Rezaeian, S., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2020). Teacher efficacy and its correlates in the EFL context of Iran: The role of age, experience, and gender. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(4). 1533-1548. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/788 Received: 14.11.2019 Received in revised form: 04.05.2020 Accepted: 14.05.2020 TEACHER EFFICACY AND ITS CORRELATES IN THE EFL CONTEXT OF IRAN: THE ROLE OF AGE, EXPERIENCE, AND GENDER Research Article Sahba Rezaeian Ministry of Sciences, Research & Technology sahba.rezaeian@ut.ac.ir Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh Iran University of Science and Technology eabdol@gmail.com Sahba Rezaeian is a research assistant in Psychology and Educational Sciences in Iran. She holds a bachelor’s degree in English Literature, a master’s degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language, and a PhD in Higher Education Administration. Dr. Abdollahzadeh is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics. He has presented and published nationally and internationally on issues in second language academic reading and writing, discourse analysis, EAP, as well as language learning strategies. Copyright by Informascope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET. mailto:sahba.rezaeian@ut.ac.ir mailto:eabdol@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1824-6191 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7560-7948 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1533-1548. 1533 TEACHER EFFICACY AND ITS CORRELATES IN THE EFL CONTEXT OF IRAN: THE ROLE OF AGE, EXPERIENCE, AND GENDER Sahba Rezaian sahba.rezaeian@ut.ac.ir Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh eabdol@gmail.com Abstract Teacher efficacy is a context and culture-specific construct. The current study explored the two types of teacher efficacy (individual and collective teacher efficacy) among Iranian English language instructors. Moreover, this study was an attempt to discover whether age, gender, and experience can significantly influence perceptions of collective and self-teacher self-efficacy. Data were collected from 130 English language instructors through Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy's (2001) Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) and Goddard's (2002) Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale questionnaires. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) showed no significant difference between the English instructors' collective teacher efficacy and teacher self-efficacy and their respective subscales. Furthermore, the results indicated no meaningful differences in perception among teachers with different age, experience, and gender levels across all the subscales of collective teacher efficacy or teacher self-efficacy. We conclude that efficacy beliefs seem to be resistant to change once established and may not change significantly with age, experience and gender. Keywords: Teacher-efficacy, Self-efficacy, EFL, Collective teacher efficacy 1. Introduction Self-related perceptions have been of interest for personality and social psychology researchers (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003). In general, terms such as ‘self-concept’, ‘self-esteem’, ‘self-worth’, and ‘self-efficacy’ fall under the umbrella term of “self-referent thought”, or alternatively “self-perception” (Shavelon, Hubner & Stanton (1976 cited in Bong & Skaalvik, 2003); that is, different ways of thinking about and perceiving the self. Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s judgement and estimation about one’s ability to reach a specific goal. Bandura (1997) described self-efficacy as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). In sum, self-efficacy is usually considered as a belief about one’s level of competence in a particular future situation (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998), and it is looked at as a motivational construct which, according to Tschannen-Moran, et al. (1998) is the result of one’s perceptions, not necessarily one’s competence. Teachers’ self-efficacy (TSE), or their “belief or conviction that they can influence students’ learning, even those students who may be difficult or unmotivated” (Guskey & Passaro, 1994, p. 4), has been consistently researched for over 40 years now (Klassen, Tze, Betts& , Gordon, mailto:sahba.rezaeian@ut.ac.ir mailto:eabdol@gmail.com Rezaeian & Abdollahzadeh 1534 2010). Teacher self-efficacy influences “the efforts teachers put into teaching, the goals they set, and their level of aspiration” (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk & Hoy, 1998: 19). Efficacious teachers demonstrate more planning and organization (Allinder, 1994). As Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) argue “greater efficacy leads to greater effort and persistence, which leads to better performance, which in turn leads to greater efficacy” (p. 234). Teacher efficacy is context-specific, i.e. a highly efficacious public high-school English teacher might feel very inefficacious teaching English in private language institutes. Although more experienced teachers rely on their memories and interpretations of their past experiences, the novice teachers frequently analyze the teaching task (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). Therefore, if one wants to make judgment of teachers’ efficacy, teaching task and its context should be accounted for. Competent and effective teachers can enhance students’ feelings towards their own selves and improve their outcomes (Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Chacon, 2005). Such teacher efficacy studies not only have the potential to improve and enrich language teaching in different instructional environments, but also can provide more interesting and effective avenues for teacher development programs in educating efficacious teachers. Barcelos, Ghaith, and Shaaban (1999) explored the relationship between teacher characteristics (e.g., gender, experience, and grade level taught), and teacher efficacy. Experience and personal efficacy were found to be negatively related to teaching concerns perceptions while factors such as gender, grade level taught, and general efficacy were not correlated to the categories of teaching concerns. Their study revealed that personal and general teaching efficacy were not related internally while the categories of teaching concerns were related internally and this suggested that personal and general efficacy represent two different indices that should to be measured separately(Ashton & Webb,1986, Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997, Gibson & Dembo,1984; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990. They found that novice teachers and those with low efficacy were more concerned about both the teaching task and their impact in comparison with their more experienced and efficacious counterparts. Both