Teacher Efficacy in Zimbabwe:

Stamina & SacrificeJudy K. Dunham, Ph.D.

Daniel Song’ony, Ph.D.

51st Annual Conference

Comparative & International Education Society

Baltimore, MD

March 1, 2007

Overview

• Type of Research • Background of Zimbabwe• Self-efficacy • Teacher Efficacy• Methods• Results• Limitations• Implications• Conclusion

Fast FactsZimbabwe

• Independence in 1980…– GDP per capita was $600 – Most well-developed economies in Africa

• During the 1990s…– Became one of 19 WEI* countries– Politically motivated crisis

• White farms confiscated by government• Weakening of economic & political institutions

*World Education Indicators – Middle Income Countries

Current situation…– GDP $200– Economy fallen by 2/3

since independence– Food shortages– Near collapse of

tourism $700 (2003) to $70 million (2006)

– Inflation is nearly 1000% (2006)

– HIV/AIDS rate is 24.6%– Life expectancy is 39

years– Child mortality is

29/1,000

In July, 2006…

Education

• Primary enrollment 65-90%

• Primary to secondary transition 70%

• Secondary enrollment 24-30% (est.)

• Literacy in adult population 62.5%

UNESCO UIS 2004

These political, economic, and societal crises have led to the near collapse of

all institutions.

Thousands of professionals have left Zimbabwe, yet there are those who

remain….

Buckle, 2004; CIA Fact Book 2007; Hill, 2006; International Crisis Group, 2006;Lindow (2006); UNESCO 2007; World Bank, 2006; Zimbabwe: An Opposition Strategy, 2006; Zimbabwe Situation, 2004

Self-Efficacy

Two Theories– Rotter’s (1966) Social

Learning Theory• Internal vs. External

Locus of Control

– Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory

• Reciprocal Determinism

“Beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1986, p.3).

Efficacy is Enabling

Conviction

Estimate

Bandura (1977)

Expend – Persist - Rebound

Woolfolk & Hoy (1990), Tschannen-Moran & Hoy (2001)

Teacher Efficacy

Benefits of Teacher Efficacy

• Linked to student achievement• Open to new ideas• Allow for student autonomy• Attention to high needs students• Build student self-confidence• Set goals• Persist when students fail

(Hoy & Spero, 2005)

Research in countries where teachers experience difficult environmental conditions could reveal additional insights about the construct of teacher efficacy.

Ohio State Teacher Efficacy

ScaleLong Form

Efficacy for

InstructionalStrategies

Efficacy for

ClassroomManagement

Efficacyfor

StudentEngagement

Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy (2001)

OSTES Items

• How much can you do to get through to the

most difficult students?• To what extent can you craft good questions

for your students?• How well can you calm a student who is

disruptive or noisy?

Subjects23 educators from 9 rural schools

Sanyati West Schools Catchment

Results

RQ1: What are the levels of teacher efficacy of educators who work in a catchment of rural schools in Sanyati, Zimbabwe?

• 87.3% of responses in highest 3 levels

of 9-point Likert scale (7-9)• 10.2% of responses in the mid-levels

(6-8) • Only 2.5% in lowest 3 levels

Mean Line Graph

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Question No.

Mea

n

Means•23/24 items had mean score of 7.0 or above

2 4 6 8 10

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

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Fre

qu

enc

y

Mean = 6.96Std. Dev. = 1.87N = 23

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

Only 1 item resulted in 1/3 of the responses in low-mid levels

RQ2: Are the three primary factors in the OSTES - - instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement – generally found in the responses of American teachers also present in the responses of the Zimbabwean teachers?

It was not possible to conduct a factor analysis due to the small sample size. For a factor analysis to be reliable, 300 subjects is recommended. (Tabschnick & Fidell, 2006, cited in Mertler & Vannatta, 2005)

RQ3: In this sample of teachers, are there significant differences between the 3 underlying structures generally found in previous research using the OSTES?

Means and Standard Deviations for Three Factors

Factors Mean SDFactor 1Instructional Strategies 8.065 1.227875Factor 2Classroom Management 7.98375 1.500875Factor 3Student Engagement 7.8925 1.388875

RQ4: Are there significant differences in the level of teacher efficacy for years of experience?

Low = 0-5 yrs.

Med = 6-12 yrs.

High = 13-35 yrs.

Analysis of Variance for Years of Experience – ____________________________________________________Source SS df MS F Between Groups 228.323 2 114.161 Years of Exp 228.320 2 114.161 .594 .562Total 844665.000 23__________________________________________________________

Discussion

• Possibility of cultural bias

• OSTES measures personal rather than general teaching efficacy

• OSTES does not include adequate # items related to environment

Personal Teaching Efficacy

Limitations• Sample size

• Funding

• Time

Implications• Conduct confirmatory analysis of the

OSTES in Zimbabwe with larger sample of teachers• Collect comparative data from another country

in sub-Saharan Africa• Redesign OSTES to include external, general factors• Use qualitative methods to study contextual

variables– Resources & facilities (Hoy & Spero, 2005)– Socio-cultural dimensions

(Sorrells, Schaller, & Yang, 200)– Culturally-specific teaching responsibilities

Ho & Hau (2004)

“In the world of human thought…the most fruitful concepts are those to which it is impossible to attach a well-defined meaning.”

Lewis (1991) A Question of Values

References

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

Buckle, C. (July 5, 2004). School dropout. New Republic, 231(1/2) Retrieved on December 13, 2006, from EBSCOhost.

CIA – The World Factbook. (2007). Zimbabwe. Retrieved on February 22, 2007, from https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/zi.html

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New York:

HarperBusiness.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.

Hill, C. W. L. (2006). Global Business Today. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS explained. New York: Routledge.

Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. (2004). Austrailian 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.

Hoy, A.W. (2004). What do teachers need to know about self-efficacy? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Eduational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

References, cont.Hoy, A. W. & Burke-Spero, R (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A

comparison of four measures. Teacher and Teacher Education, 21, 343- 356.

International Crisis Group. (2006, August, 2). Zimbabwe: An opposition strategy. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4353&l=1

Lindow, Megan. (June 23, 2006). Enemies of the State. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(42). Retrieved on December 13, 2006, from EDSCOhost. Academic Search Premier

Mertler, C. A. & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Mji, A. & Kiviet, A. M. (2003). Psychometric characteristics of the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Inventory in South Africa. Psychological Reports, 92, 325-332.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 22 (3), pp. 307-332.

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

Selaledi, D. K. (1999). Teacher efficacy in the Free State province of South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 19(4), 266-271.

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

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.

References, cont.Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 747-766.

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

World Bank. (2007). Zimbabwe Data Profile. Retrieved February 23, 2007, from http://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?CCODE=ZWE&PTYPE=CP

Zimbabwe Situation. (2004, May 7). The rise and fall of Zimbabwe’s schools. BBC News. Message posted to http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/may9_2004.html#link3