A study exploring the relationship between teacher's

A study exploring the relationship between teacher’s general sense of efficacy and their sense of efficacy for Inclusive practices

By

Gerard Comerford St no 59708711

BA (Hons), Psychology 6A

2013

Teacher sense of Efficacy and Inclusive Practices

A study exploring the relationship between teacher’s general sense of efficacy and their sense of efficacy for Inclusive practices

By

Gerard Comerford St no 59708711

Research dissertation presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Psychology 6A, Bachelor of Arts (Hons) 2013-03-18

The Declaration: I declare that this dissertation is, expecting appropriately referenced and quoted materiel, entirely my own work.

Signed:

Date:

i


Table of contents

List of Tables............................................................................... v List of figures............................................................................. vi Abstract .................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements .................................................................. viii Glossary of terms ....................................................................... ix 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................... 1 1.1

Introduction to the Study .............................................. 1

1.2

Efficacy and Teachers sense of Efficacy ......................... 1

1.3

Teacher self Efficacy and Effectiveness. ........................ 4

1.4

History of Teacher Efficacy Scales & Designing new

Scales for Measuring Teacher efficacy. .................................... 6 1.5

Inclusion of Special needs students in the Irish

education system................................................................... 14 1.6

Present study .............................................................. 15

2.0 Methodology ....................................................................... 16 2.1 Research design .............................................................. 16 2.2 Participants ..................................................................... 17 2.3 Instruments..................................................................... 18 2.4 Procedure ........................................................................ 19 2.5 Ethical Considerations ..................................................... 20 3.0 results................................................................................. 22

ii


3.1 Screening and Normality Tests ........................................ 22 3.2 factor Analysis ................................................................. 25 3.2.1 TSES ........................................................................... 25 3.2.2 TSEIP .......................................................................... 26 3.3 Inferential Statistical tests .............................................. 30 3.3.1 Alpha scores for TSES.................................................... 30 3.3.2 Alpha Scores for TSEIP .................................................. 30 3.3.3 Inferential Tests between TSES and TSEIP ....................... 31 3.3.4 Inferential Tests between TSEIP, TSES and Years Taught. .. 32 3.3.5 Inferential Tests between TSEIP and TSES and Qualifications ........................................................................................... 35 4.0 Discussion and Conclusion .................................................. 37 4.1 Introduction to the Discussion......................................... 37 4.2 Relationship between TSEIP and TSES............................. 38 4.3 Relationship between Years of service teaching, and TSEIP .................................................................................... 39 4.4 Relationship between Qualifications and TSEIP ............... 39 4.5 Methodological Issues of present study........................... 40 4.6 Implications..................................................................... 41 4.7 Further research .............................................................. 42 4.8 Conclusion ....................................................................... 43

iii


References: ........................................................................... 45 Appendices ............................................................................ 55 Appendix 1 ........................................................................... 56 Appendix 2 ........................................................................... 58 Appendix 3 ........................................................................... 59 Appendix 4 ........................................................................... 60 Appendix 5 ........................................................................... 61 Appendix 6 ........................................................................... 62 Appendix 7 ........................................................................... 64 Appendix 8 ........................................................................... 65

iv


List of Tables Table 1. Demographic Profile of Participants .................................... 17 Table 2. Profile of Classes taught ................................................... 18 Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Experience, Qualifications, TSEIP and TSEIP ......................................................................................... 24 Table 4. Factor Loadings for the TSES, Eigenvalues, percentage of Variance, and Cumulative ............................................................. 27 Table 5. Factor Loadings for the TSEIP, Eigenvalues, percentage of Variance, and Cumulative ............................................................. 29 Table 6. Reliabilities Score for 3 Factors TSES ................................. 30 Table 7. Reliabilities Score for 3 Factors TSEIP................................. 30 Table 8. Correlations for TSES and TSEIP subscales and Years Taught 34 Table 9. Correlations for TSES and TSEIP subscales and Qualifications 34

v


List of figures Figure 1. Scatterplot of TSES and TSEIP ................................. 31 Figure 2. Scatterplot of TSEIP and Service years in teaching...... 32 Figure 3. Scatterplot of TSEIP and Qualifications ...................... 35

vi


Abstract

The study undertaken explored the Hypothesis is there a significant relationship between teacher self-efficacy and teacher’s self-efficacy for inclusive practices. A survey was used incorporating a demographic questionnaire in which 102 teacher participants took part. The results were collected and analysed using SPSS, the findings were then used to test two hypothesis:

Is there a relationship between years of experience teaching and teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices with students with special needs?

Is there a relationship between Qualifications and Teachers sense of efficacy for inclusive practices with students with special needs?

The dependent variables involved were the two Questionnaires. The first being the Teachers sense of efficacy Scale (TSES) as designed by Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy(2001), and a modified short scale of the Teachers Efficacy scale renamed the Teachers sense of efficacy scale for inclusive practices (TSEIP). The independent variables were the years of service of the teachers, and qualifications. The results supported the hypothesis that there would be a relationship between the TSEIP and Qualifications. The second Hypothesis that years of teaching experience had a relationship with the TSEIP was not supported.

Keywords: Teacher sense of Efficacy, SEN, Inclusion, TSES, TSEIP

vii


Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my wife Rachel for assisting me with the questionnaires, all the driving, phone calls and visits, my daughter Grace for giving her dad the drive to get the work done. I would like to thank my supervisor Deirdre Cowman for all her help, the staff at Oscail and all the Psychologists I have met and contacted to help me with this project. I would like to thank my fellow students at Oscail for all their assistance. I would also like to thank all the Principals, and Teachers from the schools involved in this study whose support and assistance made possible this dissertation.

viii


Glossary of terms TSES

Teacher sense of efficacy scale

TSEIP

Teacher sense of efficacy with Inclusive practices

GTE

General Teaching Efficacy

PTE

Personal Teaching Efficacy

SEN

Special Educational Needs

SD

Standard deviation

χ2

Bartlett’s test of sphericity

p

level of significance

α

Crombach alpha

r

Spearman’s Rho

K-S

Kolmogorov-Smirnov

CFA

Confirmatory factor Analysis

PCA

Principal Component analysis

EFA

Exploratory factor analysis

KMO

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

ix


1.0 Introduction 1.1

Introduction to the Study

Efficacy can be interpreted as an individual’s sense of competence about their abilities than an actual level of competence. Studies have been undertaken in many countries in an attempt to define teacher self efficacy beliefs when it comes to inclusive practices with students with special needs (SEN) (Bowers, 2009; Brownell & Pajares, 1999; Fakolade, Adeniyi & Tellal, 2009; Kitsantas, 2012; Lamport, Graves & Ward, 2012; Roll-Pettersson, 2001;2008). Yet more research is required when it comes to teacher self-efficacy beliefs and Inclusive practices with students with SEN when it comes to the Irish Education system. Studies undertaken by other researchers are based within certain demographics, as teacher efficacy is differentiated and is subject to the cultures they exist in (Lin & Gorrell, 2001; Wertheim, & Leyser, 2002). In this chapter a review of the literature will expand the theoretical framework for studies of teacher’s self-efficacy and the research undertaken in other research models in designing new scales when it comes to inclusion of students with SEN.

1.2

Efficacy and Teachers sense of Efficacy

Efficacy can be defined as an individual perceived competence in their abilities, than their actual level of competency. Efficacy is an important dynamic of a person’s psychological make-up, yet it can be overestimated or underestimated, and these assumptions may have repercussions for the actions that an individual commits to in the form of expenditure of resources and energy in pursuit of goal achievement (Woolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2000). Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy arose from the Social Cognitive Theory developed in 1977, from this theory other hypothesises arose in an attempt to answer specific

1


questions to specific problems relating to the measurement of selfefficacy (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998).

Personal self-efficacy can be a parameter of how a person regulates their performance, from general day to day abilities, from driving a car, making a 3 course meal, to changing a nappy. Success in a task increase self efficacy beliefs, while failure can be the opposite, lowering ones self efficacy, however, success in a specific task does not always contribute to higher self efficacy beliefs and failure in a task does not lower self-efficacy (Bandura, 1991). Personal development of selfefficacy is dependent on the ability of an individual to question the capability involving success or failure in a task and mastering new inclusive systems that aid the development of personal performance in task specific activities (Bandura, 1993).

