations” (Henson 2001, p. 825). In other words, it is how one thinks about one’s selfwhen achieving a goal at a certain and definite level. Following this, in consistency with theprevious research related to teacher efficacy and general formulation of self-efficacy(Henson 2001), Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) defined teacher efficacy as “the teacher’sbelief in his or her capability to organize and execute the course of action required tosuccessfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (p. 224).

If the above explanations are thought through carefully, it becomes possible to understandthe effects of efficacy beliefs on the behaviors of people. To illustrate, Goddard et al. (2004)stated that efficacy beliefs influence the amount of effort that people invest in a givenendeavor, the duration in which they persist in a given task (Cakiroglu and Isiksal 2009), thechoices they make, and their aspirations in the face of difficulties and setbacks (Cole andHopkins 1995). Bandura (1995) stated that “a strong sense of efficacy increases humanaccomplishment and people with a high level of confidence in their capabilities approachdifficult tasks as challenges to be mastered rather than as threats to be avoided” (Cakirogluand Isiksal 2009, p.134). Also, Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) stated that “researchers have foundfew consistent relationships between the characteristics of teachers and the behavior orlearning of students. Teachers’ sense of efficacy . . . is an exception to this general rule” (p. 81).All of these claims explain the effects of efficacy beliefs on people behavior. Correspondingly,it can be stated that there exist the effects of teacher efficacy beliefs on the behaviors ofteachers. This can be illustrated by the explanations of Guskey and Passaro (1994). Theyemphasized the importance of teacher efficacy in effective teaching, by stating that teacherswho have a high level of teacher efficacy expect their ability to increase the effectiveness ofinvolvement and learning in students, even if these students lack motivation.

A great deal of research in the literature has confirmed that teacher efficacy belief has aneffect on both teachers and students. In addition, it can be claimed that teacher efficacy beliefis correlated with student outcomes and teacher behaviors (Anderson et al. 1988; Ashton1984; Ashton and Webb 1986; Enochs et al. 1995; Gibson and Dembo 1984; Guskey 1988;Hoy and Woolfolk 1990; Ross 1992). First of all, it can be claimed that there exists a positivecorrelation between teacher efficacy belief and student outcomes. In other words, it can bestated that teacher efficacy belief is related to student outcomes positively in many ways. Forexample, students in the classes of highly efficacious teachers performed more successfully,were more motivated to participate in activities, had more self-esteem in lessons, andgenerally had a more positive attitude towards their school than students in the classes ofless efficacious teachers (Henson 2001; Midgley et al. 1989; Miskel et al. 1983; Moore andEsselman 1992). Secondly, it can be claimed that there exists a relationship between teacherefficacy belief and teacher behaviors in a positive sense; that is to say that teacher efficacy

1436 T. Temiz, M.S. Topcu

belief is related to teacher behaviors in terms of teacher activity, effort and productivity(Ashton and Webb 1986). Bandura (1997) stated that teacher efficacy beliefs can be relatedto how much effort teachers put into teaching, their willingness to implement new teachingmethods and pedagogical strategies, and their ability to resist challenges (Takahashi 2011).For instance, teachers with a high level of teacher efficacy spend more time helpingstudents with problems in learning, identifying student mistakes, and more time attemptinglearner-centered teaching methods (Ashton and Webb; 1986; Gibson and Dembo 1984;Guskey 1988). Furthermore, these teachers have confidence in their own teaching abilitiesand encouraging positive student learning outcomes (Gibson and Dembo 1984). Therefore,these teachers are more likely to use methods of reform-based teaching; that is, reform-oriented teaching or constructivist-based teaching. On the other hand, teachers with lowlevels of teacher efficacy tended to use teacher-directed methods (Czernaik 1990;Swackhamer et al. 2009).

In the constructivist-based teaching, “knowledge is not transmitted directly from oneknower to another, but is actively built up by the learner” (Sawada et al. 2000, p.3).Moreover, learners actively construct their own comprehension, but they do not passivelyabsorb or copy the learning of others. In Turkey, the elementary science and mathematicscurricula were reformed in 2004, and the main reform was made on the educationalphilosophy of the curricula. The new curricula have been based on constructivism and thesecurricula have been prepared in consideration of this philosophy. When the latest curriculumis compared with the previous one, the main feature of the previous curriculum can beexplained as “education was a rite of passage with a narrow repertoire of ritualizedclassroom behaviors, and only two skills were developed: memorization and repetition”(Avenstrup 2007, p.4). In the last reformed curriculum, it was important for teachers toinstruct according to constructivism in elementary level classrooms. Also, the curriculumwas changed from a subject-centered to a learner-centered one and pedagogies frombehaviorism to constructivism (Bulut 2007). Teaching and learning activities have alsochanged in relation to this reform since there has been a movement from a pure behavioristto a constructivist approach. In this respect, it can be explained that constructivist teachingpractices are aimed at student thinking depending on problem solving strategies (i.e.,inquiry), active student engagement, increasing student motivation and providingopportunities related to group interaction, and the manipulation of materials and data(Brooks and Brooks 1993).

Depending on the curriculum reform movements realized in Turkey, some problemsmight be revealed by teachers about teaching (Ghaith and Yaghi 1997), as they do not havesufficient knowledge of constructivism or sufficient experience in teaching methods that areconsistent with constructivism. In order to analyze this kind of problem in respect ofteachers, Guskey (1988) investigated how efficacy beliefs are related to teacher practice.The sample of his study was composed of teachers who instructed with respect to the oldcurriculum firstly and then the latest curriculum after reform related to the curriculum. In hisstudy, these teachers’ performances were compared with respect to their teacher efficacybeliefs. According to the findings, he stated that teachers with low level efficacy perceivedtheir former instructional practices as very different from their later practices which wereimplemented with respect to constructivism and that they perceived their later practices asdifficult to implement, and necessitating a lot of extra work, when compared with theirformer practices (Guskey 1988). On the other hand, Guskey (1988) found that teachers withhigh levels of efficacy were greatly confident and open to the implementation of instruc-tional innovations. With this motivation, it can be claimed that teachers might have diffi-culties in implementing instructional innovations related to their teaching because of their

Teacher efficacy belief and practice 1437

low level of teacher efficacy beliefs. On the other hand, teachers might be open and feelefficacious about implementing new instructional strategies and be confident about theirpotential to enhance their effectiveness with students. In light of Guskey’s explanations(1988), it is clear that efficacy beliefs can be associated with instructional effectiveness andimplementation of instructional innovation.