gender and teaching level (e.g., teaching at elementary or intermediate level) were not related to the perception of teaching efficacy. Contrarily, Pigge and Marso (1994) reported that female teachers in elementary schools of America had higher teaching concerns compared to the male secondary school teacher counterparts. The research reported above contributes to general perceptions of L2 teachers and students of certain aspects of teaching and learning. Some of these variables such as gender (Pigge & Marso, 1994), previous school experiences (Ryan, 2007), and overall experience were the chief ones (Silvia, 2003). However, many questions still remain such as how EFL teachers’ perceptions of efficacious behavior varies and which similar or different beliefs exists between male and female teachers. The observed male-dominancy of instructors in Iranian academic context particularly at post-graduate level, occupational distribution, and workplace earnings prompted the researchers to probe this issue in the EFL context of Iran. The current literature shows that teacher efficacy improvements can lead to more job satisfaction, feelings of competence, and thus decrease burnout (Dixon et al., 2014; Sariçam & Sakiz, 2014). Furthermore, Eells's (2011) meta-analysis of studies on educational achievement and collective efficacy showed that the beliefs teachers hold about school performance in general are "strongly and positively associated with student achievement across subject areas and in multiple locations" (p. 110). Moreover, teachers’ perceptions of their own self-capability are vital to student learning (e.g., Armor et al., 1976; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Ross, 1992, cited in Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998), teaching enthusiasm and clarity (Tschannen-Moran et al, 1998), innovation International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1533-1548. 1535 willingness (Berman, et al., 1977; Guskey, 1984; Smylie, 1988), stress level of teachers (Parkay, et al. 1988; Greenwood, et al., 1990), and teacher willingness to stay or leave the profession (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982). More recently, researchers have shown that as well as individual teacher efficacy, collective teacher efficacy is positively related to differences of student performance at schools (Bandura, 1993; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk, 2000). Goddard and Goddard (2001) refer to some factors as correlates of collective teacher efficacy. Some based on the related literature are as follows: consultation openness to educational issues (DeForest & Hughes, 1992) positive attitudes to reform of education (DeMesquita & Drake, 1994; Guskey, 1988; Smylie, 1988), teacher satisfaction (Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991), and increase in the extent of parental involvement in schooling (Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1992, 1987). The available literature attaches considerable importance to teacher efficacy and its correlates (Henson, 2001; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Despite the plethora of research on different aspects of English instructors’ self-efficacy, the literature is still scant with regard to the role of sociodemographic factors (age, race, ethnicity, and experience) in enhancing or decreasing teachers' sense of efficacy. This study investigates the impact of gender, teachers’ level of experience, and age level on EFL university instructors’ general teaching efficacy. There is scarcity of studies in the EFL context of Iran on the impact of personal and contextual variables on teachers’ efficacy perception, classroom management, and teacher professional development. Efficacy studies not only have the potential to improve and enrich language teaching in Iran, but can also provide input for interesting and effective ways of teacher development programs with an emphasis on educating efficacious teachers. This study examined the following questions: 1. Is there any meaningful differences between male and female EFL instructors in their self and collective teacher efficacy perceptions and their respective subscales? 2. Is there any meaningful differences between high and low-experience EFL instructors in their perception of teacher self and collective efficacy and their subscales? 3. Is there any meaningful differences between higher and lower age EFL instructors in their perceptions of teacher self and collective efficacy and their subscales? 2. Background 2.1. Teacher Self-efficacy and Its Subscales Teacher efficacy construct is mainly derived from Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1997). Within educational arenas, it mainly refers to teachers’ belief in their ability to positively influence students’ intended learning outcomes (Tschannen-Moran et al, 1998). Tschannen- Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001), following Armor et al. (1976 cited in Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998) and Bandura (1997), define teacher efficacy as teachers’ judgement of their capabilities to produce intended learning outcomes stemming from student engagement and learning among unmotivated or difficult students. Abdollahzadeh and Rezaeian (2011) investigated the relationship between collective teacher efficacy, teacher self-efficacy and its components in the EFL context of Iran and found that none of the collective efficacy subscales was a stronger predictor of university teachers’ self-efficacy. 2.2. Collective Teacher Efficacy and Its Domains Self-efficacy perceptions and beliefs of teachers about the collective capability of a school or faculty has been a key concern for many researchers. Obviously, teaching occurs in a context. Teachers should work together conjointly to change students’ lives. Thus, it is important to consider the social context of the school in teacher efficacy studies. As Goddard Rezaeian & Abdollahzadeh 1536 at al. (2004) observed, collective teacher efficacy is “an emergent group-level attribute – the product of the interactive dynamics of the group members” (p.483). Put it another way, collective efficacy is not only the sum of individual characteristics and attributes, but “the groups’ shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 477). Collective efficacy differs from individual teacher efficacy because it is not the sum of individual competency. Hence, what matters for collective teacher efficacy is to what extent teachers perceive the whole faculty as successful. The collective efficacy framework employed in this research is Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998) model of teacher efficacy. Attainment expectations in this model depend on two collective teacher efficacy domains known as teaching task analysis and group competence assessment. Of note is the point that separation of these two domains is difficult because are they occur simultaneously (Goddard, 2002). Many correlates of teacher efficacy pertain when various efficacy measurements and scales are taken into account. Not only is teacher efficacy related to teacher behavior, but it relates to students’ efficacy perception (Anderson et al., 1988) and achievement as well (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989). Compared to teacher self-efficacy, collective teacher efficacy is a less explored domain. As Bandura (1997) states “although perceived collective efficacy is widely recognized to be highly important to a full understanding of organizational functioning, it has been the subject of little research in schools” (p. 468, cited in Goddard & Goddard, 2001). One of the earliest efficacy studies by Bandura (1993, cited in Goddard & Goddard, 2001) showed that collective efficacy and school-level achievement are significantly and positively related. 