Bandura (1997) identified four main sources of influence and postulated that these sources play a role in ones self efficacy beliefs in their capabilities to organise and execute a course of action to produce results. The four areas of influence were identified as follows;

1. Mastery Experience; Success in a task builds on the belief within an individual sense of efficacy that they can accomplish other tasks, while failure would generate the reverse. Tasks that are more difficult to complete generate a greater sense of personal achievement and enhance the individual ability to persist in future endeavours (Cohen & Sproull, 1996; Huber. 1996; Levitt & March, 1996). If the tasks are too easy or they are completed without undue effort it can create a sense of complacency in the individual, so if failure arises it can generate discouragement from taking risks on tasks in the future. 2. Vicarious experiences; Individuals do not rely on direct experience for their efficacy beliefs; experience can be gained from observation of others in their successfully completion of a task. From observations of others performing tasks we can

2


compare the success or failure rate to their own abilities (Bandura, 1997). How we see a person succeed in completion of a task has a bearing on our own ability to perform, or on our own ability to replicate that task successfully (Huber. 1996; Bandura, 1997). 3. Social persuasion; Communication is an important component that re-enforces a persons efficacy beliefs. Verbal communication is an effective tool in delivering feedback about levels of achievement an individual has attained from task completion; this in conjunction with direct observation of results and past experience of successful completion can influence efficacy beliefs. This process can encourage an individual to persist in tasks that otherwise would not be undertaken or abandoned (Cohen & Sproull, 1996; Bandura, 1997). 4. Affective States; Efficacious individuals can tolerate psychological and emotional states such as stress, and are bale to cope with disruption. In doing so are able to maintain progress in a task without negative consequences. Less efficacious individuals react in a dysfunctional manner, relying on emotional responses rather than cognitive ones (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010; Bandura, 1997; Cohen & Sproull, 1996).

These are not only fundamental in an individual development but also play a vital part in the development of Teachers efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010) One characteristic found in studies is that Self-efficacy is task and situation specific, that beliefs may differ according to the terms that are required for situations that develop. If an individual, who is competent in the use of writing English (Mastery Experience), may not possess the same efficacy belief in delivering a speech since the two tasks require different skill sets for their execution. The individual may have low self efficacy in the area of public speaking (Social Persuasion) (Bandura, 1993, 2001). These are considerations when developing scales to measure self efficacy, as it can be postulated that a scale should

2


measure the performance of an action rather than the personal qualities of the individual performance of the action (Bandura, 1997). Guidelines introduced in the development of scales, namely certain wording such as’ ‘can I’ or ‘will I’ are used as a means of judging intention, since selfefficacy is a personal judgement of how a person can perform certain tasks.

Self efficacy is different from other concepts such as self-confidence, self-esteem, self-worth as these are not specific to a particular task that is required in the teaching environment, which is task specific (Tschannen-Moran, et al., 1998).Studies show that teachers with a strong sense of efficacy are more productive, take increased risks when it comes to exploring new avenues of learning, create standards for themselves and students, and provide efficacy beliefs of achievement amongst learners (Wood & Bandura 1989). Teacher efficacy has also been related to other behavioural factors that have an impact upon student achievement and potential. Studies have shown that the teacher’s sense of efficacy has been strongly influenced in the adoption of new innovations in methodology of teaching practices (Gusky, 1988). It can also be documented in other studies that teacher efficacy can influence student achievement and the teacher’s ability to influence and curb the behaviour of disruptive students; it can also assist the teacher’s persistence in delivering lesson plans (Good & Brophy, 2003).

Studies have also shown (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) that efficacious teachers are able to implement teaching strategies that increase student’s ability to accommodate new materials, rather than rote learning and covering the curriculum. Application of this theory could be applied in an attempt to test the hypothesis, that a teacher’s sense of efficacy has an affect in the implementation of an inclusive classroom environment with students with SEN. A teacher who has higher efficacy in carrying out inclusive practices would believe in their ability that a student with a mild learning disability can be taught effectively within a regular classroom environment. While on the other end of the efficacy

3


spectrum, a teacher with lower efficacy beliefs in inclusive practices for students with SEN would see that there would be little they could do to assist a student with mild learning disabilities and would be disenfranchised to make any attempt (Sharma, Loreman & Forlin, 2012; Soodak & Podell, 1993). This theory would imply that that a teacher’s sense of efficacy has an affect upon teacher practices and behaviours and in implementing more inclusive practices when integrating a student with SEN. For this reason, the TSEIP would examine this self efficacy belief and examine the two Hypotheses.

1.3

Teacher self Efficacy and Effectiveness.

Teacher’s sense of self-efficacy can be misinterpreted with the term teacher effectiveness, however, it can be considered to be a benchmark of teacher effectiveness (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2000). Three factors have been identified and can be examined to better understand how teacher efficacy can be seen as teacher effectiveness when examined by each factor as identified by Kounin (1970)

1.

Planning and preparation; highly efficacious teachers succeed in planning and preparing their work and possess the knowledge of the teaching materials and the system in which they can transfer this knowledge to their students. Teachers who are efficacious in engagement can organise strategies to engage students who require additional support.

2.

Classroom environments; Teachers with high sense of efficacy will also be effective classroom managers, in the way they organise the classroom, students seating arrangements, materials and equipment used in teaching, which would be within easy access of teacher and student ensuring transition time between subjects being kept to minimum.

4


3.

Instruction; efficacious teachers increase the ability of students to accomplish their education plans by facilitating in active learning by using various techniques and styles. Questions and answers would be seen as an interaction that will assist in pupil awareness in the subject and the teacher's ability to understand the levels of their student’s awareness to the subject. This would imply that clarity and accuracy will be essential in communicating instructions and information to the student, a teacher with high self efficacy would be able to move into subjects and be able to have information available to facilitate any questions that may arise.

Studies have shown that pre-service teachers who do not have a high sense of efficacy generally direct the classroom through control; they do not look at students in a positive sense and see student motivation as irrelevant as they rely upon regulations to implement classroom management and instruction (Roberts & Mather, 1995; Kounin 1970). Teachers who are less efficacious in classroom constructs such as instruction, management and strategies use reward and punishment systems to motivate student behaviour and achievement (TschannenMoran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000).

1.4

History of Teacher Efficacy Scales & Designing new Scales for Measuring Teacher efficacy.

Teacher efficacy is an important factor that can be overlooked; by definition it is the extent to which a teacher believes they have the capacity to affect student performance (Beramsnn, Mc Laughlin, Bass, Pauly & Zellman 1997). As there is a wealth of research materiel and a plethora of measurement scales for teacher efficacy, questions are raised about how to conceptualise and measure the construct of teacher efficacy when it comes to inclusive environments with students with SEN

6


(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Soodak & Podell, 1993; Sharma et al., 2012)

The construction of self-efficacy scales can be examined from the framework of Banduras social cognitive theory in which he expands the meaning of Self-efficacy. From this theory other researchers have drawn components to develop scales to measure Teacher efficacy. One of the first scales to be used to test teacher efficacy was by undertaken by the RAND organisation (Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly & Zellman, 1977) which developed the theoretical construct based on the theory of Rotters Locus of Control (1966), which measured the factors that govern internal and external control over an individuals efficacy beliefs and the reinforcement of those beliefs. The theory was entitled the teacher sense of efficacy, this construct contained two items incorporated into a single scoring system in to assess teachers beliefs in their ability to affect student performance (Outcome), influenced by their own actions (internal) and the affect of the home environments of the students (external). These studies were continued by Gibson and Dembo (1984) who created a 30 item construct entitled the Teacher efficacy scale (TES), which loaded onto two factors, the General teaching efficacy factor (GTE), and the personal teaching efficacy factor (PTE). The GTE was based on environmental or external locus of control, and the onus of achievement was placed into the student’s environmental domain while the PTE was defined as teachers taking personal responsibility for students learning and behaviour. Another 30 item teacher efficacy scale was developed by Bandura (1997), in which seven subscales were identified, (1) efficacy to influence decision making, (2) efficacy to influence enlist parental involvement, (3) efficacy to create a positive school environment, (4) efficacy in discipline, (5) efficacy in instructional strategies, (6) efficacy to influence resources in schools, and (7) efficacy to involvement of community. Bandura (1997) developed the PTE and incorporated into it, the Professional teaching efficacy scale. This scale was based on teachers being able to overcome external factors found within some of the questions found in the GTE that were based on