In the last part of this section, it is also necessary to mention the current condition ofinservice and preservice teacher education in Turkey. In order to address the problemsstemming from the new curricula implementations, both the Ministry of NationalEducation and Higher Education Council in Turkey have taken many precautions. Forexample, inservice teachers regularly take inservice teacher training programs provided bythe Ministry of National Education and their school administration. In these programs,mostly the meaning of a constructivist approach and successful implementation of thisapproach in classrooms are explained to inservice teachers. Preservice teachers also havebeen educated considering the constructivist approach. All preservice teachers have beenencouraged to learn and use this approach in their courses, especially in science or mathe-matics education methods courses. In the faculties of education in Turkey, preserviceteachers (PTs) are educated to attain the necessary knowledge and experience needed toimplement the constructivist approach in their future classrooms effectively. Teacher edu-cation programs in Turkey have four main properties, namely, general education, profes-sional education, subject matter specialty studies, and electives (Topcu 2011). Theseproperties are important to support students’ subject matter and pedagogical content knowl-edge and field experience. PTs enroll on courses related to teaching and learning such aseducational psychology and classroom management, subject matter knowledge such ascalculus and physics, and pedagogical content knowledge such as teaching methods in theprocess of the first 3 years of teacher education programs (Topcu 2011). They also enroll inpracticum courses such as “Practice Teaching” over two semesters in order to attainconstructivist teaching experience in the actual classrooms in the last year of the programs.In other words, by taking this course, PTs are provided opportunities to acquire experiencein the field and make connections between constructivist theory and practice. This courseis provided by The Higher Education Council in Turkey and the Ministry of NationalEducation cooperatively (Topcu 2011).

The rationale of the study

Ross et al. (1996) emphasized the importance of teacher efficacy by explaining that “ateacher’s sense of efficacy will determine the amount of effort he or she puts into teaching,the degree of persistence when confronted with difficulties, and the task choices made”(Somech and Drach-Zahavy 2000). Moreover, Bandura (1997) claimed that “self-efficacybeliefs are most in flux early in learning and tend to become fairly stable and resistant tochange once set” (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2007). Hoy and Woolfolk (1990)also stated that “although there is consistent evidence that efficacy is most malleable in thepreservice years” (p. 830) efficacy is more likely to be resistant to change for experiencedteachers (Henson 2001). Moreover, Ross (1994) confirmed this claim for general teachingefficacy. With this motivation, it is important to provide preservice teachers necessaryknowledge and practice concerning their work to increase their teacher efficacy to becomea successful teacher in the future when they participate in teacher education programs.Furthermore, PTs have problems concerning their teacher efficacy beliefs when theyrealize the difference between the necessary teaching standards and their own practices


as Vennman (1984) explained (Cruz and Arias 2007). In this respect, it is important todetermine and improve PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs in order to remove reality shockfrom their teaching practices since teacher efficacy belief is an important variable ofteaching behavior (Henson 2001).

It is important to determine how much PTs believe in their capacity to instruct effectivelyand whether they have teacher efficacy beliefs enough to investigate constructivist-basedteaching. Therefore, it is necessary to provide PTs with constant opportunities to practicewith respect to constructivism and to organize the lessons in teacher education programs inthis way. Therefore, it is important to explore preservice science and mathematics teachers’current knowledge and experiences about constructivism because they will be the futureteachers of science and mathematics. In other words, PTs are educated as the transferors ofthe curriculum to the students and implementers of the curriculum, and the current elemen-tary school curriculum is based on the constructivist philosophy. Therefore, in the presentstudy, the constructivist approach was selected as an area of investigation. In this respect,PTs’ constructivist-based teaching experiences were explored in the present study, andthese experiences were compared with other important variables that shape PTs’ teaching,teacher efficacy.

The major problem related to the recent curriculum in respect of students was thatineffective teaching prohibits students’ learning (Mendro 1998). To remove this problem,it is necessary for teachers to implement instructional innovations successfully consideringthe constructivist approach, the main philosophy of the Turkish curricula. Therefore,teachers need to know the main properties of the latest curriculum, be educated to applythese properties in their instructions, and be efficient in implementing these responsibilities.In addition, the present study is important since it becomes possible to attain informationabout the level of effectiveness of teacher education programs. In this respect, whiledetermining present deficiencies in education systems in education faculties, PTs’ teacherefficacy beliefs can be made efficient in Turkey by improving these deficiencies. Moreover,there has been limited research related to PTs’ constructivist-based teaching practices andparticipants’ views about the relationship between teacher efficacy belief and teachingpractice in the literature. Therefore, the present study fills a gap in these respects in theliterature. With this motivation, the present study focused on the relationship between PTs’teacher efficacy beliefs and their teaching practices, in terms of lesson design and imple-mentation, content and classroom culture.

The purpose of the study

The purpose of the present study was to examine the teacher efficacy belief levels ofPTs and determine their constructivist-based teachings practices. The relationshipbetween their teacher efficacy beliefs and the performance of constructivist-basedteaching practices according to the factors of the Reformed Teaching ObservationProtocol (lesson design and implementation, content, and classroom culture) was alsoinvestigated. In this respect, the purpose of the present study was to address the followingthree questions:

1. To what extent do PTs exhibit the constructivist approach in their microteachings?2. What is the teacher efficacy beliefs’ level of the PTs?3. What is the relationship between a PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based

teaching practice?


Method

Quantitative-dominant mixed methods research (Sullivan 2009) was conducted in thepresent study. Quantitative methods were used in order to determine if there was a statisti-cally significant relationship between PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-basedteaching practices. Quantitative methods were also used in order to evaluate the level of thePTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based teaching. Qualitative methods wereused to interpret and make clearer the quantitative data.