2.3. Sources of Efficacy Bandura (1997) mentioned four information sources of self-efficacy: mastery experiences, arousal of physiology or emotion, vicarious experience, and social persuasion. The review of the studies on the sources of efficacy beliefs indicates that the most powerful source among these four is mastery experiences. According to Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2007), mastery or enactive experiences are the sense of satisfaction obtained through one’s past teaching successes. Mastery experiences are important for strengthening not only self-efficacy but also collective efficacy (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). The other way of altering efficacy beliefs, i.e. physiological and emotional arousal, is “to enhance physical status, reduce stress and negative emotional proclivities, and correct misinterpretations of bodily states” (Bandura, 1997, p.4). That is, the circumstances, the history of person and the overall arousal level are determining factors in the interpretation of increased perspiration, trembling hands or increased heart rate (Bandura, 1997 cited in Tschannen – Moran et al., 1998). Since teaching is performance-based, the belief in one’s ability to teach a particular subject and/or to teach well in general, may be affected by years of teaching experience. Teachers' mastery experiences along with variables such as student achievement, and student engagement have been reported to be associated with teacher self-efficacy (Malmberg et al., 2014). In the same vein, in this research we investigate the difference between perceived teacher efficacy of the high-experienced and low-experienced EFL instructors. Moreover, the age of the participants is also investigated to probe the effect of vicarious experience on the perceived teacher efficacy. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1533-1548. 1537 2.4. Socio-demographic Factors and Teacher-Efficacy: Role of Gender, Experience, and Age Gender studies in this regard involve the distinction the teachers’ sex may make in their instructional method(s), interaction types with their learners, and even evaluations of their own teaching performance (Pigge & Marso, 1994; Verhoeven, 1997). Betz and Hackett (1981) found that girls do as well academically as boys but have lower perceived self-efficacy. While progress has been made in recent decades, it is clear that gender differences in academic fields of study, occupational distribution and workplace earnings persist (Blau & Kahn, 2000). Previous research has shown conflicting results about women professors’ teaching behaviors and ratings The studies of teaching behaviors and ratings of women professors revealed conflicting results. Regarding classroom interaction approaches of teachers, Canada and Pringle (1995) postulated that male and female teachers negotiated differently in mixed and single-sex classrooms. They observed that “female-led, mixed-sex classes were more professor-driven and were less student-driven than were male-led, mixed- classes” (p.177), and in all-female classes, the female professors behave more male-like and the male professors behave more female-like” (p.178). On the other hand, the results of other studies on the probable effects of gender on self-efficacy have shown no significant difference between teachers (either male or female) in their evaluation of their sense of self-efficacy (Schunk & Pajares, 2010).They attributed lack of significant difference to culture-specific personality dispositions. Oettingen (1995 cited in Bandura, 1997) analyzed the dimensions of cultural diversity and their impact on the information sources of self-efficacy in different contexts. The results pointed to the societal institutions’ power, which in some cultural ways, modify different sources of self-efficacy information in different aspects such as prevalence, form, and evaluation. For Vieluf, Kunter and Vijver (2013, p.96), national cultures could influence teacher self- efficacy in the following ways: 1. The basic structure of the construct may be culturally contingent, which would imply that behaviors and beliefs associated with teacher self-efficacy would vary across cultures and that there is no basis for comparing the construct across nations. 2. The strength of associations with educational processes and outcomes may vary, which would suggest that the psychological and practical relevance of the construct varies across countries. 3. Cross-national differences in average teacher self-efficacy could reflect genuine cross-national differences as well as differences in self-presentational norms. According to Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007), the strongest source of efficacy perceptions of novice teachers is verbal persuasion, while mastery experience is the obvious efficacy source of experienced teachers. Reviewing the related literature on the effect of age on efficacy perceptions show negative to positive effects of age on efficacy. Ghanizadeh and Moafian (2009) found age is positively related to higher self-efficacy, while studies by Edward and Robinson (2012, cited in Lesha, 2017), and Smit & Bosscher (1998), revealed that younger teachers had greater self-efficacy beliefs. On the other hand, Bandura (1995) stated that age is not related to self-efficacy although efficacy beliefs vary during everyone’s life spans. Moreover, Jenks (2004, cited in Lesha, 2017), Hicks (2012, cited in Lesha, 2017) and Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2007), found no significant relationships between age and self-efficacy. Rezaeian & Abdollahzadeh 1538 This study is bound within the national culture of Iran. Therefore, the researchers in this study probed the potential difference between Iranian male and female English university instructors to see if growth in professional knowledge and commitment to teaching and increased competence can affect the efficacy beliefs of male and female instructors differently. 