11


student motivation and performance, which was dependent on their home environment, not on the teachers self efficacy beliefs (TschannenMoran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Emmer & Hickman, 1991). Further refinement was done on teacher efficacy with the teacher sense of efficacy scale (TSES) being developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001). The scale was comprised of two forms, a long form which consisted of a 24 point item questionnaire with a 9 point Likert scale ranging from 1 = nothing, 3 = very little, 5 = some influence, 7 = quite a bit, and 9 = a great deal. This 24 item scale was used for teachers with classroom experience or with more than 100 hours of classroom time. The second scale that was developed in conjunction with the 24 item scale was a shortened scale consisting of a 12 point scale form for pre-service teachers with less than 100 hours of classroom time. Both of these scales would load into three factors, they were identified as (1) efficacy for instructional strategies, (2) efficacy for classroom management and (3) efficacy for student engagement. This scale has been used in other countries due to its simplicity of design and good reliability scores (Chan, 2008; Ho & Hau, 2004). From this selection of scales other designs were to emerge in an attempt to gauge teacher efficacy in inclusion of students with SEN.

Teacher efficacy has been associated with attitudes in teaching in mainstream environments, yet there has been limited research done in inclusive environments in Ireland (O’Toole, & Burke, 2010). Early studies by Soodak, Podell and Lehaman (1998) have shown that teacher’s sense of efficacy in the areas of teaching and competence to teach was one of the highest factors scored in the area of inclusion of students with SEN. Since there has been many studies detailing teacher efficacy undertaken over the past quarter of a century, there has been very limited divergent studies into inclusive practices from studies undertaken by Romi and Leyser (2006), Weisel and Dror, (2006) and Wertheim and Leyser (2002) who have used the general teacher efficacy scales (TSES) as developed by Tschannen-Moran et al., (1998) in an attempt to capture teacher efficacy and inclusion of SEN students. Other

12


studies have developed scales for testing the hypothesis of Efficacy beliefs of teachers in Inclusive classrooms have used subjects with a medical disability (Roll-Pettersson, 2008). These studies although able to create a reliable level of feedback in the forms of quantitative (scales) and Qualitative data (questionnaires), there is still a void in the Irish research field, from limited studies in schools that have inclusive practices for Students with SEN (Travers, Balfe, Butler, Day, Dupont, McDaid, O’Donnell & Prunty, 2010; Soodak et al., 1998; Soodak & Podell 1993). Arguments put forward from other research studies (Finkelstein ,2001) states that this model of factoring in a conceptualised disability hinders education reform for inclusive practices, as it deems the failure of the ability of the child to reach certain target goals, or reaching targets set in individual education plans. The fault is upon the child not the teacher’s inability to instruct the child since focus is placed on the disability of the child and from this their inability to achieve target goals related to the curriculum, not on the teachers efficacy beliefs in their abilities (Soodak & Podell 1993). Teachers working within an inclusive system do not tend to focus on the child’s disability; rather they focus on their skills to teach to a classroom that has a mixed diversity of strengths and weaknesses. The skills that teachers rely upon in this dynamic would be their self-efficacy beliefs in their ability (Mastery Experience), competence (Vicarious experiences) attitude (social persuasion) and ability to handle psychological issues such as disruption and crises.

Previous design methods have been examined and modified by various researchers in attempt to see if inclusive practices have any effect on teacher efficacy. Studies by Sharma et al., (2012) have shown the teacher efficacy is associated with improvement in attitudes towards inclusive classrooms. New design studies (Chan, 2008), developed in other countries have demonstrated that previous studies have implied that the use of general teacher efficacy scales in researching inclusive practices with SEN students, did not take into account the diverse nature of inclusion (Roberts & Mather, 1995). The development of other

13


research methodology for testing has been undertaken by researchers such as Kitsantas, (2012), for the development of new scales such as the Teacher efficacy scale for classroom diversity or TESCD scale. This scale required teachers to respond to specific scenarios, to assess their perceived ability to tech in diverse environments. Using a Likert scale, the questions asked would be on certain areas used in other research models, such as classroom management, student engagement, and coping with behavioural problems. One specific problem that has been developed from this literature review would be inclusion of the student with special needs within a regular classroom and how this would affect teacher’s self-efficacy beliefs and effectiveness. For this reason new scales needed to be produced to test if inclusion of a student with SEN had any effect on the teacher sense of efficacy (Ceylandağ, 2009).

1.5

Inclusion of Special needs students in the Irish education system

In Ireland the policy of inclusion of students with SEN has only been in existence since the O'Donoghue case in 1994 which allowed access to a formal education for children with severe and profound disabilities and the Sinnott case (Redmond, 2006). When in 2001, a ruling by the high court under Article 42.4 of the constitution the right to primary education, allowed inclusion to be incorporated into the Irish constitution under these two acts. The first is the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 or the EPSEN Act which defined special educational needs ‘as a restriction in the capacity of a person to participate in and benefit from education on account of an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or learning disability, or any other condition which results in a person learning differently from a person without that condition.’ The second is the Disability Act 2005, which provides framework for an assessment of the need and implementation of survives for every child who meets the definition of the disability in

14


the act. From this framework inclusion was implemented within Irish classrooms, since then various studies have been undertaken to see the impact inclusion has on the education system and namely how it affects teacher’s sense of efficacy in their abilities to implement inclusion of SEN students in classrooms(Kinsella & Senior, 2009;).

1.6

Present study

Since Inclusion of students with SEN can be interpreted as a specific task, it can be postulated that certain self efficacy beliefs are required of teachers to facilitate inclusion. This study at measuring teacher efficacy when it comes to inclusive practices with SEN students within the Irish model will focus on the Qualifications and Experience (years of teaching) that teachers possess, rather than centring on the perceived disability (Finkelstein, 2001). Inclusion models used in previous designs have been analysed and it was decided for ethical considerations, and economy of time for respondent, that a modified short scale of the TSES, re-named the TSEIP would be used for data collection (Ware, Balfe, Butler, Day, Dupont, Harten, Farrell, McDaid, O’Riordan, Prunty & Travers, 2009). The measurement of Teachers sense of efficacy for inclusive practices with students with SEN would be analysed under the new TSEIP scale, which would then be used to test two Hypotheses. Within the TSEIP scale certain key words and terminology will be used in addressing the diverse nature of SEN students (Espositio, Guarino, & Caywood, 2007). From this the study will then proceed after data collection and address the following Hypotheses;

Is there a relationship between years of experience teaching and teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices with students with special needs? Is there a relationship between Qualifications and Teachers sense of efficacy for inclusive practices with students with special needs?

15


2.0 Methodology 2.1 Research design

Teacher efficacy beliefs have been explored in previous studies to understand how it affects the academic achievement of students and how teachers see themselves as effective educators. Teacher’s perception of efficacy can be defined as their own belief in their competence in assisting the education of students, with, or without disabilities (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990; Brownell & Pajares, 1999). From previous designs studies undertaken in other countries (Fakolade, et al 2009; Chan, 2008; Sharma et al., 2012; Roll-Pettersson, 2008) the need to design a new scale to measure teacher efficacy was undertaken. A new design based on the TSES short scale, as developed by Tschannen-Moran, & Woolfolk Hoy (2001), was used to gather data for this study, it was renamed the Teacher sense of efficacy for inclusive practices scale, (TSEIP). The study was approached using a survey instrument composed of three sections (a) Demographic Questionnaire (b) Teacher sense of efficacy scale TSES (c) the Teacher sense of efficacy with inclusive practices scale TSEIP. Using previous designs undertaken by Sharma et al., (2012), Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy (1998 & 2001), the survey was self administered by the participants during the months of February and March 2013. The use of this self administered survey was used based on the economy of the design for time taken to complete it, and for the simplicity of identification of the variables, 24 items on TSES and 12 items on the TSEIP. The use of a Quantitative design necessitated the need to maximise the response from the differentiated proportion of schools and teachers that took part in the study.