Participants

The sample of the study consisted of 101 senior volunteer preservice elementary mathematicsand science teachers enrolled in an undergraduate teacher education program at an easternpublic university in Turkey. All PTs voluntarily participated in the present study and PTswho were not volunteers were not included. These preservice teachers had enrolled inundergraduate courses providing them subject matter and pedagogical content knowledgeand some experiences about teaching before they participated in the present study. Of thesepreservice teachers, 53.5 % were from the departments of elementary science education and46.5 % were from the departments of elementary mathematics education. Also, 53.5 % werefemale and 46.5 % were male. The participants’ age range was between 21 and 23 years oldand their average age was 22. These preservice science and mathematics teachers willeventually be teachers of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade elementary science and mathe-matics lessons. From these 101 PTs observed with Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol(RTOP), 20 participants voluntarily participated in the interviews.

Instruments

Two instruments were used in the present study: the Turkish form of the RTOP andTeachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES).

The first instrument, Turkish form of the RTOP was used to evaluate preservice teachers’constructivist-based teaching practices. The original version of the RTOP was in English anddeveloped by Sawada et al. (2000) to describe the characteristics of reformed teaching, basedon a constructivist-based teaching. It was used in order to guide the classroom observationsas a reliable method and identify the level of implemented reform methods in mathematicsand science lessons in previous studies of Sawada et al. (2000) and Smeal (2008). There arethree main categories: lesson design and implementation, content, and classroom culture.Also, the main factor of content has two subfactors as propositional and proceduralknowledge and classroom culture has two subfactors as communicative interactions andrelationship with students. The RTOP helps to identify whether the major properties ofreform-oriented instruction focusing on lesson design and implementation, propositional andprocedural knowledge, and communicative interactions and relationship with students areobserved. The instrument has 25 items in total and each of the subfactors has five items.Initial factor of the RTOP is lesson design and implementation with five statements (e.g., inthis lesson, student exploration preceded formal presentation). Another factor of the RTOP iscontent has two subfactors. The first factor of the instrument is propositional knowledgewith five statements (e.g., the lesson promoted coherent conceptual understanding). Thesecond subfactor is procedural knowledge with five statements (e.g., students werereflective about their learning). The last factor of the instrument is classroom cultureand has two subfactors. The first subfactor is communicative interactions with five statements


(e.g., the teacher’s questions triggered divergent modes of thinking). The second subfactor isstudent–teacher relationship with five statements (e.g., active participation of students wasencouraged and valued). The items/statements are rated on a five-point Likert scale. In thisrespect, a score of “1” was assigned when a particular behavior was not observed. A score of“5” was assigned when a particular behavior was very descriptive of the individual beingobserved. Scores ranged between 25 and 125 points and higher points mean that moreconstructivist-based teaching practices were observed (Sawada et al. 2000). In this study,each PT’s constructivist-based teaching practice was observed and marked with the RTOP.In the study of Topcu and Uygun-Temiz (2012), it was translated into Turkish and values ofreliability and validity of the Turkish form were estimated. First, the RTOP scale wastranslated into Turkish by taking some precautions in order to prevent bias. A reversetranslation of the Turkish form into English was made by two bilingual English languageinstructors. Independent ratings of both forms were made. Afterwards, in order to discussand attain agreement regarding problematic items, the meetings were made and iterativeretranslations were also investigated. Moreover, problems about inconsistencies of items inboth forms were discussed and solved in these meetings. Furthermore, a Turkish languageteacher checked the Turkish form of the RTOP in terms of grammar. Then, when themeetings about the translation were completed, the researchers of the present study dis-cussed the issues and two assistant professors with an educational background comparedboth forms of the instrument and discussed the items in order to support the content validityof the instrument. In light of the study for the validity and reliability of the new version ofthe RTOP, the present researchers reported three factors, and the alpha reliability wasestimated at 0.900 for factor 1, 0.866 for factor 2, and 0.915 for factor 3, suggestingsatisfactory reliability for each factor. This result was consistent with the results of theprevious studies, including validation of the original version of the RTOP (Lawson et al.2002; MacIsaac and Falconer 2001; Sawada et al. 2000). These studies have formed aconsensus on the claim that the RTOP is a valid and reliable instrument with which todetermine teachers’ constructivist-based teaching practices. It could be revealed that findingsfrom the analysis of reliability and validity demonstrated a successful adaptation intoTurkish, similar to the results for the original version of the RTOP. Therefore, it is clearthat it is both a reliable and valid instrument with which to assess a PTs’ constructivist-basedteaching practices related to science and mathematics instructions.

The second instrument is the Turkish form of the TSES developed by Tschannen-Moranand Woolfolk Hoy (2001). There are two forms of this scale in the literature; long form andshort form. In the present study, the long form of the scale was used. It has 24 items andmeasures teacher efficacy with nine-point Likert scale ranging from 1, nothing; 3, very little;5, some influence; 7, quite a bit; and 9, a great deal. In this rating scale, score 1 means that“the teacher feels they cannot do anything at all regarding the content of the items” and score9 means that “the teacher feels they have excellent control over the topic of the item”(Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001, p. 800). In this respect, scores ranged 24–216points. It has three factors: efficacy in instructional strategies, efficacy in classroom man-agement, and efficacy in student engagement. First of all, the factor of efficacy in instruc-tional strategy has eight statements (e.g., How well can you respond to difficult questionsfrom your students?). The factor of efficacy in classroom management also has eightstatements (e.g., How well can you keep a few problem students form ruining an entirelesson?). The other factor of efficacy in student engagement includes eight statements (e.g.,How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is failing?). Theadaptation of this scale into Turkish was conducted by Capa et al. (2005). Capa et al. (2005)conducted confirmatory factor analysis and reported that the reliability of whole scale was


0.95, the reliabilities of factors ranged from 0.85 to 0.88. These findings confirm that thisscale is both reliable and valid. Also, it is clear that these findings about reliability andvalidity are consistent with the values of the study of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy(2001), including validation of the original version of the TSES.

