Professional Development and Teacher Self-Efficacy

A small number of researchers have investigated the relationship between participation in PD and teacher self-efficacy (e.g. Hoy & Spero, 2005; Karimi, 2011; Ross & Bruce, 2007; Zambo & Zambo, 2008). These studies were conducted in a variety of settings

40

which were mostly in western countries and used different scales to measure teacher self-efficacy.

The first two studies are by Fritz, Miller-Heyl, Kreutzer, and MacPhee (1995) and Edwards, Green, Lyons, Rogers, and Swords (1998) who conducted quasi-experimental studies. Fritz et al. (1995) investigated the effectiveness of in-service training on

teachers’ efficacy beliefs. A total of 241 teachers from a set of elementary school

districts in USA participated in their study. Fritz et al. (1995) found that treatment teachers (teachers who participated in in-service training) obtained higher teacher- efficacy scores on the post- and delayed post-tests than the control-group teachers (teachers who did not participate in in-service training). Effects were strongest for teachers identified as frequent users of curriculum materials distributed in the program. Edwards et al. (1998) investigated the effects of PD programmes for K-12 teachers from the largest school district in USA using a Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) and the Standards-Based Implementation Survey (Seahorn, 1995). Edwards et

al.’s study employed quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test design with two groups

of teachers. They found that teachers who participated in PD programs increased their teaching efficacy and attitudes toward school culture compared to teachers who did not. They also found that teachers who participated in PD programs showed more favourable attitudes toward teaching as a career compared to teachers who did not involve in PD.

Other studies have shown that PD activities impact on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on

their capability to implement instructional strategy (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, & Hardin, 2014; Zambo & Zambo, 2008). Dixon et al.’s (2014) study focused on teacher efficacy as a way to explain teacher willingness to differentiate instruction by involving 41 teachers from two elementary and high school districts in USA. They found that a greater number of PD hours in differentiated instruction were positively associated with teacher sense of efficacy beliefs. Their study demonstrated that teacher efficacy is an important dimension in implementing the process of differentiation regardless of what level or what content area the teacher taught (elementary, middle, or high school). Zambo and Zambo’s (2008) study involved 63 teachers who voluntarily participated in two-week, summer PD workshops on mathematics problem solving in USA. The

41 workshops focused on helping teachers increase their own problem solving ability as well as improve their classroom problem-solving instruction. Their study used a Collective Efficacy Questionnaire designed by Goddard et al. (2000) to measure collective teacher efficacy, and an Elementary Science Efficacy Questionnaire designed by Enochs and Riggs (1990) to measure personal competence and personal level of influence. The study foundsignificant increases in teachers’ efficacy – both individual and collective – as the result of participating in PD programs.

PD affects teacher self-efficacy concerning classroom management. Ross and Bruce (2007) investigated the effects of PD on the self-efficacy beliefs of Grade 6 mathematics teachers in a single Canadian district. Using the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy scale by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001), Ross and Bruce’s (2007) study found that the PD program had a positive effect on teacher expectations about their ability to handle student management issues in the mathematics classroom. They also found that only the changes in classroom management were statistically significant. Ross and Bruce suspected that teachers’ confidence in their ability to engage student interest and to use new instructional strategies follows confidence in classroom management.

There have also been a few studies that have been conducted in Asia countries. Karimi’s (2011) study investigated the relationship between teachers’ participation in PD initiatives and their sense of efficacy for 60 EFL junior high school teachers in the two western provinces of Iran. His study found that teachers’ sense of efficacy enhanced as a result of participating in PD activities. An interesting point from the findings of the study is that “PD initiatives provide teachers with mastery experiences in the areas of content knowledge, instructional strategies, student and classroom management” (p. 59). This is important as teachers will persist to implement teaching strategies that they believe to be appropriate to their teaching needs (Overbaugh & Lu, 2008).

Although the literature might provide readers with useful information on PD and teacher-efficacy, much less research to date has examined how Indonesian secondary

school EFL teachers’ participation in PD influences their self-efficacy. One of the most

42

in PD and teacher self-efficacy is the role self-efficacy plays in teachers’ willingness to implement new teaching strategies they learn through PD sessions (TschannenǦMoran & McMaster, 2009). It is, therefore, important to investigate Indonesian EFL teachers’ perceptions of PD they have followed in relation to their self-efficacy beliefs in order to find out the relationship between PD and teacher self-efficacy. The discussion now turns to PD for teachers in Indonesia.