The dependent variables in the study were the two questionnaires the TSES, and the TSEIP, and the subsequent subscales that had been identified by Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy (2001) in test the TSES

16


and TSES short scale (renamed now the TSEIP). These subscales were identified as, Efficacy in student engagement, Efficacy in instructional strategies, and Efficacy in classroom management. The independent variables in this study were, qualifications, and years taught. The remaining variables that would be examined in the descriptive analysis of the data would not be used in the study but retained for reference for participant data; they were gender and classes taught.

2.2 Participants

Participants for the study were teachers enrolled in primary schools within the Galway region within a radius of 20 km; one hundred and two surveys were completed by fully qualified full time teachers from mainstream, resource, and special classes. Of the 102 participants the female teachers (77.5%) outnumbered their male counterparts (22.5%) see table 1

Table 1 Demographic Profile of Participants Gender

N

%

Male

23

22.5

Female

79

77.5

102

100

Total

Classes taught were recorded in Table 2, showing that 27.5% were involved with learning support, and 24.5 having taught more than one class, or teaching split level classes. When observations are made regarding the data for classes taught, 27.5% of the respondents are resource teachers, who are not involved in mainstream classrooms. Another area is the more than one class or split class percentage which is recorded at 24.5%

17


Table 2 Profile of Classes taught Classes

N

%

Junior Infants

7

6.9

Senior Infants

3

2.9

1st class

4

3.9

2nd class

3

2.9

3rd class

8

7.8

4th class

4

3.9

5th class

8

7.8

6th class

10

9.8

Learning support

28

27.5

2

2

25

24.5

102

100

Special class More than one class Split Classes Total

2.3 Instruments

Three questionnaires were utilised in this study. The first elicited demographic information from the participants (appendix 1) which recorded the participants, gender, years of service teaching, qualifications and classes taught. In addition to this demographic questionnaire the second part of the survey utilised the standard Teacher sense of efficacy scale, TSES (appendix 2), 24 items utilising 9point Likert scale ranging from 1 = nothing, to 9 = A great deal. The TSES was developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001). The TSES was developed in an attempt to measure three factors identified from research undertaken into Teacher sense of efficacy.

•

Efficacy in Student Engagement: Items 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 22

•

Efficacy in Instructional Strategies: Items 7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24

18


•

Efficacy in Classroom Management: Items 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21

Previous studies undertaken by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) recorded loadings ranging from .50 to .78, identifying 8 items per subscale when investigated using factor analysis. Alpha scores for each of the subscale were Engagement, .87, Instruction .91, and management, .90 supporting the use of the questionnaire. The third questionnaire was a new design as based on the short version of the pre-service teacher scale, the Teacher sense of Efficacy scale for inclusive practices, TSEIP (appendix 3). This scale contained 12 questions based on a 9 point Likert scale, response were based on a range from 1 = nothing to 9 = A great deal. Permission for alteration and use of this short scale was granted by Woolfolk Hoy (appendix 4).

•

Efficacy in Student Engagement: Items 2, 3, 4, 11

•

Efficacy in Instructional Strategies: Items 5, 9, 10, 12

•

Efficacy in Classroom Management: Items 1, 6, 7, 8

The use of this scale has recorded moderately correlated factors, with alpha scores being Engagement, .81, Instruction .86, and management, .86. The use of this shortened scale to measure teacher’s responses was utilised to represent the use of teaching tasks and skills in conjunction with inclusive practices with students with special needs.

2.4 Procedure

Contact was made with the department of education to gain departmental permission to contact the schools, and to inform the department of the survey. So if schools were to contact the department, for information, the department would be able to confirm the researcher’s credentials to undertake the study. Several schools were then contacted through the principals in a 25km radius, and asked if

19


their school would like to participate in the study. Three avenues of contact were used in this process, E-mail, calling the principal directly and by face to face meetings. Principals were given copies of the three questionnaires and informed that their participation was voluntary, and they could withdraw from the study if they chose to. They were fully briefed on what the survey contained and that no deception was involved. The explanation that ’Efficacy’ had no relation to ‘Efficiency’ was undertaken to prevent any confusion on the topic. After receiving approval, by e-mail (appendix 5), or by phone call, questionnaires were distributed in sufficient numbers by request of the principals. Consent for each questionnaire was obtained as part of the information sheet given as part of the survey (appendix 6). An instruction sheet was included in the envelope to assist the respondents in completing the survey (appendix 7). A de-briefing letter was attached to the outside of the self sealing envelope that was supplied for each completed questionnaire (appendix 8). Data was collected on site by the principal who then left it secured in his office for collection. At the end of each week, questionnaires were collected from the principal by hand. The data was then entered into a data base on the researcher’s pc, using SPSS version 20

2.5 Ethical Considerations

In collection of the data, anonymity was essential for all participants, no school was recorded and no identify number was used on the questionnaires until collection, after all questionnaires had been randomly shuffled to prevent any traceability the data was then entered into SPSS. No demographic information such as age was used, to protect individual teachers from traceability. All participants were provided with information sheet that outlined the aims and purpose of the study it also contained a consent statement (appendix 6). Participants were provided with an instruction sheet to assist them in completing the questionnaires which also contained a debriefing statement included contact details for support services if they required

20


them (appendix 8). All questionnaires were stored in a secure location within a locked filing cabinet in the principal’s office, and then collected by the researcher. All data entered into SPSS Version 20, data was kept on the researcher’s computer in an encrypted file which could only be accessed by password. A back up was also kept on an encrypted external hard drive and was stored in a locked filing cabinet at the researcher's home.

21


3.0 results 3.1 Screening and Normality Tests

When assessing the data for normality, Data was screened using SPSS version 20. Descriptive screening tests were undertaken on the demographic information to identify outliers or missing data. Out of the 102 questionnaires returned only six were missing data from the Years of teaching, of the questions in the TSEIP questions 2, 10 and 12 were missing 2 responses, Questions 6 and 11 were missing 1 response, while question 5 was missing 3 responses. Data for qualifications was distributed into three categories, 1 = one qualification, 2 = 2 qualifications, 3 = 3 or more qualifications.

Both the TSES and TSEIP scale were totalled and averaged, and missing data was imputed into the missing respondents using mean substitution, due to the low number of respondents missing in the questions, replacing the missing values with mean substation would have negligible affect on the results (Pallant, 2007; Field, 2009; Tabachnick & Fidell,1996). Both scales required no reversal as they were positively worded. The original scale by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy contained three sub-scales the TSES, TSEIP, being a modification was assumed to possess three as well. The items that loaded into each factor were also totalled and averaged to give overall score for each factor, which was then analysed for Skewness and Kurtosis. Observational results were also undertaken in the form of Histograms with the normal distribution curve, and normality probability plots. After analysis it was deemed that the data was not normally distributed with results for the TSEIP totals being recorded with a Skewness of -.339 and Kurtosis being -.080, and the TSES having a Skewness of -.837 and a Kurtosis of .252, as displayed in Table 3 (Leech, Barrett & Morgan, 2005). Further examinations using Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test of normality was carried out to support this assumption. Under

22


examination the TSES was p>0.05 indicating that the data was normal. Of the three factors contained within the TSES, one subscale the Efficacy in Instructional strategies, violated the assumption for normality under the test p0.05, and only one subscale violating the test, Efficacy in student engagement being p0.05, indicating that the data was normally distributed. Qualifications demonstrated a mean of 1.85 and a standard deviation of .775, which resulted in flat distribution with a kurtosis value of -1.28. Qualifications were 38.24% for teachers with one qualification, with similar results for two qualifications. Three or more qualifications recorded at 23.52% A similar K-S test was explored with results being p>0.05. The results reveal an un-even distribution for qualifications and years taught, as such the research design followed the non-parametric parameters for testing (Field, 2009; Pallant, 2007).

Since the data for the TSES and TSEIP was deemed to be not normally distributed the data was then retained and a Factor analysis was preformed to analyse if the 24 items of the TSES and the 12 items of the TSEIP would load into the three factors as reported by Woolfolk-Hoy (2005). Reliability was also tested using Crombachs alpha, to ascertain if the internal consistency of the items was above the .7 benchmark for reliability as found in previous studies.