Both instruments used in the present study are beneficial and appropriate for the rationaleof this research. First, the RTOP is practically useful while scoring PTs’ classroom teachingpractices organized with respect to the constructivist approach. There exists another benefitthat the instrument is quickly administered and emphasizes reform (i.e., constructivism)rather than general characteristics, including classroom management, lesson closure, andproviding training and reference manuals (MacIsaac and Falconer 2001). Also, each item ofthe instrument provides information about what the constructivist approach translates into interms of classroom experiences and the major properties of this approach (Henry et al.2007). Second, the TSES is a beneficial instrument meeting the rationale of the studyappropriately. The most important benefit is that it has a unified and stable factor structure.Another important benefit is that it measures teacher efficacy beliefs with three importantdomains in teaching without being too specific (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001).With this in mind, these two instruments, providing useful information for the present study,were selected.

Data collection

All senior PTs enrolled in the undergraduate course titled “Science and MathematicsTeaching Methods” were informed about the study and then invited to participate.Following this, PTs who accepted voluntarily to take a role in the present study composedthe sample of the study. In the present research context, volunteer PTs designed micro-teachings consistent with constructivist approach, including science and mathematics topics.While they were planning their microteachings, they were allowed to ask their instructorquestions. Also, their instructor informed them about their lesson plans and effectiveimplementation. Then, they implemented their microteachings in their faculty classes inteacher education programs in the period of the course in the 2010 fall and 2011 spring. Eachof these microteachings took approximately 35 min and each observation was made by tworesearchers of the present study. While researchers were observing the lessons carefully, theytook notes about what to be done by PTs in their microteaching consistent with constructivistapproach and they did not control or manipulate PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs intentionally.Also, the observers examined specific actions related to lesson design and implementation,content and classroom culture as the characteristics of constructivist teaching and recordedevery effort of the participants. Then, after the observers had completed observing thelessons, they convened and scored it by using the RTOP with the help of their notes takenduring the observation by discussing objectively. The results were reported directly fromobjective assessments of the researchers of the present study. In this way, the participantswere given a RTOP score for their constructivist-based teaching practices. The participantsknew that they were being observed but they did not know that they were being scored bythe RTOP. The RTOP was used only in the evaluation of their microteachings. The micro-teachings were observed and scored by the researchers of the present study since there wereno volunteer faculty members to observe the microteachings or score the observations. Someof them did not accept their role in the study and others did not have experience inobservation. After the PTs’ implementation of their microteachings consistent with theconstructivist approach finished, the 24-item TSES were administered to them. Whileparticipants were completing the questionnaire, the researchers answered any clarifying


questions that the participants had. The period of administering the questionnaire tookapproximately 10 min. The participants completed both TSES and provided demographicinformation. Then, semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 volunteer PTs in orderto obtain information related to their views on the relationship between teacher efficacybeliefs and constructivist-based teaching practices and make this relationship clearer. Eachinterview took 20–30 min, was audiorecorded, and later transcribed verbatim.

In the present study, in order to remove the limitations of the study, some precautionswere taken. First, it was thought that the descriptors of extreme ratings belonged to the itemsof the RTOP (1 for “never occurred” and 5 for “very descriptive”) may cause someproblems. They do not demonstrate exact opposite situations; hence, the subjects beingobserved might be incorrectly scored. In order to solve this potential problem, the TrainingGuide of the RTOP and explanations belonging to each item on the RTOP were investigatedcarefully. Then, the researchers conducted practical activities in which they coded somepractices before carrying out the actual observations. By practising, the researchers im-proved necessary skills in using the instrument and became familiar with the items of theinstrument.

Data analysis

The aims of the present study were to determine PTs’ level of teacher efficacy beliefs andconstructivist-based teaching practice and explore the relationship between their teacherefficacy beliefs and constructivist-based teaching practice. Descriptive statistics such asmean and standard deviation have been used to estimate teacher efficacy beliefs andperformance of constructivist-based instruction. Also, in order to investigate the relationshipbetween PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based teaching practice, the PearsonProduct Moment Correlation method was used, and this method was also used to examinethe relationships between each factor of teacher efficacy (TSES) and each factor ofconstructivist-based teaching practice (RTOP). Meanwhile, this method’s assumptions suchas representative sample, normal distribution, interval measures and linearity and homosce-dasticity were met. For all quantitative analyses in the present study, the Statistical Packagefor the Social Sciences version 15.0 for Windows was used.

The qualitative analysis technique suggested by Marshall and Rossman (1999) was usedto analyze qualitative data of the present study. This technique consists of six steps:organizing the data, coding the data, generating categories and themes, testing the emergentunderstandings as considering individual differences, searching for alternative explanations,and writing the report. With respect to this technique, first, data were designed in theconsideration of two perspectives such as responses to each interview question and by eachinterviewee. Second, the researchers independently used open coding to the interviewtranscripts for the sake of searching patterns. Third, the researchers compared their list ofcodes, and formed a list including common codes by discussion and negotiation. Fourth, allthe transcripts were coded in an iterative process. Fifth, similar codes were gathered togetheras themes. For example, one of the interview questions was as follows “How do you think ateacher’s teacher efficacy belief is related to designing and implementing his/her lessons?”In analyzing the responses to this question, two themes that emerged were “selectingappropriate materials” and “connection with real life”. Themes were confirmed or discon-firmed with the help of the triangulation with findings from the analysis of interviewees’other responses. In other words, in order to support the validity and reliability of qualitativedata, investigator triangulation was made. Two investigators coded the data independentlyand they compared their coding and themes. The coding and themes which were similar with


85 % accepted to use in the study. Then, the 15 % that was dissimilar was discussed and as aresult a supporting consensus was reached. At the end, the relationship between PTs’ teacherefficacy beliefs and constructivist-based teaching was explained with the help of the formedthemes. After the qualitative analysis was completed, a third researcher evaluated theprocess of the findings of qualitative analysis in the consideration of consistency andcoherence. Thus, the validity of the analysis was provided by the investigator triangulation(Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Results

