Eur J Psychol Educ (2013) 28:1435–1452

DOI 10.1007/s10212-013-0174-5

Preservice teachers’ teacher efficacy beliefs

and constructivist-based teaching practice

Tugba Temiz & Mustafa Sami Topcu

Received: 13 September 2012 / Revised: 3 December 2012 / Accepted: 14 January 2013 /

Published online: 1 February 2013
# Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media
Dordrecht 2013

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between preservice teachers’
(PTs) teacher efficacy beliefs and their constructivist-based teaching practices. Data were
gathered through the questionnaire (Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale) and the observation
protocol (Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol) administered to the participants. A total
number of 101 PTs (53.5 % from science education and 46.5 % from mathematics education)
from a university in eastern part of Turkey participated in the study. Also, qualitative data were
also used in order to clarify quantitative data. The semistructured interviews were conducted
with 20 PTs who voluntarily participated in these interviews. Results showed that PTs’
constructivist-based teaching practice was positively correlated with their teacher efficacy
beliefs. Also, qualitative findings confirmed that finding. To conclude, PTs with high teacher
efficacy tend to employ constructivist approach in their teaching while PTs with low teacher
efficacy tend to use traditional approach, lecturing in their teaching.

Keywords Teacher efficacy . Self-efficacy . Constructivist-based teaching . Preservice

teachers

The necessary qualifications by which a preservice teacher will learn to become an effective
teacher in the future are attained through teacher education programs. In this respect,
preservice teachers should learn how to instruct successfully with respect to constructivism
in their classes before they graduate. In other words, preservice teachers are expected to
improve their knowledge and skills to instruct effectively while completing the compulsory
courses in their education programs. Moreover, it has been proved that teacher efficacy belief

T. Temiz (*)
Department of Elementary Education, Faculty of Education, Yuzuncu Yil University, 65080 Van, Turkey
e-mail: tugba.temiz86@gmail.com

M. S. Topcu
Department of Elementary Education, Faculty of Education, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, 48170
Mugla, Turkey
e-mail: msamitopcu@gmail.com
1436 T. Temiz, M.S. Topcu

is consistently related to teachers’ commitment, enthusiasm, and instructional behaviors

(Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001). It is thought that to determine the levels of
preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs, their constructivist-based teaching practices and the
relationship between them is important, especially while they are training to become a real
teacher. Thus, the preservice teachers can be educated efficiently while they are attending their
teacher education programs as future teachers.
When the history and the definitions of teacher efficacy belief are examined, the
importance of this belief can be comprehended efficiently. Initially, Bandura (1977) devel-
oped Social Cognitive Theory assuming that “people are capable of human agency or
intentional pursuit of courses of action and that such an agency operates in a process called
triadic reciprocal causation” (Henson 2001, p.825). In light of this theory, Bandura (1986)
described teacher efficacy as a kind of self-efficacy and identified self-efficacy as “beliefs in
one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospec-
tive situations” (Henson 2001, p. 825). In other words, it is how one thinks about one’s self
when achieving a goal at a certain and definite level. Following this, in consistency with the
previous research related to teacher efficacy and general formulation of self-efficacy
(Henson 2001), Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) defined teacher efficacy as “the teacher’s
belief in his or her capability to organize and execute the course of action required to
successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (p. 224).
If the above explanations are thought through carefully, it becomes possible to understand
the effects of efficacy beliefs on the behaviors of people. To illustrate, Goddard et al. (2004)
stated that efficacy beliefs influence the amount of effort that people invest in a given
endeavor, the duration in which they persist in a given task (Cakiroglu and Isiksal 2009), the
choices they make, and their aspirations in the face of difficulties and setbacks (Cole and
Hopkins 1995). Bandura (1995) stated that “a strong sense of efficacy increases human
accomplishment and people with a high level of confidence in their capabilities approach
difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered rather than as threats to be avoided” (Cakiroglu
and Isiksal 2009, p.134). Also, Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) stated that “researchers have found
few consistent relationships between the characteristics of teachers and the behavior or
learning of students. Teachers’ sense of efficacy . . . is an exception to this general rule” (p. 81).
All of these claims explain the effects of efficacy beliefs on people behavior. Correspondingly,
it can be stated that there exist the effects of teacher efficacy beliefs on the behaviors of
teachers. This can be illustrated by the explanations of Guskey and Passaro (1994). They
emphasized the importance of teacher efficacy in effective teaching, by stating that teachers
who have a high level of teacher efficacy expect their ability to increase the effectiveness of
involvement and learning in students, even if these students lack motivation.
A great deal of research in the literature has confirmed that teacher efficacy belief has an
effect on both teachers and students. In addition, it can be claimed that teacher efficacy belief
is correlated with student outcomes and teacher behaviors (Anderson et al. 1988; Ashton
1984; Ashton and Webb 1986; Enochs et al. 1995; Gibson and Dembo 1984; Guskey 1988;
Hoy and Woolfolk 1990; Ross 1992). First of all, it can be claimed that there exists a positive
correlation between teacher efficacy belief and student outcomes. In other words, it can be
stated that teacher efficacy belief is related to student outcomes positively in many ways. For
example, students in the classes of highly efficacious teachers performed more successfully,
were more motivated to participate in activities, had more self-esteem in lessons, and
generally had a more positive attitude towards their school than students in the classes of
less efficacious teachers (Henson 2001; Midgley et al. 1989; Miskel et al. 1983; Moore and
Esselman 1992). Secondly, it can be claimed that there exists a relationship between teacher
efficacy belief and teacher behaviors in a positive sense; that is to say that teacher efficacy
Teacher efficacy belief and practice 1437

belief is related to teacher behaviors in terms of teacher activity, effort and productivity
(Ashton and Webb 1986). Bandura (1997) stated that teacher efficacy beliefs can be related
to how much effort teachers put into teaching, their willingness to implement new teaching
methods and pedagogical strategies, and their ability to resist challenges (Takahashi 2011).
For instance, teachers with a high level of teacher efficacy spend more time helping
students with problems in learning, identifying student mistakes, and more time attempting
learner-centered teaching methods (Ashton and Webb; 1986; Gibson and Dembo 1984;
Guskey 1988). Furthermore, these teachers have confidence in their own teaching abilities
and encouraging positive student learning outcomes (Gibson and Dembo 1984). Therefore,
these teachers are more likely to use methods of reform-based teaching; that is, reform-
oriented teaching or constructivist-based teaching. On the other hand, teachers with low
levels of teacher efficacy tended to use teacher-directed methods (Czernaik 1990;
Swackhamer et al. 2009).
In the constructivist-based teaching, “knowledge is not transmitted directly from one
knower to another, but is actively built up by the learner” (Sawada et al. 2000, p.3).
Moreover, learners actively construct their own comprehension, but they do not passively
absorb or copy the learning of others. In Turkey, the elementary science and mathematics
curricula were reformed in 2004, and the main reform was made on the educational
philosophy of the curricula. The new curricula have been based on constructivism and these
curricula have been prepared in consideration of this philosophy. When the latest curriculum
is compared with the previous one, the main feature of the previous curriculum can be
explained as “education was a rite of passage with a narrow repertoire of ritualized
classroom behaviors, and only two skills were developed: memorization and repetition”
(Avenstrup 2007, p.4). In the last reformed curriculum, it was important for teachers to
instruct according to constructivism in elementary level classrooms. Also, the curriculum
was changed from a subject-centered to a learner-centered one and pedagogies from
behaviorism to constructivism (Bulut 2007). Teaching and learning activities have also
changed in relation to this reform since there has been a movement from a pure behaviorist
to a constructivist approach. In this respect, it can be explained that constructivist teaching
practices are aimed at student thinking depending on problem solving strategies (i.e.,
inquiry), active student engagement, increasing student motivation and providing
opportunities related to group interaction, and the manipulation of materials and data
(Brooks and Brooks 1993).
Depending on the curriculum reform movements realized in Turkey, some problems
might be revealed by teachers about teaching (Ghaith and Yaghi 1997), as they do not have
sufficient knowledge of constructivism or sufficient experience in teaching methods that are
consistent with constructivism. In order to analyze this kind of problem in respect of
teachers, Guskey (1988) investigated how efficacy beliefs are related to teacher practice.
The sample of his study was composed of teachers who instructed with respect to the old
curriculum firstly and then the latest curriculum after reform related to the curriculum. In his
study, these teachers’ performances were compared with respect to their teacher efficacy
beliefs. According to the findings, he stated that teachers with low level efficacy perceived
their former instructional practices as very different from their later practices which were
implemented with respect to constructivism and that they perceived their later practices as
difficult to implement, and necessitating a lot of extra work, when compared with their
former practices (Guskey 1988). On the other hand, Guskey (1988) found that teachers with
high levels of efficacy were greatly confident and open to the implementation of instruc-
tional innovations. With this motivation, it can be claimed that teachers might have diffi-
culties in implementing instructional innovations related to their teaching because of their
1438 T. Temiz, M.S. Topcu