2.5. Teacher Efficacy in TESOL In the field of TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages), research on teacher efficacy usually emerges from cultures of English language teaching places. Chacon’s (2005) study showed that teachers’ perception of efficacy had a significant correlation with teachers’ English proficiency reported by themselves, and that efficacy of teachers for instructional strategies was higher compared to management and engagement efficacy levels among EFL teachers in Venezuelan middle schools. “Diversity of professional activities teachers engage in, average number of students per class, working position, type of institution, and gender were the socio-demographic factors that predicted variations in EFL teachers' efficacy in Turkey” (Yavuz, 2007 p.1). Eslami and Fatahi (2008, p.2) found “the more efficacious the teachers felt, the more inclined they were to use communicative-based strategies” in Iran. Lee’s (2009) research showed that oral English language use and attitude of Korean English teachers were influencing teachers’ sense of efficacy highlighting context-specificity of teacher efficacy (p.69). 3. Method 3.1. Participants 130 male and female university instructors of English from all over Iran voluntarily participated in the study. Their teaching experience at Iranian universities ranged from 1 to 35 years. They were selected from a mix of state and private universities. The whole sample was split into low experience (with less than 3 years of teaching experience) and high experience instructors (with more than 3 years experience). Their age varied from23 to 60 with a mean age of 36 (see Table 1). Table1. Participant distribution in terms of age, gender, and experience Gender Experience Age Male Female Low High Lower Higher 89 41 69 61 66 N 64 They were contacted either by email or through personal contact, and they all volunteered to participate. They were also assured about their anonymity and their details and responses will be kept confidential and only used for research purposes. 3.2. Instrumentation Two instruments, i.e. Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES), originally developed by Schannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy (2001), and the Collective Teacher Efficacy Instrument (CTEI) developed by Goddard (2002) were used. The responses to both questionnaire items were on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 9 (great amount) showing the instructors’ extent of agreement with an item. The TSES questionnaire included 12 items on different aspects of teacher efficacy and the CTEI included 10 items on different collective teacher efficacy dimensions. The CTES questionnaire was designed based on a social cognitive model. In their attempt to develop a measure of collective efficacy, Goddard, et al. (2001) chose a group orientation for the items in the collective efficacy scale. Goddard, et al.’s model of International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1533-1548. 1539 CTEI items were developed in such a manner that both group competence (GC) and task analysis (TA) teachers were considered in their efficacy assessments. 3.3. Procedure This research essentially employed a survey methodology. To assess the teachers' perceptions of their colleagues' efficacy (i.e. collective efficacy), the 12-item scale of CTES was used. As Goddard. (2002, p. 107) found, “the 12-item scale compared to the earlier 21- item scale was more theoretically pure, and these two were found to be highly correlated (r = .983, p<.001), suggesting that little change resulted from the omission of almost 43% of the items”. The items in the questionnaires were on a 9-point scale so that the probability of the answers could be increased (Bandura, 1997). As Bandura (cited in Siwatu, 2005, p.44) contends, “including too few steps loses differentiating information because people who use the same response category would differ if immediate steps were included”. Some minor modifications were made to the CTES in order to make it more compatible with the target situation. For example, the item, “The lack of instructional materials and supplies in this school makes learning very difficult", was replaced with “Learning at my university is more difficult because of students’ worries about their exams”. These changes were minimal; therefore, the conceptual structure of the questionnaire and its validity were kept intact. The final version of the questionnaire was checked by three applied linguistics researchers and their comments as to the intelligibility, format, and item classification were sought. To measure teacher’s perceptions of their self-efficacy, the short version of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) developed by Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk (2001) was used. This questionnaire was further developed and modified by Chacón (2005) to fit the ELT context of Iran. TSES consisted of 12 items on a 9-point scale. The two questionnaires tapping teacher self-efficacy and teacher collective efficacy scales were administered to 130 Iranian English instructors all over Iran. Initially, the instructors were contacted through email. The questionnaires were sent to those who expressed willingness to participate in the study. Those who participated were also sent valuable EFL textbooks and articles as a bonus. The collected questionnaires were codified, and their data were entered into the SPSS Software (Version 19). Cronbach Alpha indicated reliability indices of .83 and 0.94 for the CTE and TSE questionnaires respectively. Then, EFL instructor’s perceptions of different subscales of efficacy were analyzed and described. The missing item score was replaced with the item mean score. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to discover any significant difference between the English instructors' efficacy perceptions and their related subscales. 4. Results and Discussion Table 2 presents descriptive statistics on different aspects of the EFL instructors’ efficacy based on the instructors' responses. Table 2. Descriptive statistics on EFL instructors' self-efficacy Construct Mean SD Student Engagement 27.14 5.01 Classroom. Management 29.40 4.49 Instructional Strategies 28.56 4.87 Sum of Collective Efficacy 48.33 8.26 Task analysis 24.48 5.39 Teaching Competence 23.71 5.05 Rezaeian & Abdollahzadeh 1540 A detailed descriptive statistics of higher and lower age instructors’ performance on different constructs of the questionnaires is presented in Table 3. As can be seen, the mean scores were very close between the two age groups. Table 3. Descriptive statistics higher and lower age EFL instructors' efficacy Age level Mean SD N Total collective efficacy (TCE) higher 48.28 8.60 64 lower 48.43 7.09 66 TCE group competence higher 23.98 5.05 64 lower 23.82 4.95 66 TCE task analysis higher 24.30 5.22 64 lower 24.61 4.32 66 Total self-efficacy (TSE) higher 84.46 13.52 64 lower 86.39 11.03 66 TSE student engagement higher 26.52 5.54 64 lower 27.83 4.80 66 TSE class management higher 28.94 5.05 64 lower 29.89 3.80 66 TSE instruction strategy higher 28.91 4.99 64 lower 28.67 4.37 66 Similarly, descriptive statistics of higher and lower experience instructors’ performance (see Table 4) show rather close mean performances across both groups. Table 4. Descriptive statistics on high / low experience EFL instructors' self-efficacy Experience Mean SD N Total collective efficacy (TCE) High 48.76 8.41 61 Low 48.00 7.34 69 TCE group competence High 23.71 5.11 61 Low 24.07 4.89 69 TCE task analysis High 25.05 4.87 61 Low 23.94 4.65 69 Total self-efficacy (TSE) High 86.49 11.69 61 Low 84.51 12.84 69 TSE student engagement High 27.28 5.26 61 Low 27.10 5.19 69 TSE class management High 30.20 3.81 61 Low 28.74 4.91 69 TSE instruction strategy High 29.02 4.67 61 Low 28.58 4.69 69 A description of the male and female instructors’ perceptions of teacher efficacy is presented in Table 5 below. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1533-1548. 1541 Table 5. Descriptive Statistics on male and female EFL Instructors' Self-efficacy gender Mean SD N Total collective efficacy (TCE) male 48.25 8.07 89 female 48.59 7.41 41 TCE group competence male 24.08 4.92 89 female 23.51 5.14 41 TCE task analysis male 24.17 4.77 89 female 25.08 4.76 41 Total self-efficacy (TSE) male 84.55 12.76 89 female 87.37 11.19 41 TSE student engagement male 26.69 5.24 89 female 28.27 5 41 TSE class management male 29.37 4.68 89 female 29.54 4.044 41 TSE instruction strategy male 28.49 4.85 89 female 29.41 4.24 41 A comparison of the perceptions of instructors with different age, gender, and experience levels can help us discover any potentially significant differences in their perceptions. Accordingly, to answer the research questions of the study, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted (see Table 6). Table 6. MANOVA results on the impact of age, gender, and experience No significant differences were found between teachers with higher and lower age levels in terms of their teacher efficacy and its related subscales (see Table 6). Similar results were also found for male and female teachers. That is, no meaningful differences in terms of self-efficacy between male and female teachers were found. Higher experience teachers were not significantly different in terms of their self-efficacy from lower experience teachers. Iranian TEFL instructors' self-efficacy beliefs seem to have firmed up and learned early and, in line with Bandura's (1997) assertion, that efficacy beliefs seem resistant to change once set. Source Dependent Variable F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model total collective efficacy .934 .611 .795 total self efficacy .997 .529 .806 Intercept total collective efficacy 2076.870 .000 .988 total self efficacy 2789.121 .000 .991 Age total collective efficacy .949 .552 .487 total self efficacy .745 .767 .427 Gender total collective efficacy .026 .873 .001 total self efficacy 1.203 .283 .046 Experience total collective efficacy .830 .649 .361 total self efficacy 1.004 .485 .406 Age * Gender total collective efficacy .796 .611 .203 total self efficacy .278 .967 .082 Age * Experience total collective efficacy .869 .652 .534 total self efficacy .997 .510 .568 Gender * Experience total collective efficacy .839 .513 .118 total self efficacy .809 .531 .115 Age * Gender * Experience total collective efficacy .026 .873 .000 total self efficacy 1.203 .283 .000 Rezaeian & Abdollahzadeh 1542 Furthermore, potential patterns of interaction between each of the independent variables were also examined. However, no significant interactions were identified between age level and gender on the one hand, and between age level and experience on the other. Similarly, no meaningful interactions were found between gender and level of experience. Multiple interactions between age, experience, and gender were not found either. As for the role of gender, reviewing the related literature suggested higher probability of greater teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy among male teachers. Nonetheless, contrary to our expectations, this was rejected, nor did we find significant differences between subscales of teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy. Lack of significant differences between male and female instructors’ perceptions of efficacy for student engagement or classroom management goes against Chen and Thompson’s (2003) study which showed Taiwanese female university instructors made more attempts to involve students in the classroom (having higher efficacy for student engagement), and male university instructors had a greater tendency to employ personalization in their classes (having higher efficacy for classroom management). Iranian female instructors of TEFL had more or less similar levels of efficacy as their male counterparts. This can refer to growth in both sex's professional knowledge and in their commitment to teaching and increasing their competence. This finding might challenge the view that with a growth in female student body in higher education, we might in the future be moving towards EFL contexts which undergo a process of feminization (Statham, Richardson & Cook, 1991, cited in Chen & Thompson, 2003). It should be noted, however, that this trend might not be the case in Iranian universities as at present a considerable proportion of Iranian EFL instructor population is male. However, it can be the case in the near future. A significant difference between high and low experience instructors was expected in the second question as we hypothesized that one who remains in teaching must own higher teacher efficacy levels compared to those who quit teaching during their first few years of instruction. Accordingly, those remaining in the teaching profession can boost their perceptions of efficacy as a result of greater levels of mastery experiences. However, no such significant difference was observed. This finding corroborates studies which show a non-linear relationship between teacher efficacy and experience (e.g., Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Ross, Cousins, & Gadalla, 1996; Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997, Wolters & Daugherty, 2007) where teacher efficacy first “rises until mid-career and then drops” (Klassen & Chiu, 2010, p.186). As for the third research question, contrary to our expectations, no significant difference was found between higher age and lower age EFL instructors with respect to their teacher efficacy and collective teacher efficacy and their respective subscales. The results do not support Bandura’s physiological and emotional arousal as one of the sources of efficacy beliefs. Physiological and emotional states are instrumental in people’s judgment of their capabilities Stress and tension are usually interpreted as signs of reactions to poor performance. We assumed that the older one gets the manner in which affective states are interpreted and perceived would change. However, the results of the study do not support this hypothesis when it comes to EFL instructors’ perceptions of their teaching efficacy. Less is known, however, about age and teacher efficacy perceptions. Our findings that efficacy beliefs of experienced teachers do not easily change once established may explain that efficacy did go down with teaching experience and this is reflected in Woolfolk Hoy & Bruke Spero’s study (2005). Given the above findings, the answer to the three questions of the study is negative. Therefore, age level, experience level, and gender differences do not significantly affect the participants’ perceptions of teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1533-1548. 