Turkish preservice teachers’ performance of constructivist-based teaching practice

The mean and standard deviation values of the RTOP’s factors and total factor based on allPTs’ microteachings scores were calculated in order to clarify their performance ofconstructivist-based teaching practices, as shown in Table 1. Moreover, the participants witha minimum score attained 2.20 and those with maximum scores obtained 5.00 with respectto RTOP. First, with respect to the lesson design and implementation factor of the instru-ment, it can be explained that PTs indicated their constructivist-based teaching practicelevels with a mean of 4.11 and standard deviation of 0.86. Second, with respect to contentfactor of the instrument, it can be said that there were PTs with constructivist-based teachingpractice levels with a mean of 4.15 and standard deviation of 0.79. Third, with respect to theclassroom culture factor of the instrument, it can be deduced that PTs showed theirconstructivist-based teaching practice levels with a mean of 4.14 and standard deviation of0.87. Hence, it can be claimed that the levels of PTs’ constructivist-based teaching practicesconcerning lesson design and implementation, content, and classroom culture were high.Generally, PTs’ constructivist-based teaching practice levels in classrooms (M=4.13, SD=0.81) were also significantly high. In other words, in this study, PTs used significantly highconstructivist teaching practice levels in their microteachings.

In light of the scores in Table 1, it can be claimed that the levels of PTs’ constructivist-based teaching practices concerning lesson design and implementation, content, and class-room culture were high.

Turkish preservice teachers’ teacher efficacy beliefs

The data, mean, and standard deviation of the teacher efficacy belief scores of the PTs werecomputed as illustrated in Table 2. The mean and standard deviation of each factor and totalfactor of the PTs concerning the TSES instrument were calculated. Moreover, the participanthaving the minimum score attained 4.08 and the one having maximum score got 8.46 withrespect to TSES. First, the calculated values: mean as 7.15 and standard deviation as 0.96,clarify the PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs concerning the efficacy in instructional strategy

Table 1 Mean scores andstandard deviations of participantsbased on the RTOP

Subsets Mean SD

Lesson design and implementation 4.11 0.86

Content 4.15 0.79

Classroom culture 4.14 0.87

RTOP 4.13 0.81


factor of the TSES instrument. Second, PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs were estimated with amean of 7.15 and standard deviation of 1.03 concerning the efficacy in classroom manage-ment factor of the instrument. Third, PTs’ efficacy beliefs were explained with a mean of6.99 and standard deviation of 0.89 concerning the efficacy in student engagement factor. Inthe respect of the scores in Table 1, PTs received high scores with respect to teacher efficacybeliefs in terms of efficacy in instructional strategies, classroom management, and studentengagement. In general, the level of PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs with a mean of 7.10 andstandard deviation of 0.92 was also significantly high.

In respect of the scores in Table 2, PTs received high scores with respect to teacherefficacy beliefs in terms of efficacy in instructional strategies, classroom management andstudent engagement.

Relationship between preservice teachers’ constructivist-based teaching practice and teacherefficacy beliefs

The “Pearson Product Moment Correlation quotients” was estimated between the scoresattained from the factors of the TSES and the RTOP. Also, it is clear that there aremeaningful associations between the factors of the TSES: efficacy in instructionalstrategies, efficacy in classroom management, and efficacy in student engagement andthe RTOP: lesson design and implementation, content, and classroom culture. Thereexist significantly high values as correlation quotients varying between 0.643 and 0.782(Table 3).

The qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts made clearer this relationship andshowed PTs’ opinions about it. All 20 semistructured interviews conducted with the PTsprovided the conclusion that “there is a positive relationship between teacher efficacy beliefsand constructivist-based teaching”. They explained their views and reasons about thisrelationship.

The following is an indicative interviewee response selected from participants havinghigh scores of constructivist-based teaching practice and teacher efficacy belief to the

Table 2 Mean scores andstandard deviations of participantsbased on the TSES

Subsets Mean SD

Efficacy in instructional strategy 7.15 0.96

Efficacy in classroom management 7.15 1.03

Efficacy in student engagement 6.99 0.89

TSES 7.10 0.92

Table 3 Correlations between the preservice teachers’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-basedteaching practice

RTOP Lesson design andimplementation

Content Classroom culture

TSES 0.780* 0.703* 0.752* 0.790*

Efficacy in instructional strategy 0.874* 0.643* 0.685* 0.723*

Efficacy in classroom management 0.777* 0.702* 0.752* 0.782*

Efficacy in student engagement 0.758* 0.679* 0.729* 0.771*

*p<0.001


question of “How do you think a teacher’s teacher efficacy belief is related to his/herconstructivist-based teaching practice?”

I think that there exists a positive relationship between teacher efficacy belief andconstructivist-based teaching. In other words, teacher efficacy belief is an importanteffecting factor in constructivist-based teaching. Teachers with a high level of teacherefficacy belief design and implement their lessons in connection with real life andother disciplines. They can choose appropriate student-centered strategies to teach andimplement them effectively. Also, they have a high level of motivation with regardstheir occupation. Also, these teachers can transfer their knowledge to their studentseffectively. While teaching topics, they can choose appropriate materials and examplesto prevent misconceptions. They can also underline important parts of the topic in theprocess of instructing effectively. They can help students attain the objectives of thelesson properly. Moreover, they can provide a beneficial atmosphere in which studentsshare their ideas actively.

The following explanation is an illustrative example interviewee response of a participantwith low scores of constructivist-based teaching practice and teacher efficacy belief for theresponses of ones having high scores of constructivist-based teaching practice and teacherefficacy belief:

In my opinion, teacher efficacy belief is positively correlated with constructivist-basedteaching. I want to demonstrate this idea by referencing my micro-teaching practice.While I was planning my micro-teaching lesson, I wanted to implement differentstrategies than those I used in the lessons. The students could be more active with thestrategies I did not use in the lesson. The reason I did not implement them during thelesson was I did not feel confident that I could do so successfully. Therefore, I had tolimit the strategies used in the lesson plan. Moreover, I wanted to use more materialsthan I used in the lesson. Had I felt my lesson would be more efficacious, I would haveused more materials and more activities encouraging students to participate anddiscuss. I think that I will be an efficacious teacher in the future since I have improvedmyself as a teacher candidate.