low level of teacher efficacy beliefs. On the other hand, teachers might be open and feel
efficacious about implementing new instructional strategies and be confident about their
potential to enhance their effectiveness with students. In light of Guskey’s explanations
(1988), it is clear that efficacy beliefs can be associated with instructional effectiveness and
implementation of instructional innovation.
In the last part of this section, it is also necessary to mention the current condition of
inservice and preservice teacher education in Turkey. In order to address the problems
stemming from the new curricula implementations, both the Ministry of National
Education and Higher Education Council in Turkey have taken many precautions. For
example, inservice teachers regularly take inservice teacher training programs provided by
the Ministry of National Education and their school administration. In these programs,
mostly the meaning of a constructivist approach and successful implementation of this
approach in classrooms are explained to inservice teachers. Preservice teachers also have
been educated considering the constructivist approach. All preservice teachers have been
encouraged to learn and use this approach in their courses, especially in science or mathe-
matics education methods courses. In the faculties of education in Turkey, preservice
teachers (PTs) are educated to attain the necessary knowledge and experience needed to
implement the constructivist approach in their future classrooms effectively. Teacher edu-
cation programs in Turkey have four main properties, namely, general education, profes-
sional education, subject matter specialty studies, and electives (Topcu 2011). These
properties are important to support students’ subject matter and pedagogical content knowl-
edge and field experience. PTs enroll on courses related to teaching and learning such as
educational psychology and classroom management, subject matter knowledge such as
calculus and physics, and pedagogical content knowledge such as teaching methods in the
process of the first 3 years of teacher education programs (Topcu 2011). They also enroll in
practicum courses such as “Practice Teaching” over two semesters in order to attain
constructivist teaching experience in the actual classrooms in the last year of the programs.
In other words, by taking this course, PTs are provided opportunities to acquire experience
in the field and make connections between constructivist theory and practice. This course
is provided by The Higher Education Council in Turkey and the Ministry of National
Education cooperatively (Topcu 2011).

The rationale of the study

Ross et al. (1996) emphasized the importance of teacher efficacy by explaining that “a
teacher’s sense of efficacy will determine the amount of effort he or she puts into teaching,
the degree of persistence when confronted with difficulties, and the task choices made”
(Somech and Drach-Zahavy 2000). Moreover, Bandura (1997) claimed that “self-efficacy
beliefs are most in flux early in learning and tend to become fairly stable and resistant to
change once set” (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2007). Hoy and Woolfolk (1990)
also stated that “although there is consistent evidence that efficacy is most malleable in the
preservice years” (p. 830) efficacy is more likely to be resistant to change for experienced
teachers (Henson 2001). Moreover, Ross (1994) confirmed this claim for general teaching
efficacy. With this motivation, it is important to provide preservice teachers necessary
knowledge and practice concerning their work to increase their teacher efficacy to become
a successful teacher in the future when they participate in teacher education programs.
Furthermore, PTs have problems concerning their teacher efficacy beliefs when they
realize the difference between the necessary teaching standards and their own practices
Teacher efficacy belief and practice 1439