1543 5. Conclusion The main purpose of this study was to examine the role of the oft-cited variables of age, gender, and teaching experience and their impact on the teachers’ perceptions of efficacy in the EFL context of Iran. This study was limited to the ELT instructors’ perception following Bandura (1997) who repeatedly put emphasis on the context-specificity of this construct. The results of this study revealed that gender, age, and experience do not significantly affect one’s perception of teacher self-efficacy, collective teacher efficacy or their respective subscales. Interestingly, gender effects in the literature on TSE are mixed. While Ross et al. (1996) found male teachers have a higher teacher self-efficacy, Coladarci (1992) found female teachers to be higher in it. Similarly, females reported higher teacher efficacy than males (Greenwood, Olejnick & Parkay, 1990; Lee, Buck & Midgley, 1992; Raudenbush et al., 1992), possibly because teaching is considered a female occupation (Apple & Jungck, 1992), but Malmberg et al. (2014) found no gender differences. The results challenge some previous research that female teachers generally illustrate a higher level of teacher self-efficacy (Apple & Jungck, 1990), but male teachers report higher classroom management efficacy (Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Klassen and Chiu (2010) showed that female teachers tend to report lower TSE in cases of high workload stress and stress with student behavior. These contradictory results may indicate that teacher efficacy is greatly influenced by contextual and cultural factors. Further, similar to Pas et al. (2012), work experience and academic level had no influence on teacher self-efficacy We can speculate that efficacy beliefs are shaped in one’s mind regardless of age, gender or experience. Efficacy is a future-oriented judgment that deals with perception not actual competence. (Tschannen-Moran and Wolfolk Hoy, 2001). Naturally people overestimate or underestimate their actual capabilities, and these estimations consequently affect one’s persuasion strategies and attempt to pursue their actions. This might imply that efficacy might be subject to other personal characteristics (e.g. personality type) beyond the variables of this study. This needs to be established in future research. Further, our understanding of self-efficacy beliefs of teachers may be incomplete without accounting for environmental effects because, as explained, self-efficacy beliefs play a fundamental role embedded within an environment, and the social context of teaching cannot be ignored if teaching tasks are to be effective. In general, it is difficult to describe how such beliefs are shaped and sustained during the teaching career. On the other hand, as observed in this study, teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, once set, are stable. Hence, teacher educators and school leaders need to provide the kinds of supports for pre-service and novice teachers that would result in the development of stronger and more resilient teacher efficacy perceptions. Future studies can focus on observations of instructor’ classes, focusing on gender and experience of the instructors for the probable under/overestimations of efficacy perceptions. In future, professional development programs can be developed to emphasize the awareness of efficacy beliefs among English teachers. Teacher training programs have shown to positively augment teacher's awareness of their potential inefficacies and a higher level of teacher self-efficacy (Kazempour & Sadler, 2015). Reflection on efficacious teachers’ expected standards and capacities could develop our understanding of teacher efficacy in EFL education. To determine the physiological and emotional arousal influences on teacher efficacy during the period of teachers’ professional lives, longitudinal studies should follow. The results of this study were mainly based on teachers’ rating of their perceptions on two questionnaires. Further triangulation studies Rezaeian & Abdollahzadeh 1544 employing interviews, diaries, and/or journals can determine more specifically what factors influence teachers’ performances rooted in their perceptions of efficacy. 6. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. 7. Ethics Committee Approval The authors confirm that the study does not need ethics committee approval according to the research integrity rules in their country. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1533-1548. 1545 References Apple, M., & Jungck, S. (1992). You don't have to be a teacher to teach this unit: Teaching, technology and control in the classroom. In A. Hargreaves, & M. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 20-42). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Anderson, R. N., Greene, M. L.; & Loewen, P. S. )1988(. Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165. Armor, David., Conroy-Oseguera, Patricia., Cox, Milicent ., King, Nicelma., McDonnell, Lorraine McDonnell., Pascal, Anthony., Pauly, Edward., and Zellman, Gail. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools (Report No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.130 243. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self‐efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. 1981. The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329- 345. Blau, F.D. & Kahn, L. M. (2000). Gender differences in pay. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 75-99. Bong, M. & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 22-64. Canada, K. & Pringle, R. (1995). The role of gender in college classroom interactions: A social context approach. Sociology of Education, 68(3), 161-186. Chacón, C.T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teacher in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 257- 272. Chen, Yi-Hsin., & Thompson, M. S. (2003). Relations among teacher expectancies, student perceptions of teacher oral feedback, and student self-Concept: An empirical study in Taiwanese elementary schools. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323-337. Eells, Rachel Jean, "Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Collective Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement" (2011). Dissertation retrieved January, 2018 from . https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/133 Evans, E., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 81-85. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation . Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451–458. http://www.nber.org/people/francine_blau https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/133 Rezaeian & Abdollahzadeh 1546 Ghanizadeh, A., & Moafian, F. (2009). The relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ sense of self- efficacy and their pedagogical success in language institutes. An international Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582. Goddard, R. D.; Hoy, Wayne.K.; & Woolfolk Hoy, Anita. 2004. “Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions”. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13. Goddard, Roger. D. & Goddard. Yvonne. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 807-818. Goddard, R. D. (2002). Collective efficacy and school organization: A multilevel analysis of teacher influence in schools. Theory and Research in Educational Administration, 1, 169–184. Goker, S. D. (2005). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in TEFL teacher education. System, 34(2), 239-254. Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S., & Parkay, F. (1990). Relationships between four teacher efficacy belief patterns and selected teacher characteristics. Journal of Research and Development Education, 23(2), 102-107. Henson, Robin. K. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Exchange, Texas. Kazempour, & Sadler, T. D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ science beliefs, attitudes, and selfefficacy: A multi-case study. Teaching Education, 26, 247–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.996743 Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction: teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741–756. Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2010). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–23. Kleinsasser, R. C. (2014). Teacher efficacy in Teaching and Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education 44, 168-179. Lee, M., Buck, R., & Midgley, C. (1992). The organizational context of personal teaching efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Lesha, J. (2017). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs: The relationship between teachers’ age and instructional strategies, classroom management and student engagement. European Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 2(5), 217-226. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1059115 MA, K., & Cavanagh, M. S. (2018). Classroom Ready? Pre-Service Teachers’ Self-Efficacy for Their First Professional Experience Placement. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(7). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VD8-444DY27-4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2001&_alid=76 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VD8-444DY27-4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2001&_alid=76 https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.996743 http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1059115 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(4), 1533-1548. 1547 Midgley, Carol., Feldlaufer, Harriet., & Eccles, Jacquelynne S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258. Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self- efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149-176). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Hershfeldt, P. a. (2012). Teacher- and school-level predictors of teacher efficacy and burnout: Identifying potential areas for support. Journal of School Psychology, 50(1), 129-145. Pigge, Fred. L., & Marso, Ronald. N. (1994). Outstanding teachers’ sense of efficacy at four stages of career development. The Teacher Educator, 29, 35–42. Ross, J. A., Cousins, J.B. & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 385-400. Raudenbush, S., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150-167. Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 385–400. Rushton, Stephen. P. (2000). Student teacher efficacy in inner-city schools. The Urban Review, 32, 365-383. Ryan, Harry. D. (2007). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and teachers' perceptions of their principles' leadership behavior. Retrieved November, 10, 2007 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=967227431&sid=6&Fmt=2&clientId=42454&R QT=312&VName=PQD Silvia, P. J. (2003). Self-efficacy and interest: Experimental studies of optimal incompetence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 237-249. Siwatu, Kamau. Oginga. (2005). Exploring the factors that influence preservice teachers' culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Retrieved February, 25, 2008 from: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=932380431&sid=6&Fmt=2&clientId=46414&R QT=309&VName=PQD Smits, C., & Bosscher, R, R. (1998). Predictors of self-efficacy and mastery. Autonomy and well-being in the aging population. Amsterdam, Netherlands: VU University. Tschannen-Moran, M.; Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248. Tschannen-Moran, Megan. & Woofolk Hoy (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self- efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23 (6), 944-956. Vieluf, S, Kunter, M, & van de Vijver, F. J. R., (2013) Teacher self-efficacy in cross-national perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 92-103. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=967227431&sid=6&Fmt=2&clientId=42454&RQT=312&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=967227431&sid=6&Fmt=2&clientId=42454&RQT=312&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=932380431&sid=6&Fmt=2&clientId=46414&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=932380431&sid=6&Fmt=2&clientId=46414&RQT=309&VName=PQD Rezaeian & Abdollahzadeh 1548 Verhoeven, Ludo. (1997). The handbook of sociolinguistics: Sociolinguistics and education”. Coulmas, F. (ED). Blackwell Publishers Inc. Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 181–193. Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Bruke Spero, R. (2005). Erratum to Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teachers Education 21(4), 343–356. 3.1. Participants They were contacted either by email or through personal contact, and they all volunteered to participate. They were also assured about their anonymity and their details and responses will be kept confidential and only used for research purposes. 