23

102

Efficacy in Classroom Management

•

102 102 102

Efficacy in Student Engagement

Efficacy in Instructional Strategies

Efficacy in Classroom Management

•

•

•

102

102

Efficacy in Instructional Strategies

•

TSEIP

102

102

TSES

Efficacy in Student Engagement

102

Qualifications

•

96

Years of Teaching

N

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Experience, Qualifications, TSEIP and TSEIP

24

6.72

7.01

6.50

6.74

7.45

7.33

6.91

7.23

1.85

13.05

Mean

1.13

1.09

1.07

.989

.813

.837

.895

.743

.775

7.10

Std Deviation

-.167

-.376

-.178

-.339

-.360

-.583

-.290

-.387

.263

.861

Skewness


-.097

-.058

.110

-.080

.129

.431

.137

.252

-1.28

.246

Kurtosis

.200

.112

.010

.075

.200

.009

.144

.200

.000

.005

K-S


3.2 factor Analysis

A Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was preformed on the 24 item of the TSES and an exploratory factor analysis was undertaken on the 12 item TSEIP to determine the factor structure of the scales. An examination of the correlation matrix for the TSES displayed co-efficient for the majority of the items above .30 or more. The TSEIP revealed similar co-efficient of .30 or more and the majority of the 12 items. The TSEIP was then examined using confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the Subscale structure.

3.2.1 TSES A Principal component analysis, (PCA) with Varimax rotation, with was conducted on the 24 items of the TSES. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO=.837 (Field, 2009) indicating good values, and all KMO values for individual items were p>.001., which is well above the acceptable limit of .5 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 = 1194.391, p< .05), indicated that correlations between factors were sufficiently large for PCA. An initial analysis was run to obtain Eigenvalues for each component in the data. Three Factors had Eigenvalues of over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 53.6% of the variance in the TSES see table 3. The scree plot was slightly ambiguous and showed inflexions at the three factor level; this is in line with the confirmatory factor analysis as tested by Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, (2001).

25


3.2.2 TSEIP An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with Varimax rotation was conducted on the 12 items of the TSEIP to determine the factor structure of the scale. Examination of the Scree plot analysis showed two factors above the point of inflexion, Eigenvalues were recorded with the one factor being below the Eigenvalue of 1 with a result of .940.The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO= .879. (Field, 2009), and all KMO values for Individual items were p>.001., which is well above the acceptable limit of .5 (Tabachnick & Fidell 1996). Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 =651.165, p< .05), indicated that correlations between factors were sufficiently large for EFA. An initial analysis was run to obtain Eigenvalues for each component in the data. Only two viable Factors had Eigenvalues of over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 62.6% of the variance in the TSEIP, see table 4. Given the small sample size, and the convergence of the scree plot and Kaiser’s criterion on the 3 factors in question, the third factor, Teachers Efficacy in Instructional strategies was not retained.

As with previous research models factor analysis has been used to test this design, in which other studies have found three moderately correlated factors: Efficacy in Student Engagement, Efficacy in Instructional Practices, and Efficacy in Classroom Management. This study has revealed three factors for the TSES and only two factors for the TSEIP. It must be noted that the TSEIP was designed based on the TSES short version for pre-service Teachers, because the factor structure is often less distinct for these respondents, due to the nature of their experience, training and service.

26

.63 .70 .68 .57 .69

17. How much can you do to adjust your lessons to the proper level for individual students?

18. How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies?

20. To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused?

23. How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom?

24. How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students? 27

.70

11. To what extent can you craft good questions for your students?

.52 .59

How well can you respond to difficult questions from your students?

10. How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught?

7.

Factor 2: Efficacy in Instructional Strategies

.31

.63

22. How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school?

How much can you do to help your student’s value learning?

9.

.52

.49

How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work?

6.

.62

14. How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is failing?

How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work?

4.

.73

.51

How much can you do to help your students think critically?

2.

.65

24 Items

12. How much can you do to foster student creativity?

How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students?

1.

Factor 1: Efficacy in Student Engagement

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)

Table 4 Factor Loadings for the TSES, Eigenvalues, Percentage of Variance, and Cumulative.


Accept Accept Accept



Factor 3: Efficacy in Classroom Management

28

1.64

1.99

9.22

6.83

8.32

38.44

53.60

46.77

38.44

Cumulative%

.74

21. How well can you respond to defiant students?

Variance %

.83

19. How well can you keep a few problem students form ruining an entire lesson?

Eigenvalue

.57

16. How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students?

Decision

.78

.35

15. How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy?

How well can you establish routines to keep activities running smoothly?

8.

.60

.54

To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behaviour?

5.

.61

24 Items

13. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?

How much can you do to control disruptive behaviour in the classroom?

3.


Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)

Table 4(contd) Factor Loadings for the TSES, Eigenvalues, Percentage of Variance, and Cumulative.


How much can you do to get students with learning disabilities to believe they can do well in school work?*

How much can you do to help your student’s value learning?

3.

4.

How much can you do to get children with receptive language disorder to follow classroom rules?*

How much can you do to calm a student with special needs who is disruptive or noisy? *

How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students with different needs?*

6.

7.

8.

.71

.84

.67

.74

.36

.85

.75

.62

8 Items

Accept Accept Reject



29

Decision


needs marked with *

.940

1.13

6.37

Eigenvalue

7.83

9.48

53.14

Variance %

70.46

62.6

53.14

Cumulative%

The questionnaire has been loaded with certain factors that will ask teachers of the sense of efficacy when dealing with students with special

How much can you do to control disruptive behaviour of certain students in the classroom?*

1.


11. How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school?

How much can you do to motivate students with Attention deficit disorder who show low interest in school work?*

2.


Teacher Sense of Efficacy for Inclusive Practices Scale (TSEIP)

Table 5 Factor Loadings for the TSEIP, Eigenvalues, Percentage of Variance, and Cumulative



3.3 Inferential Statistical tests

3.3.1 Alpha scores for TSES To determine the internal consistency of the 24 items on the TSES, a Cronbachs alpha coefficient test was performed on totals for the TSES. The results for the TSES totals were α =.926, suggesting that the items possessed high internal consistency, in parallel with Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, (2001) research model. The Factor Efficacy in classroom management had the highest consistency recorded.

Table 6 Reliabilities Score for 3 Factors TSES Mean

SD

α

Engagement

6.9

0.9

.826

Instruction

7.3

0.8

.835

Management

7.5

0.8

.841

3.3.2 Alpha Scores for TSEIP A Cronbachs alpha coefficient test was then used on the 8 items on the TSEIP scale. Results recorded were α = .871, suggesting that these items also possessed high internal consistency. When examined by factors it reveals that management possessed the highest consistency.

Table 7 Reliabilities Score for 3 Factors TSEIP Mean

SD

α

TSEIP

6.6

.99

.871

Engagement

6.5

1.0

.713

Management

6.7

1.1

.791

30


3.3.3 Inferential Tests between TSES and TSEIP Results from the factor analysis supported retaining all three factors for the TSES. From factor analysis the TSEIP was revealed to have only two factors loading onto it (Efficacy in Student Engagement and efficacy in student management) so it was decided to test it against the TSES with the corresponding factors, (Efficacy in Student Engagement and efficacy in student management), the Efficacy in Instructional strategies was omitted fro this purpose. Preliminary analysis showed that the dada was not normally distributed, and under consideration it was decided that a Spearman’s Rho coefficient test would be used. The relationship between TSES and TSEIP was investigated using a Spearman Rho coefficient correlation test. Results of this test revealed that there was a positive correlation between the two variables (r = .780; N =102 p < .01). This means that a strong positive correlation between the 2 factor TSES and 2 factor TSEIP. Analyses of the Scatterplot revealed that 64.7 % of the variance in the TSEIP results can be explained by the TSES.

Figure 1. Scatterplot of TSES and TSEIP

31


3.3.4 Inferential Tests between TSEIP, TSES and Years Taught. The First Hypothesis to be tested was; Is there a relationship between years of experience teaching and teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices with students with special needs? As the data was assumed to be not normally distributed from the data screening, a Spearman’s Rho correlation coefficient (r) was computed to assess the relationship between TSEIP and Service years in teaching. Results of this test revealed there was a low negative correlation between the TSEIP and Years of teaching (r = -.110; N = 96 p > .05 ). Analyses of the Scatterplot revealed a negative slope, with values spread away from the line, with only 1% of the variance in the TSEIP being affected by Years of teaching.