Overall, in the light of the findings of both qualitative and quantitative data, it can besuggested that there exists a positive correlation between PTs’ constructivist-based teachingpractices and their teacher efficacy beliefs.

Discussion and implications

The first research question of this study is to investigate the level of PTs’ constructivist-based instruction in Turkey. This question was answered satisfactorily by examining PTs’levels of constructivist-based teaching practice by the RTOP. PTs’ constructivist-basedteaching practice levels were estimated to be high in the factor of lesson design andimplementation, content, and classroom culture. Overall, PTs’ constructivist-based teachingpractice levels were sufficiently high. The findings in the present study indicate that in thisstudy, PTs’ instructions were consistent with the constructivism approach in Turkey. Thus,PTs paid attention to the main features of constructivist-based teaching in designing andimplementing lessons, and in helping students to attain propositional and procedural knowl-edge. In addition, they were good at constituting classroom culture consistent with theconstructivist approach. Moreover, these findings corroborate the finding of the previousstudy of Author et al. (2011) investigating Turkish PTs’ constructivist-based teaching


practice levels. In light of these findings, it can also be claimed that PTs designed andimplemented the lesson consistent with constructivism, and so they were more likely to helpstudents to gain propositional and procedural knowledge and organize communicativeinteractions between students and student–teacher relationships consistent with constructivismsuccessively in Turkey. In other words, it can be explained that the higher the score the PTsreceived from the Turkish form of the RTOP scale in any factor of the instrument, the higher thescore they received from the overall instrument.

With respect to the judgments about the level of PTs’ constructivist-based teachingpractice, it can be suggested that PTs were able to instruct consistent with the constructivistapproach successfully in the present study. Moreover, it can be claimed that current teachereducation programs benefitted PTs in providing them with the necessary skills and infor-mation to instruct effectively in the future. Also, it can be added that teacher educators couldprovide beneficial information consistent with teacher ability and skills. The reason for PTs’high scores related to constructivist-based teaching practices can be explained in a way thatteachers in schools and academicians on teacher education programs educate their studentswith respect to the constructivist approach. Therefore, PTs can attain necessary the knowl-edge and skills in their undergraduate teacher education programs and see examples of howthe constructivist approach has been effectively implemented in the faculties of teachereducation. With this motivation, they can prepare well as future teachers to instruct effec-tively and in compliance this approach. Moreover, the participants could attain necessaryinformation about how to instruct effectively at any time and they were provided opportu-nities to discuss their plans with the instructor and replan their microteachings with respectto the comments of the instructor. In other words, during science and mathematics methodscourses, PTs were provided opportunities to discuss their lesson plans with the courseinstructor and replan their microteachings in light of the suggestions of the instructor.Meanwhile, all of the preservice teachers in Turkey have been encouraged by the Councilof Higher Education and Ministry of National Education in order to learn and useconstructivist-based teaching method in their science or mathematics methods courses.Because of these reasons, PTs could attain high scores in terms of constructivist-basedteaching practice and teacher efficacy beliefs.

The second research question was answered satisfactorily by examining PTs’ levels ofteacher efficacy beliefs by TSES. According to the findings of the study, PTs’ teacherefficacy beliefs levels were high in each factor of Turkish form of the TSES. In other words,PTs’ teacher efficacy belief levels were high in terms of its factors: efficacy in instructionalstrategy, classroom management and student engagement. Generally, PTs’ teacher efficacybelief levels were sufficiently high and these findings show that PTs feel competentconcerning their teaching practice levels. According to the findings of the present study, itcan also be claimed that Turkish PTs who were efficacious in one component of teacherefficacy were more likely to be efficacious in the other two factors. In other words, the moreefficacious PTs were in one of the factors of TSES, the more efficacious they were overall inthe scale. This claim corroborates the finding of the study of Ortactepe (2006). In thisprevious study, the researcher claimed that the more efficacious English as a foreignlanguage teachers were in one of the factors of the TSES, the more efficacious they wereoverall in the TSES. Moreover, in the present study, the PTs’ TSES scores in each factor andtotal factor of the scale indicated that they were slightly above the medium level.

The findings of the present study related to mean and standard deviation values of PTs’teacher efficacy beliefs corroborate the findings of the previous studies investigating ele-mentary teachers’ sense of efficacy beliefs (Cerit 2007) and English as a foreign languageteachers’ sense of efficacy beliefs (Ortactepe 2006). In their studies, the teacher efficacy


belief levels of the participants who were preservice teachers were above the medium level,similar to the finding of the present study. In consideration of the judgments above about thelevel of PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs, it can be suggested that PTs believe in their capacity toinstruct effectively in the present study. Moreover, it can be claimed that current teachereducation programs benefitted PTs by providing them with the necessary opportunities toattain sufficiently high teacher efficacy beliefs to become effective teachers in the future.The high scores of teacher efficacy beliefs of PTs could result from the practice andexperience of the participants. The participants in the present study were senior; in otherwords, they were in the third year of their undergraduate programs. During the years inwhich they spent in teacher education programs, they could attain effective knowledge andexperiences related to the constructivist approach and how to practice consistently with it.These experiences could have affected their teacher efficacy beliefs in a positive way. It canalso be added that teacher educators could be beneficial for PTs to help them in attaininghigh teacher efficacy beliefs to become a successful teacher in the future.

The small standard deviations related to the score of PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs andconstructivist-based teaching practice might show that their teacher efficacy can be close toeach other. The small standard deviations for scores from each instrument can be resulted fromtheir very similar age and teaching/learning experiences. The participants’ ages were very closeto each other. Moreover, during their teacher education program they have enrolled in the samecourses with the same instructors because all PTs in Turkeymust enroll same courses in order tograduate teacher education programs. They also had same opportunities while planning theirmicroteachings in the science and mathematics teaching methods courses.