3.2. Instrumentation 3.3. Procedure Table 2 presents descriptive statistics on different aspects of the EFL instructors’ efficacy based on the instructors' responses. A detailed descriptive statistics of higher and lower age instructors’ performance on different constructs of the questionnaires is presented in Table 3. As can be seen, the mean scores were very close between the two age groups. Similarly, descriptive statistics of higher and lower experience instructors’ performance (see Table 4) show rather close mean performances across both groups. References Apple, M., & Jungck, S. (1992). You don't have to be a teacher to teach this unit: Teaching, technology and control in the classroom. In A. Hargreaves, & M. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 20-42). New York, NY: Teachers College P... Anderson, R. N., Greene, M. L.; & Loewen, P. S. )1988(. Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165. Armor, David., Conroy-Oseguera, Patricia., Cox, Milicent ., King, Nicelma., McDonnell, Lorraine McDonnell., Pascal, Anthony., Pauly, Edward., and Zellman, Gail. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority... Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self‐efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. 1981. The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-345. Blau, F.D. & Kahn, L. M. (2000). Gender differences in pay. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 75-99. Bong, M. & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 22-64. Canada, K. & Pringle, R. (1995). The role of gender in college classroom interactions: A social context approach. Sociology of Education, 68(3), 161-186. Chacón, C.T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teacher in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 257-272. Chen, Yi-Hsin., & Thompson, M. S. (2003). Relations among teacher expectancies, student perceptions of teacher oral feedback, and student self-Concept: An empirical study in Taiwanese elementary schools. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323-337. Eells, Rachel Jean, "Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Collective Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement" (2011). Dissertation retrieved January, 2018 from. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/133 Evans, E., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 81-85. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451–458. Ghanizadeh, A., & Moafian, F. (2009). The relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ sense of self- efficacy and their pedagogical success in language institutes. An international Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582. Goddard, R. D.; Hoy, Wayne.K.; & Woolfolk Hoy, Anita. 2004. “Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions”. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13. Goddard, Roger. D. & Goddard. Yvonne. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 807-818. Goddard, R. D. (2002). Collective efficacy and school organization: A multilevel analysis of teacher influence in schools. Theory and Research in Educational Administration, 1, 169–184. Goker, S. D. (2005). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in TEFL teacher education. System, 34(2), 239-254. Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S., & Parkay, F. (1990). Relationships between four teacher efficacy belief patterns and selected teacher characteristics. Journal of Research and Development Education, 23(2), 102-107. Henson, Robin. K. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Exchange, Texas. Kazempour, & Sadler, T. D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ science beliefs, attitudes, and selfefficacy: A multi-case study. Teaching Education, 26, 247–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.996743 Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction: teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741–756. Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2010). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–23. Kleinsasser, R. C. (2014). Teacher efficacy in Teaching and Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education 44, 168-179. Lee, M., Buck, R., & Midgley, C. (1992). The organizational context of personal teaching efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Lesha, J. (2017). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs: The relationship between teachers’ age and instructional strategies, classroom management and student engagement. European Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 2(5), 217-226. http://doi.org/10.5281/zen... MA, K., & Cavanagh, M. S. (2018). Classroom Ready? Pre-Service Teachers’ Self-Efficacy for Their First Professional Experience Placement. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(7). Midgley, Carol., Feldlaufer, Harriet., & Eccles, Jacquelynne S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258. Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149-176). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Hershfeldt, P. a. (2012). Teacher- and school-level predictors of teacher efficacy and burnout: Identifying potential areas for support. Journal of School Psychology, 50(1), 129-145. Pigge, Fred. L., & Marso, Ronald. N. (1994). Outstanding teachers’ sense of efficacy at four stages of career development. The Teacher Educator, 29, 35–42. Ross, J. A., Cousins, J.B. & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 385-400. Raudenbush, S., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150-167. Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 385–400. Rushton, Stephen. P. (2000). Student teacher efficacy in inner-city schools. The Urban Review, 32, 365-383. Ryan, Harry. D. (2007). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and teachers' perceptions of their principles' leadership behavior. Retrieved November, 10, 2007 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=967227431&sid=6&Fmt=2&clientI... Silvia, P. J. (2003). Self-efficacy and interest: Experimental studies of optimal incompetence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 237-249. Siwatu, Kamau. Oginga. (2005). Exploring the factors that influence preservice teachers' culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Retrieved February, 25, 2008 from: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=932380431&sid=6... Smits, C., & Bosscher, R, R. (1998). Predictors of self-efficacy and mastery. Autonomy and well-being in the aging population. Amsterdam, Netherlands: VU University. Tschannen-Moran, M.; Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248. Tschannen-Moran, Megan. & Woofolk Hoy (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23 (6), 944-956. Vieluf, S, Kunter, M, & van de Vijver, F. J. R., (2013) Teacher self-efficacy in cross-national perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 92-103. Verhoeven, Ludo. (1997). The handbook of sociolinguistics: Sociolinguistics and education”. Coulmas, F. (ED). Blackwell Publishers Inc. Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 181–193. Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Bruke Spero, R. (2005). Erratum to Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teachers Education 21(4), 343–356.