Figure 2. Scatterplot of TSEIP and Service years in teaching

After factor analysis had identified only two factors loading into the TSEIP, a further Spearman’s Rho correlation was undertaken into each

32


of the subscales along with years Taught. The Efficacy in Student Engagement in the TSEIP was also examined, the results were (r = .091; N = 96 p > .01) which revealed a weak negative correlation between the two variables, with .8% in variance between TSEIP engagement being affected by Years taught variable. The results were for the TSEIP subscale Efficacy in Classroom Management, (r = -.109; N = 96 p > .01), resulting in a weak negative correlation existing between, Management and years of teaching, analyses of the Scatterplot revealed a negative linear regression with 1.18% of the variance in Management being influenced for by Years taught

The TSES was also examined using a Spearman Rho correlation to reveal if there was a relationship between it and Service years in teaching. The results were (r = -.079; N = 96 p > .05) The TSES scores for the subscale Efficacy in Classroom management were (r = -.024; N = 96 p > .01), which revealed a weak negative correlation and a variance of .05% between the TSES management being subject to years taught. Scores for Efficacy in Student Engagement were (r = -.107; N = 96 p > .01), which revealed a weak negative correlation, indicating that only .05% of the variance in the TSES management was explained by the Years taught. Table 8 shows results of correlation tests. In consequence the first Hypothesis was not supported. These finding would suggest that years of teaching did not have a relationship in regard to Teachers self-efficacy for inclusive practices with students with SEN.

33

-.091

-.109

-.107

-.024

TSEIP: Engagement

TSEIP: Management

TSES: Engagement

TSES: Management

.515**

.765**

.594**

_____

TSEIP: Engagement

.205*

.129

.203*

.172

TSEIP: Engagement

TSEIP: Management

TSES: Engagement

TSES: Management

**p .01), resulting in a positive but weak correlation existing between, Management and Qualifications. With 2.3% in variance between TSEIP Efficacy in Student management being affected by Qualifications attained.

The TSES was also examined using a Spearman rho correlation to reveal if there was a relationship between it and Service years in teaching. The results showed there was a positive but weak correlation between the TSES and Qualifications (r = .196; N =102 p > .05) with 3.9% of the variance in the TSES being accounted for by Qualifications. The TSES scores for the subscale Efficacy in Classroom management were (r = .172; N =102 p > .05), which revealed a positive but weak correlation and a variance of 4% between the TSES management being explained by Qualifications attained. Scores for Efficacy in Student Engagement and qualifications revealed a weak but positive correlation (r = .203; N =102 p > .05), and a variance of 5% between the TSES Efficacy in management being accounted for by Qualifications achieved.

In consequence the second Hypothesis was supported. This finding would suggest that Qualifications did have a relationship in regard to Teachers self-efficacy for inclusive practices with students with special needs

36


4.0 Discussion and Conclusion

From the results of the study the following was discussed in relation to the two Hypotheses put forward. Is there a relationship between years of teaching and teachers senses of efficacy with inclusive practices with SEN students? Is there a relationship between qualifications and teachers senses of efficacy with inclusive practices with SEN Students? From the results shown only one of the hypotheses put forward was supported by the data collected, the discussion will look at the findings.

4.1 Introduction to the Discussion

Researchers and psychologists are developing scales and tests to gauge teacher efficacy belief systems in management, instructional strategies and student engagement and run comparisons in how teachers become efficacious in these fields when including SEN students. It has been sustained in studies (Walls,2007; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005) that teacher efficacy beliefs enhances the teachers sense of productivity; if teachers do not believe in themselves as educators they would not be able to use instruction effectively. If that was the case then they would not be able to promote learning within the classroom environment. Teacher efficiency is affected by efficacy; it assists teachers in conceptualising teaching and develops self affirming models for themselves in their abilities. Teachers with high-efficacy beliefs are able to motivate their students in the process of learning, and have the ability to engage students in learning if the student is disruptive, it is also necessary for the teacher's ability to believe in themselves to manage a classroom (Slavin, 2006; Tschannen-Moran et al, 1998).The purpose of this study was to investigate if teacher efficacy had any

37


relationship either positive or negatively with Inclusive practices of a student with SEN. The development of the TSES as a means of gauging teacher efficacy has been used in previous studies in an attempt to understand and explore how teachers develop their attitudes in the management, teaching, and instructional abilities they use in their dayto-day activities as educators. High alpha scores were recorded for the TSES at .9, with the TSEIP recording scores .9 also. The development of designing a new scale was based on the assumption that teacher efficacy for inclusion is a task specific construct, and the measurement of such a construct would be better served by utilising a scale that is explicitly designed to measure efficacy for inclusive practices. Unlike other designs in which items are coded to load onto factors, the use of terminology such as ‘students with attention deficit disorder’ was deployed by the researcher, due to the consideration that Teachers have been in contact with students with this condition. Though it was not intended as a labelling process for a disability analysis as Finkelstein (2001) has stated in his research. Creating a construct which would investigate teacher efficacy beliefs, investigating how teachers can teach multiple groups within the class at various levels would be of benefit, since the factors involved in management, instruction, and engagement are all vital for teachers to perform their duties.

4.2 Relationship between TSEIP and TSES.

From the results between the TSES and TSEIP, high coefficients were recorded through factor analysis, and correlations which represented a relationship between the two scales, which could be postulated that Teacher efficacy and Teacher efficacy when it comes to inclusive practices share a common interest (Roll-Pettersson, 2008). The results show that respondents answered the items in the TSES and TSEIP with over 64% of the variance in the TSEIP being explained by the TSES.

38


4.3 Relationship between Years of service teaching, and TSEIP

From the correlation results conducted between the TSEIP and years of service in teaching, it did not support the Hypothesis that there would be a relationship between years of teaching and TSEIP. The expectancies of the study was to find a positive correlation between years of teaching experience and the TSEIP, it was also expected that it would translate into more positive results, with Teacher efficacy for inclusion of students with SEN would increase as teachers gained more experience in classroom diversity and increases in positive self efficacy beliefs into Mastery experience and Vicarious experiences. Other studies have shown that the more experienced a teacher the less their levels of acceptance of inclusion (Forlin, Douglas & Hattie, 1996). Teachers in mainstream environments are often working in isolation when it comes to Management, Instructional strategies and student engagement. When a student with SEN is included into the classroom the teachers may not feel they are able to cope in instruction, management or engaging the student. Consistency is a problematic factor when investigating teacher efficacy and experience over time, studies have shown that in some cases it decreases as teachers enter the field must adjust from one environment to the next an in doing so adjust their efficacy beliefs to the complexity of teaching, especially when students with SEN are included (Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005; Weinstein, 1998).

4.4 Relationship between Qualifications and TSEIP

Educators that have been taught to work with students who do not require special educational needs may be efficacious when working within the classroom that has no integration of an SEN student. But does that alter their efficacy beliefs if a SEN student is introduced? If

39


confronted with a situation with the inclusion of a student with special needs can their perception as efficacious in their abilities become inefficacious (Soodak & Podell, 1993)? Analysis of the correlation between the TSEIP and qualifications training showed a significant but weak positive relationship between the two variables it can be postulated that if a teachers education incorporates specialised training in Inclusive practises for students with SEN does it creates a better understanding of student needs and in doing so increase the self efficacy beliefs of the teacher (Roll-Petersson, 2001). Teachers who are motivated to the acquisition of diplomas, degrees or Masters in advanced teaching and training techniques use the new conceptualisations they have formed within the classroom in the process of management, inclusion, and student engagement. From research undertaken by Freytag (2001) teachers who are identified with additional SEN education have higher Sense of Teacher efficacy than their counterparts who have general education qualifications. Special education teachers have increased knowledge due to specialised training, and this could support claims that their efficacy beliefs are stronger when it comes to facilitating students with SEN (Buell, Hallam, Garmel-McCormick, Scheer, 1999).