The last research question was to investigate the relationship between PTs’ teacherefficacy beliefs and constructivist-based teaching practices. This study revealed that PTs’teacher efficacy beliefs were related to their level of constructivist-based instructions andtheir opinions support that finding. Based on the number and magnitude of correlationsfound between factors of teacher efficacy and constructivist-based instructions in this study,it can be suggested that both variables are interrelated. In light of the findings of bothquantitative and qualitative data analysis, it can be claimed that PTs with high teacherefficacy belief tend to instruct in ways that are consistent with the constructivist approachsuccessfully. This finding is also similar to the findings of the previous studies of Allinder(1994), Guskey (1988), and Stein and Wang (1988). They explained that highly efficaciousteachers are more likely to practice teaching by using instructional materials and improvedteaching methods. Czernaik (1990) also explained that teachers with high efficacy are morewilling and interested in teaching by using inquiry based (Swackhamer et al. 2009) andstudent-centered approaches as instructional innovations (Ashton and Webb 1986) andattaining information about them (Swackhamer et al. 2009). Coladarci (1992) added thathighly efficacious teachers show higher professional commitment. Moreover, Allinder(1994) claimed that teachers with high teacher efficacy beliefs displayed great performancein matters related to their work as good planners and organizers being appeared enthusiastic.He also emphasized that “teachers with strong self- efficacy beliefs show a greater readinessto adopt innovative educational practices” (Evers et al. 2002, p. 238). With this motivation, itcan be suggested that teacher efficacy beliefs appear to be an important variable for PTs’positive teaching behavior (Ashton and Webb 1986; Cakiroglu et al. 2005; Enochs et al.1995; Henson 2001). Cakiroglu et al. (2005) reported that teachers with high teacherefficacy beliefs tend to experience their instructions by “using open-ended, inquiry,student-directed teaching strategies” (p. 31) whereas less efficacious teachers tend to practiceby using “teacher-directed teaching strategies such as lectures or reading from the textbook”(p. 31). It is clear that these strategies are different kinds of constructivist-based teaching


strategies. The findings of the previous research confirmed the result of the present study. Inother words, in this study, it was found that PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs were positivelycorrelated to their level of constructivist-based instructions with a significant and sufficientcorrelation coefficient value, and this result was similar to the findings of previous researchmentioned above.

In consideration of all the judgments related to the correlation between teacher efficacy beliefand constructivist-based teaching practice, it can be suggested that when PTs are provided withnecessary knowledge and opportunities to practice the constructivist approach they can improvetheir performance of instruction and also their teacher efficacy beliefs through teacher educationprograms in the preservice years. Also, PTs can realize the difference between the necessaryteaching standards of recent reformed curriculum and their own practice consistent with recentcurriculum. Therefore, they can remove their deficiencies and solve the problems of theirinstruction consistent with recent curriculum and also teacher efficacy beliefs and improve them.As a result, they would become an effective teacher with a stable and high teacher efficacy andhigh and improving constructivist-based instruction performance in the future. Overall, thepresent study is significant since it sheds light on the current condition of PTs’ teacher efficacybeliefs and instruction quality before they go on to become a real teacher in the future.

In the last part of this section, it is necessary to highlight a couple of limitations related tothe present study. First, this study was conducted among preservice teachers enrolled in two-semester sequence methods courses during fall 2010 and spring 2011 in an EasternUniversity of Turkey. Second, the authors of the present study were responsible for observ-ing the microteachings of the participants and rating them because of the limited number offaculty members and volunteer observers. This can be a limitation related to the datacollection and analysis part of the study.

Conclusion

One of the purposes of the present study was to determine the levels of PTs’ teacher efficacybeliefs and their constructivist-based instruction in Turkey. It is beneficial to understand PTs’levels of constructivist-based instruction levels and teacher efficacy beliefs of preserviceteachers in order to ensure future teachers will be successful in their real instructions. Thescores of PTs attained from the TSES and the RTOP instruments are as sufficiently highvalues as that a successful inservice teacher is expected to get.

The main purpose of the present study was to determine the relationship among levels ofPTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based instruction in Turkey. The results ofthe present study allow us to suggest some conclusions. The qualitative and quantitativefindings of the present study indicated that there are fairly strong and statistically significantrelationships between PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based instructions. Thesignificantly high correlation coefficient values also found between the factors of the TSES:efficacy in instructional strategies, classroom management and student engagement and thefactors of the RTOP: lesson design and implementation, content, and classroom culture.Moreover, the direction and magnitude of the correlation quotient values is such that asTurkish PTs’ levels of constructivist-based teaching practice increase when their teacherefficacy belief levels increase. In other words, Turkish PTs who might be assumed to show ahigh level of constructivist-based teaching practice are more likely to have high level ofteacher efficacy beliefs. On the other hand, those who might be assumed to indicate lowerlevel of constructivist-based teaching practice appear to have low level of teacher efficacybeliefs. This finding and conclusion are important since negative effect of earlier curriculum


has been removed while considering the results based on PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs andconstructivist-based teaching practice. With this motivation, it can be claimed that thisnegative effect of earlier curriculum has been decreased at a sufficient level but it is notenough. Further effort should be given to remove more negative effect.

The results obtained in this study supported a research foundation for the relationshipbetween PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and their constructivist-based teaching practice.Likewise, this research can be conducted to inservice teachers. In this view, teachers withhigh and low teacher efficacy can be compared and their choices of teaching strategies andtheir impacts on student outcomes can be investigated comparatively. With this motivation,beneficial information about the relationship between teacher efficacy belief and teachingpractice in the actual environments can be provided. In light of findings of this recommen-ded research and the present research, more certain and trustful judgment can be made. It isalso essential to investigate the classroom and school practices of the high and lowefficacious teachers. Therefore, the relationship between teacher efficacy and performanceof constructivist-based teaching can be examined clearly.

References

Allinder, R. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special educationteachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86–95.

Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinkingskills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2),148–165.

Ashton, P. T. (1984). Teaching efficacy. Journal of Teacher Education, 25(2), 41–54.Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement.