as Vennman (1984) explained (Cruz and Arias 2007). In this respect, it is important to
determine and improve PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs in order to remove reality shock
from their teaching practices since teacher efficacy belief is an important variable of
teaching behavior (Henson 2001).
It is important to determine how much PTs believe in their capacity to instruct effectively
and whether they have teacher efficacy beliefs enough to investigate constructivist-based
teaching. Therefore, it is necessary to provide PTs with constant opportunities to practice
with respect to constructivism and to organize the lessons in teacher education programs in
this way. Therefore, it is important to explore preservice science and mathematics teachers’
current knowledge and experiences about constructivism because they will be the future
teachers of science and mathematics. In other words, PTs are educated as the transferors of
the curriculum to the students and implementers of the curriculum, and the current elemen-
tary school curriculum is based on the constructivist philosophy. Therefore, in the present
study, the constructivist approach was selected as an area of investigation. In this respect,
PTs’ constructivist-based teaching experiences were explored in the present study, and
these experiences were compared with other important variables that shape PTs’ teaching,
teacher efficacy.
The major problem related to the recent curriculum in respect of students was that
ineffective teaching prohibits students’ learning (Mendro 1998). To remove this problem,
it is necessary for teachers to implement instructional innovations successfully considering
the constructivist approach, the main philosophy of the Turkish curricula. Therefore,
teachers need to know the main properties of the latest curriculum, be educated to apply
these properties in their instructions, and be efficient in implementing these responsibilities.
In addition, the present study is important since it becomes possible to attain information
about the level of effectiveness of teacher education programs. In this respect, while
determining present deficiencies in education systems in education faculties, PTs’ teacher
efficacy beliefs can be made efficient in Turkey by improving these deficiencies. Moreover,
there has been limited research related to PTs’ constructivist-based teaching practices and
participants’ views about the relationship between teacher efficacy belief and teaching
practice in the literature. Therefore, the present study fills a gap in these respects in the
literature. With this motivation, the present study focused on the relationship between PTs’
teacher efficacy beliefs and their teaching practices, in terms of lesson design and imple-
mentation, content and classroom culture.

The purpose of the study

The purpose of the present study was to examine the teacher efficacy belief levels of
PTs and determine their constructivist-based teachings practices. The relationship
between their teacher efficacy beliefs and the performance of constructivist-based
teaching practices according to the factors of the Reformed Teaching Observation
Protocol (lesson design and implementation, content, and classroom culture) was also
investigated. In this respect, the purpose of the present study was to address the following
three questions:

1. To what extent do PTs exhibit the constructivist approach in their microteachings?

2. What is the teacher efficacy beliefs’ level of the PTs?
3. What is the relationship between a PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based
teaching practice?
1440 T. Temiz, M.S. Topcu

Method

Quantitative-dominant mixed methods research (Sullivan 2009) was conducted in the

present study. Quantitative methods were used in order to determine if there was a statisti-
cally significant relationship between PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based
teaching practices. Quantitative methods were also used in order to evaluate the level of the
PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based teaching. Qualitative methods were
used to interpret and make clearer the quantitative data.