4.5 Methodological Issues of present study

The present study was limited in the fact that only 102 participants were available for the design study at the conclusion. For each variable tested it was required that there was at least five respondents per variable, for the TSES and the 24 items, 120 participants would a minimum requirement. Six responses were missing from years of service. Since the catchments area for the research project was in a radius of 20 km and only included primary schools, and a small sample size (n=102) it can be postulated that the variables tested did not achieve the full levels as expected by the researcher. Other limitations was the design of the TSEIP which was based on the short scale TSES, since both designs

40


were a similar nature the respondents could gauge the researchers questions and answer in a biased manner that would alter the data favourably towards their own sense of efficacy. Other limitations were recorded in the classes taught with over a quarter of the respondents being involved with learning support and not with mainstream teaching, additionally another quarter of the respondents were involved with teaching split classes which may not have had included pupils with special needs. Just fewer than 2 % of the respondents taught a special class. This left just under half of the respondents as teachers who were involved with mainstream teaching of one class. The data collected would not be a true representation of how inclusion of students with special needs is recorded in this study. Further limitations were the use of the TSEIP and TSES as questionnaires, as the TSEIP was based on the short scale TSES, it may be construed that it did not create a diverse measure for testing the Hypothesis. A new scale for future studies in Ireland could be developed based on designs of other scales developed in other countries by researchers such as Kitsantas (2012) and Sharma et al., (2012). One other factor that should be noted is the personal efficacy factor, respondents may not want to answer all the questions in an honest manner as they may feel that their answers to items could possible be construed that they are not qualified, or are incapable of working with inclusion of SEN students. Since the survey was conducted over two weeks, the climate and work environment of each day can vary, since not all respondents may have answered the full questionnaire at one time. This is an important point to make since teacher efficacy has been linked to teacher effectiveness and this can affect the respondents efficacy beliefs if they feel that they are second guessing their answers in the questionnaire (Tomlinson & Allen, 2000),.

4.6 Implications

The Hypothesises investigated within the study analysed the differences between qualifications and years of teaching in relation to inclusive practices with SEN students. The hypothesis that was not supported

41


was that years of teaching had a relationship with Inclusive practises; this does not imply that experience did not have any relationship with teacher’s efficacy, and that experience does not play a part in how teachers develop their efficacy beliefs. Since there are very limited longitudinal designs to investigate teacher efficacy in Ireland, the data drawn from this study is limited by the fact there is no other tangible research to draw upon from research within Ireland (Stevens & O’Moore, 2009). Inclusion in mainstream classrooms has only come about in the last 15 years in Ireland and as such there is almost no real research done on the longitudinal scale.

The Hypothesis that was supported, that qualifications have a relationship with inclusive practices does not imply that qualifications and training alone can enforce teachers self efficacy beliefs in inclusive practices with SEN students, but they can play a part. Studies by Baker & Zigmond (1990) have shown that low efficacy beliefs in teachers can adversely affect the inclusion of SEN students into the classroom. If adequate support in the form of training and educational training programs are made available the sense of teacher efficacy will increase and the ability of the teacher to instruct students with SEN effectively in the inclusive classroom.

4.7 Further research

Future research should be undertaken to construct scales that would be used to investigate inclusion in the classroom of SEN students, in parallel with teacher efficacy studies that would mirror other studies undertaken in other countries (Kitsantas, 2012; Sharma et al, 2012). An investigation into the mainstream teachers self efficacy beliefs and data collection on internal and external sources of support would be of benefit for future design of a scale for Inclusive practices in an attempt to capture teacher self efficacy beliefs and how they are generated from

42


teachers involved in mainstream teaching. The factors that were retained in the TSEIP would be a benefit for future research in attempt to develop a new scale that would capture the Instructional strategies factor that would assist Psychologists in addressing teacher self efficacy beliefs and efficacy for inclusive practices, and develop scales for their measurement. Gender is another factor that could be investigated, due to the demographic data collected. Can gender be associated with perceived teacher efficacy? Studies into management, instructional strategies and teachers belief systems (Erdem and Demirel, 2007; Martin, Yin, & Mayall, 2006) have revealed that female teachers have a higher sense of perceived teacher efficacy than the male contingent (Evans & Tribble, 1986), from their perceived ability to forge connections between other teachers (social persuasion), ability to handle stress more effectively (affective states and willingness to engage in training programs and observational techniques in gauging student performance ( Vicarious). A further study would be of interest due to imbalance gender population of primary and secondary schools.

4.8 Conclusion

Teacher efficacy has been used by psychologists for more than a quarter of a century however, teachers self efficacy measurement scales are still in the process of continued development (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). There has been extensive development of literature and design models in an attempt to measure teacher efficacy. From the aspect of teacher efficacy and Inclusive practices with students with SEN there are indications that new scales are needed to gauge the factors that make up efficacy beliefs in this area. Teacher sense of efficacy is an important factor that can be overlooked; by definition it is the extent to which a teacher believes they have the capacity to affect student performance. Based on the results found, Qualifications and training are

43


important in improving the efficacy beliefs of teachers and this would support the need for training in inclusive practices that would raise teacher efficacy in the field of inclusive practices of students with special educational needs.

44


References: Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56, 515-526

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

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

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

Bandura , A., & Wood, R, (1989). Effect of Percieved Controllability and performance Standards on Self-Regulation of Complex Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,56 ,(5), 805-814 Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248287. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

45


Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Selfefficacy beliefs of adolescents, Ch 5, 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: RAND. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 140 432)

Bowers, C. T., (2009) Effectiveness of Inclusion in an Indiana Middle School, Walden University.

Brownell, M., & Pajares, F. (1999). Classroom teachers’ sense of efficacy to instruct special education students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 154- 164.

Buell, M.J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M. & Scheer, S. (1999). A survey of general and special education teachers' perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 46, 143-156

Ceylandağ, F. Rana, (2009) Teacher self-efficacy beliefs toward measurement and evaluation practices, M.S., Department of Educational Sciences

Chan, D. W. (2008) ‘Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong.’ Educational Psychology, 28, pp. 181–94.

Cohen, M. D., & Sproull L. S. (Eds.). (1996). Organizational Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

46


Denham, C. H., & Michael, J. J. (1981). Teacher sense of efficacy: A definition of the construct and a model for further research. Educational Research Quarterly, 5, 39-63

Emmer, E., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 755-765

Erdem, E. & Demirel, Ö. (2007). Teacher self-efficacy belief. Social Behavior and Personality, 35 (5),573-586.

Esposito, M., Guarino, A. J., & Caywood, K. (2007) Perceived teacher efficacy beliefs for the inclusion of the student with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14 (4), 265-272.

Evans, E.D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, selfefficacy, and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 81-85

Fakolade,O. A., & Adeniyi, S. O., Tella, A., (2009) Attitude of teachers towards the inclusion of special needs children in general education classroom: the case of teachers in some selected schools in Nigeria, International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1,(3)

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage

Finkelstein, V. (2001) ‘The social model of disability repossessed.’ Leeds University Disability Studies Archive. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disabilitystudies/archiveuk/finkelstein/so c%20mod%20repossessed.pdf

47


Forlin, C., (2010) Teacher Education for Inclusion: Changing Paradigms and Innovative Approaches, Routledge

Forlin, C., Douglas, G.,& Hattie, J. (1996). Inclusive practices: how accepting are teachers? International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43(2), 119-133.

Freytag, C. (2001). Teacher sense of efficacy and inclusion: The impact of preservice experiences on beliefs. ERIC Digest, ED 451 180.

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Teacher Characteristics Scale. Annual Continuation Application for “Planning, Reviewing and Ongoing Assessment Among Classroom Teachers,” Grant No. 0023E90020 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs

Givner, C.G., & Haager, D., (1995) . Strategies for effective collaboration. In M.A. Falvey (Ed). Inclusive and heterogeneous schooling. Baltimore

Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. H. (1984) ‘Teacher efficacy: a construct validation.’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-82

). Self-efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J., E., (1994) Looking in Classrooms 6th edition,Harper Collins

Guskey, T.R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional motivation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63-69.

48


Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of responsibility teachers assume for academic successes or failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, (34), 44-51

Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: Similarities and differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, (20), 313-323

Huber, G., P. (1996). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and literatures. In Cohen, M. D., & Sproull L. S. (Eds.). Organizational learning 124-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, V., & Jones, L., (2007) Comprehensive Classroom Management: Creating Communities of Support and Solving Problems, 8th ed, Pearson publication ,

Kelly, A., Carey, S., & McCarthy, S. (2004) A Nationwide Study of Challenging Behaviour in Special Schools in Ireland, Dublin: National Association of Boards of Management in Special Education

Kinsella, W. , Senior, J. (2009) Developing inclusive schools; a systemic approach, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12 (5 & 6), 651-665.

