Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:45:30.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Adaptation of the Mathematics Teacher Efficacy Belief Instrument for In-Service Teachers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Bulent Cetinkaya  and
Ayhan Kursat Erbas
Bulent Cetinkaya
Affiliation:
Middle East Technical University (Turkey)
Ayhan Kursat Erbas*
Affiliation:
Middle East Technical University (Turkey)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ayhan Kursat Erbas. Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education. Middle East Technical University. 06800 Ankara. (Turkey). Phone: +90-312-2103652. Fax: +90-312-2107971. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Teaching efficacy beliefs have attracted researchers' attention in recent decades because of its close association with and potential impact on the implementation of new ideas and skills in education. In the present study, we have explored the psychometric properties and construct validity of the Turkish adaptation of the Mathematics Teacher Efficacy Belief Instrument developed by Enochs, Smith, & Huinker (2000) for in-service mathematics teachers. The instrument distinguishes between two dimensions of efficacy beliefs for mathematics teachers: personal mathematics teaching efficacy and mathematics teaching outcome expectancy. The sample consisted of 1355 in-service elementary school teachers and middle school mathematics teachers from 368 schools. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure similar to that found in other studies. Also, scores from the two subscales indicated acceptable internal consistency.

En décadas recientes, las creencias sobre la eficiencia de la enseñanza han atraido la atención de los investigadores debido a su cercana relación y potencial impacto en la implementación de nuevas ideas y estrategias de educación. En el presente studio hemos explorado las propiedades psicométricas y la validez de constructo de la adaptación turca del Instrumento de Creencias de la Eficacia del Profesor de Matemáticas desarrollado por Enochs, Smith, & Huinker (2000) para profesores de matemáticas en activo. El instrumento distingue entre dos dimenciones de creencias de eficacia para profesores de matemáticas: eficacia personal en la enseñanza de las matemáticas y resultados de las expectativas en la enseñanza de las matemáticas. La muestra consistió en 1355 profesores de matemáticas de educación elemental y de escuela media en activo de 368 escuelas. Los analisis exploratorios y los analisis de factor confirmatorio revelaron una estructura de dos factores similar a la encontrada en otros estudios. Asímismo, los datos de las dos subescalas tuvieron valores de consistencia interna aceptables.

Keywords

self-efficacymathematics educationteachersexploratory factor analysisconfirmatory factor analysisauto eficaciaeducación en matemáticasprofesoresanalisis factorial exploratorioanalisis factorial confirmatorio
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , November 2011 , pp. 956 - 966
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alkhateeb, H. M. (2004). Internal consistency reliability and validity of the Arabic translation of the Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument. Psychological Reports, 94, 833–838. doi:10.2466/pr0.94.3.833-838CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, R. N., Greene, M. L., & Loewen, P. S. (1988). Relationships among teachers' and students' thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34, 148–165.Google Scholar
Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos (Version 16) [Computer software]. Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation.Google Scholar
Ashton, P., Webb, R., & Doda, C. (1982). A study of teachers' sense of efficacy: Final report, Vols. 1 & 2. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.84.2.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleicher, R. E. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104(8), 383–391. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb18004.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwers, A., Tomic, W., & Stijnen, S. (2002). A confirmatory factor analysis of scores on the teacher efficacy scale. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61(4), 211–219. doi:10.1024//1421-0185.61.4.211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cakiroglu, E. (2008). The teaching efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers in the USA and Turkey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(1), 33–44. doi:10.1080/02607470701773457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 31–40.Google Scholar
Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Relationship between teacher beliefs and science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(4), 247–266. doi:10.1007/BF00058659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Mesquita, P. B., & Drake, J. C. (1994). Educational reform and self-efficacy beliefs of teachers implementing nongraded primary school programs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(3), 291–302. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(95)97311-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 695–706. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb12048.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enochs, L. G., Smith, P. L., & Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing factorial validity of the Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 100(4), 194–202. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17256.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, M. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 451–458. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement on Horn's parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(3), 377–393. doi:10.1177/0013164495055003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gresham, G. (2008). Mathematics anxiety and mathematics teacher efficacy in elementary pre-service teachers. Teaching Education, 19(3), 171–184. doi:10.1080/10476210802250133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63–69. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(88)90025-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 627–643. doi:10.3102/00028312031003627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In Hambleton, R.K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. doi:10.1177/0013164405282485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(3), 404–420. doi:10.1177/00131640121971284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. doi:10.1007/BF02289447CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Liu, C. J., Jack, B. M., & Chiu, H. L. (2007). Taiwan elementary teachers' views of science teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 19–35. doi:10.1007/s10763-006-9065-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mji, A., & Kiviet, A. M. (2003). Psychometric characteristics of the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Inventory in South Africa. Psychological Reports, 92, 325–332. doi:10.2466/PR0.92.1.325-332CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulholland, J., Dorman, J. P., & Odgers, B. M. (2004). Assessment of science teaching efficacy of preservice teachers in an Australian university. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 313–331. doi: 10.1023/B:JSTE.0000048334.44537.86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396–402. doi:10.3758/BF03200807CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riggs, I. M. (1991, April). Gender differences in elementary science teacher self efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1989, March-April). Toward the development of an elementary teacher's science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (62nd). San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Swars, S. L., Daane, C. J., & Giesen, J. (2006). Mathematics anxiety and mathematics teacher efficacy: What is the relationship in elementary preservice teachers? School Science and Mathematics, 106(7), 306–315. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb17921.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Ozkan, O. (2004). Turkish preservice science teachers' understanding of science and their confidence in teaching it. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 30(1), 57–66. doi:10.1080/0260747032000162316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. doi:10.3102/00346543068002202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327. doi:10.1007/BF02293557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of the rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432–442. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.99.3.432CrossRefGoogle Scholar