Level of Self-Efficacy of Science Teachers Towards Engaging Students

  • 투고 : 2019.07.15
  • 심사 : 2019.08.12
  • 발행 : 2019.08.31


The study aimed at investigating the level of self-efficacy of science teachers towards student engagement. Although the general self-efficacy of teachers has been explored a lot but the efficacy of science teacher has not been explored more and student engagement is crucial towards understanding of science concepts. Therefore, the main purpose of the study was to find the self-efficacy of science teachers mainly towards three dimensions of student engagement (Behavioral, Cognitive and Emotional engagement). The study was carried with 150 secondary science teachers as Kathmandu. Secondary science teachers were found to be moderately high efficacious in all aspects of behavioral engagement of students except four aspects in which they showed moderate efficacy. Regarding the self-efficacy on cognitive engagement they were moderately efficacious in two aspects and were found to be moderately high efficacious in other all aspects. However, science teachers' self-efficacy was found to be moderately high. Teachers were found to be efficacious in making clasroom constructive, developing collaborative skill and high order thinking among the students. However in some aspects they were found less efficacious.



  1. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B., (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self- efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman & Company.
  3. Bedell, K. V. (2014) From Research to Practice: Student Engagement, In M. P. Koehler (Ed.) Talk to Teachers.
  4. Billingsley, B.S., &Cross, L.H. (1992). Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to stay in teaching: A comparison of general and special educators. The Journal of Special Education. 25,453-471 https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699202500404
  5. Boe, E.E.; Barkanic, G.& Leow, C.S. (1999). Retention and attrition of teachers at the school level: National trends and predictors. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Center for Research
  6. Bulger, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Almeroth, K. C., & Blau, S. D. (2008). Measuring learning engagement in computer-equipped college classrooms. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 129-143.
  7. Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Teacher efficacy: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghai primary in- service teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35, 1, 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216877
  8. Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
  9. Creswell, J.W. (2012).Educational research (4th ed.). New Delhi, India: PHI Learning.
  10. Dibapile, W. T. (2012).Teacher efficacy and classroom management among Botswana Junior Seecondary school(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee,Tennesee, TN.
  11. Division of Statistics + Scientific Computation. (2012).SPSS: Descriptive and inferential statistics for windows. Austin, The university of Texas.
  12. Erawan, P. (2010). A comparison of teaching efficacy commitment to teaching: Profession satisfaction with program effectiveness of teacher students under 5-year program curriculum and those under 4+1 year program curriculum. European Journal of Social sciences 14, 2, 250-261.
  13. Farmer-Dougan& McKinney, K. (n.d.).Defining student engagement: A literature review. Retrieved from soundout.org/defining-student-engagement-a-literature-review/
  14. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfield, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  15. Hattie, J., & Anderman, E. M. (2013). International guide to student achievement. New York: Routledge
  16. Hidden Curriculum. (2014). Hidden curriculum. In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum
  17. Lester, D.(2013). A review of the student engagement literature. Focus On College, Universities, And Schools, 7(1)
  18. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P.R. (2003). The role of self efficacy beliefs in student engagement & learning in classroom. Reading And Writing Quarterly.19,119-137 https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308223
  19. Marks, H.M. (2000). Studemt engagement in instructional activities: Patterns in the elementary, midle, high school years.American Educational Research Journal,37(1),153-184 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001153
  20. Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research and application . Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.
  21. Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L.G.. (1990). Toward the developemennt of an elementary teacher's science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6),625-637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740605
  22. Ruble, L.A., Usher, E.L., &McGrew, J.H.(2011).Preliminary investigating of the sources of efficacy among teachers of students with autism. Focus Autism Other Disable, 26(2), 67-74 https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357610397345
  23. Schunk, D. H. (2012).Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). London, England: Pearson.
  24. Sinatra, G.M., Heddy, B.C. & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science, Educational Psychologist, 60(1), 1-13 https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
  25. Slavin, R. E.(2006). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (8th ed.). London, England: Pearson.
  26. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teacher Education and Practice, 17, 783-805.
  27. Yesilyurt, E. (2014). Academic locus of control, tendencies towards academic dishonesty and test anxiety levels as the predictors of academic self-efficacy.