Kitsantas, A., (2012) Teacher efficacy scale for classroom diversity (TESCD): A VALIDATION STUDY, Profesorado 16, (1)

Kounin, J.,(1970) Discipline and Group Management in Classrooms, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, USA

Lamport,M.,A., Graves,L., & Ward, A., (2012) Special Needs Students in Inclusive Classrooms: The Impact of Social Interaction on

49


Educational Outcomes for Learners with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities, European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 1, (5) 54-69

Leech, N., Barrett, K., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Levitt, B. L., & March, J. G. (1996). In Cohen, M. D., & Sproull L. S. (Eds.).Organizational learning, 516-540, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lin, H., & Gorrell, J. (2001). Exploratory analysis of pre-service teachers efficacy in Taiwan. Teaching and Teacher Education,17, 623–635

Martin, N. K., Yin, Z., & Mayall, H. (2006). Classroom management training, teaching experience and gender: Do these variables impact teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward classroom management style? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, TX

Meegan, S., & MacPhail, A. (2006) Inclusive education: Ireland’s education provision for children with special educational needs, Irish Educational Studies, 25,(1), 53-62.

Naylor,C., (2005) Inclusion in British Columbia’s public schools: Always a journey, never a destination? Building Inclusive Schools: A Search for Solutions

O’Toole, C. & Burke, N. (in press), Ready, willing and able? Attitudes toward inclusive education among a cohort of Irish pre-service teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education.

50


Pallant, J., (2007) SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows 3rd edition, Open university press.

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307332

Redmond, B (2006) Fighting for a Service: Rights of the Disabled, An Irish Quarterly Review, 95, (377)

Roberts, R., & Mather, N. (1995). The return of students with learning disabilities to regular classrooms: A sell-out? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice: A Publication of the Division for Learning Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children, 10(1), 46-58.

Roll-Pettersson, L., (2008) Teacher’s Perceived Efficacy and the Inclusion of a Pupil with Dyslexia or Mild Mental Retardation: Findings from Sweden, Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43(2), 174-185

Roll-Pettersson, L. (2001). Teacher perceptions of supports and resources needed in regard to pupils with special educational needs in Sweden. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 42–54.

Romi,S., & Leyser, Y., (2006) Exploring inclusion pre-service training needs: a study of variables associated with attitudes and self efficacy beliefs, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(1), 85–105

51


Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies of internal versus external control of reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28

Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C., (2012) Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12

Slavin, R. E., (2006) Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice 8th edition, Pearson publications

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. & Lehman, L. R. (1998) ‘Teacher, student, and school attributes as predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion.’ Journal of Special Education, 31, 480–97.

Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problems as factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 6–82.

Stevens, P., & O’Moore, M. (2009) Inclusion or Illusion? Educational Provision for Primary School Children with Mild General Learning Disabilities, Dublin: Blackhall Publishing

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3 ed.). New York: Harper Collins

Thomas, G., & Loxley, A., (2001) Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion, Open University press, USA

Tomlinson, C. A. & Allen, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools & classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

52


Travers, J., Balfe, T., Butler, C., Day, T., Dupont, M., McDaid, R.,O’Donnell, M., & Prunty, A (2010).,Addressing the Challenges and Barriers to Inclusion in Irish Schools: Report to Research and Development Committee of the Department of Education and Skills,Special Education Department St Patrick’s College

Trentham, L. (1995). Teacher efficacy and teacher competency ratings. Psychology in the Schools, 22(3), 343-352.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998) Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68,.202–48.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

Walls, S. D., (2007) Early childhood preservice training and perceived teacher efficacy beliefs concerning the inclusion of young children with disabilities, Auburn, Alabama

Ware, J., Balfe, T., Butler, C., Day, T., Dupont, M. Harten, C., Farrell, A.M., McDaid, R., O’Riordan, M., Prunty, A.,& Travers, J. (2009) Research Report on the Role of Special Schools and Classes in Ireland, Trim: National Council for Special Education.

Weinstein, C. (1988). Preservice teachers' expectations about the first year of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 31–41

Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differientiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 54–63.

53


Weisel, A. and Dror, O. (2006). School climate, sense of efficacy and Israeli teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of students with special needs. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1(2). 157-174

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, (81-91), 134

Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke-Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356

Woolfolk Hoy, A. W., & Burke Spero, R. (2000). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: an exploratory study. Retrieved from http://des.emory.edu/mfp/efftalk.html.

EDUCATION FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL, EDUCATIONAL NEEDS ACT 2004, Number 30 of 2004 Retrieved from http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/A3004.pdf

DISABILITY ACT 2005, Number 14 of 2005 Retrieved from http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2005/a1405.pdf

54


Appendices

55


Appendix 1

O S C A I L

Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland O sc a il 2 0 00 , A th lo n e 2 9 /3 0 th M a rc h

2

Demographic Questionnaire:

What is your gender:

Male

Female?

How many Years have you taught?

Please list your Qualifications:

Third level degree in other Discipline: Third Level degree in Teaching: Masters degree in Other Discipline;

56


Masters Degree in Teaching: Higher Diploma in teaching: Qualification in Assisted learning: Qualification in Behavioural management:

What Grade do you teach:

Junior Infants Senior infants 1st Class 2nd class 3rd class 4th class 5th class 6th class

Learning support Special class

57


Appendix 2

58


Appendix 3

59


Appendix 4

60


Appendix 5

61


Appendix 6

O S C A I L


2

Consent letter for Teachers Hello, my name is Gerard Comerford, I am studying my final year in Psychology under the Oscail programme.

For my research I am investigating teacher’s sense of self efficacy in relation to inclusive practices involving students with special educational needs. This study will examine the factors that play a part in the confidence of teachers in how they perceive they are attaining certain goals in relation to classroom instruction, reflective teaching practices, classroom management, engaging students in their development, motivating students both engaged and disengaged, in the educational process, and examining other areas of expertise that make teachers efficacious.

The data to be collected is in the form of 3 questionnaires. If you agree to participate in this study your identity will be anonymous, and the information that is provided will be securely stored in the principals office in a secure box, which only the principal and myself will have the keys. The data collected will be stored digitally for one year then destroyed. Only I and my supervisor will have access to these records during this one year time period. If you commence the questionnaire, I ask that you complete it in its entirety if you chose to withdraw without completing the questionnaire, please, place it in the envelope, but do not seal it.

62


I have read and understood the information sheet and agree to take part in this study

Your rights under the Freedom of Information Act 1977 (amended 2003) will be respected at all times.

63


Appendix 7

O S C A I L


2

Questionnaire script for Teachers

Thank you for taking the time to complete these questionnaires. You have one self sealing envelope in which to deposit your questionnaires after completion.

First can you complete the demographic questionnaire which is the green sheet, please do not include any identifying information on this sheet.

Next can you complete the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale which is on the yellow paper.

After this can you complete the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive practice scale which is on the white paper.

Please complete all questions. After you have completed all three, please place them within the envelope and seal it. Return it to your principal and he/she will store it for collection. And once again thank you for your time.

Gerard Comerford.

64


Appendix 8

O S C A I L


2

Debriefing Sheet:

Thank you for participating in this research. The study that was undertaken was to examine teacher efficacy in the implementation of inclusive practices with students with special needs. Your survey was part of 100 questionnaires completed and returned, several schools were involved in the survey. The questionnaire you completed was designed to measure teacher efficacy and how that was affected by the inclusion of a student with special needs. It asked certain questions relating to Teacher efficacy This study examined the factors that play a part in the confidence of teachers to have success in achieving certain goals in relation to classroom instruction, reflective teaching practices, classroom management, engaging students in their development, motivating students both engaged and disengaged, in the educational process, and examining other areas of expertise that make teachers efficacious. A report has been generated for your viewing, for further information contact Gerard Comerford, Or alternatively E-mail [email protected] This study is being supervised by Deidre Cowman

If In the event that you feel psychologically distressed by participation in this study, please call Carecall on 1800 411 05

65