New York: Longman.Avenstrup, R. (2007). The challenge of curriculum reform and implementation: some implications of a

constructivist approach. Ministry of National Education. Retrieved December 10 2010 from: http://www.tedp.gov.tr.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,84, 191–215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search for understanding the case for constructivist classrooms.

Alexandria: ASCD.Bulut, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkey: a case of primary school mathematics curriculum. Eurasia

Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 203–212.Cakiroglu, E., & Isiksal, M. (2009). Preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs toward

mathematics. Education in Science, 34(151), 132–139.Cakiroglu, J., Cakiroglu, E., & Boone, W. J. (2005). Pre-service teacher self-efficacy beliefs regarding

science teaching: a comparison of pre-service teachers in Turkey and the USA. Science Educator,14(1), 31–41.

Capa, Y., Cakiroglu, J., & Sarikaya, H. (2005). Ögretmenlik öz-yeterlik ölçeginin Türkçe uyarlamasınıngeçerlik ve güvenirlik çalısması. Egitim ve Bilim, 30(137), 74–81.

Cerit, Y. (2007). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin öz yeterlik inanç düzeyleri. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi İlköğretimKongresi: İlköğretimde Eğitim ve Öğretim.

Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of ExperimentalEducation, 60, 323–337.

Cole, B. L., & Hopkins, B. L. (1995). Manipulations of the relationship between reported self-efficacy andperformance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 15, 95–123.

Cruz, M. J. T., & Arias, P. F. C. (2007). Comparative analysis of expectancies of efficacy in in-service andprospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 641–652.


http://www.tedp.gov.tr/

http://www.tedp.gov.tr/

Czernaik, C.M. (1990). A study of self-effcacy, anxiety, and science knowledge in preservice elemen-tary teachers. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,Atlanta, GA

Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preserviceelementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Education, 79(1), 63–75.

Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: a study on teachers’ beliefswhen implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 72, 227–243.

Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationship among experience, teacher efficacy and attitudes toward theimplementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 451–458.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 76(4), 569–582.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: theoretical develop-ments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13.

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self, concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructionalinnovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69.

Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: a study of construct factors. American EducationalResearch Journal, 31(3), 627–643.

Henry, M., Murray, K. S., & Phillips, K. A. (2007).Meeting the challenge of STEM classroom observation inevaluating teacher development projects: A comparison of two widely used instruments. St. Louis: HenryConsulting.

Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy. Teaching andTeacher Education, 17, 819–836.

Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational ResearchJournal, 27, 279–300.

Lawson, A., Benford, R., Bloom, I., Carlson, M., Falconer, K., Hestenes, D., et al. (2002). Evaluating collegescience and mathematics instruction; a reform effort that improves teaching skills. Journal of CollegeScience Teaching, 31(6), 388.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.MacIsaac, D., & Falconer, K. (2001). Using the reform teacher observation protocol (RTOP) as a catalyst for

self-reflective change in secondary science teaching. Paper presented at the meeting of the AmericanAssociation of Physics Teachers, Rochester, NY.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Mendro, R. L. (1998). Student achievement and school and teacher accountability. Journal of Personnel

Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 257–267.Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related

beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology,81, 247–258.

Miskel, C., McDonald, D., & Bloom, S. (1983). Structural and expectancy linkages within schools andorganizational effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 19, 49–82.

Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992). Teacher effcacy, power, school climate and achievement: A desegregatingdistrict’s experience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco.

Ortactepe, D. (2006). The relationship between teacher efficacy and professional development within thescope of an in-service teacher education program. Unpublished Master dissertation, Bogazici University.

Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal ofEducation, 17(1), 51–65.

Ross, J. A. (1994). The impact of an inservice to promote cooperative learning on the stability of teacherefficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 381–394.

Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching andTeacher Education, 12(4), 385–400.

Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., et al. (2000). Reformed teachingobservation protocol (RTOP) training guide. (ACEPT Technical Report No.IN00-2). Collaborative forExcellence in the Preparation of Teachers, Arizona State University.

Smeal, M. A. (2008). Exploring beliefs and practices of teachers of secondary mathematics who participatedin a standards-based preservice education program. Proceedings of the 5th Annual TEAM-MathPartnership Conference Pre-Session. Tuskegee: Tuskegee University.

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: the relationshipsbetween job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 16, 649–659.


Stein, M., & Wang, M. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: the process of teacher change.Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171–187.

Sullivan, L. E. (2009). The Sage glossary of the social and behavioral sciences. New York: Sage.Swackhamer, L. E., Koellner, K., Basile, C., & Kimbrough, D. (2009). Increasing the self-efficacy of inservice

teachers through content knowledge. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(2), 63–78.Takahashi, S. (2011). Co-constructing efficacy: a “communities of practice” perspective on teachers’ efficacy

beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 732–741.Topcu, M. S. (2011). Turkish elementary student teachers’ epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning.

European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 99–125.Topcu, M. S., & Uygun-Temiz, T. (2012). Translation and Validation of the Reformed Teaching Observation

Protocol (RTOP) into Turkish. National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis-Indiana, USA, March, 25–28.

Tschannen-Moran, M., &Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teachingand Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs ofnovice 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, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81–91.

Tugba Temiz. Research Assistant, Faculty of Education, Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, Turkiye. E-mail:[email protected]

Current themes of research:

Teachers’ beliefs. Educational practice.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Topcu, M. S., & Uygun-Temiz, T. (2012). Translation and Validation of the Reformed Teaching ObservationProtocol (RTOP) into Turkish. National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis-Indiana,USA, March, 25–28.

Mustafa Sami Topcu. Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla,Turkiye. E-mail: [email protected]

Current themes of research:

Socioscientific issues. Argumentation. Teachers’ beliefs and educational practices.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. & Topcu, M. S. (2008). Relationships among Preservice Science Teachers’ EpistemologicalBeliefs, Epistemological World Views, and Self-efficacy Beliefs. International Journal of Science Education,30(1), 65–85.

Topcu, M. S. (2011). Turkish Elementary Student Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs and Moral Reasoning.European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 99–125.


preservice teachers’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based teaching practice

Documents