Participants

The sample of the study consisted of 101 senior volunteer preservice elementary mathematics
and science teachers enrolled in an undergraduate teacher education program at an eastern
public university in Turkey. All PTs voluntarily participated in the present study and PTs
who were not volunteers were not included. These preservice teachers had enrolled in
undergraduate courses providing them subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge
and some experiences about teaching before they participated in the present study. Of these
preservice teachers, 53.5 % were from the departments of elementary science education and
46.5 % were from the departments of elementary mathematics education. Also, 53.5 % were
female and 46.5 % were male. The participants’ age range was between 21 and 23 years old
and their average age was 22. These preservice science and mathematics teachers will
eventually be teachers of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade elementary science and mathe-
matics lessons. From these 101 PTs observed with Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol
(RTOP), 20 participants voluntarily participated in the interviews.

Instruments

Two instruments were used in the present study: the Turkish form of the RTOP and
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES).
The first instrument, Turkish form of the RTOP was used to evaluate preservice teachers’
constructivist-based teaching practices. The original version of the RTOP was in English and
developed by Sawada et al. (2000) to describe the characteristics of reformed teaching, based
on a constructivist-based teaching. It was used in order to guide the classroom observations
as a reliable method and identify the level of implemented reform methods in mathematics
and science lessons in previous studies of Sawada et al. (2000) and Smeal (2008). There are
three main categories: lesson design and implementation, content, and classroom culture.
Also, the main factor of content has two subfactors as propositional and procedural
knowledge and classroom culture has two subfactors as communicative interactions and
relationship with students. The RTOP helps to identify whether the major properties of
reform-oriented instruction focusing on lesson design and implementation, propositional and
procedural knowledge, and communicative interactions and relationship with students are
observed. The instrument has 25 items in total and each of the subfactors has five items.
Initial factor of the RTOP is lesson design and implementation with five statements (e.g., in
this lesson, student exploration preceded formal presentation). Another factor of the RTOP is
content has two subfactors. The first factor of the instrument is propositional knowledge
with five statements (e.g., the lesson promoted coherent conceptual understanding). The
second subfactor is procedural knowledge with five statements (e.g., students were
reflective about their learning). The last factor of the instrument is classroom culture
and has two subfactors. The first subfactor is communicative interactions with five statements
Teacher efficacy belief and practice 1441

(e.g., the teacher’s questions triggered divergent modes of thinking). The second subfactor is
student–teacher relationship with five statements (e.g., active participation of students was
encouraged and valued). The items/statements are rated on a five-point Likert scale. In this
respect, a score of “1” was assigned when a particular behavior was not observed. A score of
“5” was assigned when a particular behavior was very descriptive of the individual being
observed. Scores ranged between 25 and 125 points and higher points mean that more
constructivist-based teaching practices were observed (Sawada et al. 2000). In this study,
each PT’s constructivist-based teaching practice was observed and marked with the RTOP.
In the study of Topcu and Uygun-Temiz (2012), it was translated into Turkish and values of
reliability and validity of the Turkish form were estimated. First, the RTOP scale was
translated into Turkish by taking some precautions in order to prevent bias. A reverse
translation of the Turkish form into English was made by two bilingual English language
instructors. Independent ratings of both forms were made. Afterwards, in order to discuss
and attain agreement regarding problematic items, the meetings were made and iterative
retranslations were also investigated. Moreover, problems about inconsistencies of items in
both forms were discussed and solved in these meetings. Furthermore, a Turkish language
teacher checked the Turkish form of the RTOP in terms of grammar. Then, when the
meetings about the translation were completed, the researchers of the present study dis-
cussed the issues and two assistant professors with an educational background compared
both forms of the instrument and discussed the items in order to support the content validity
of the instrument. In light of the study for the validity and reliability of the new version of
the RTOP, the present researchers reported three factors, and the alpha reliability was
estimated at 0.900 for factor 1, 0.866 for factor 2, and 0.915 for factor 3, suggesting
satisfactory reliability for each factor. This result was consistent with the results of the
previous studies, including validation of the original version of the RTOP (Lawson et al.
2002; MacIsaac and Falconer 2001; Sawada et al. 2000). These studies have formed a
consensus on the claim that the RTOP is a valid and reliable instrument with which to
determine teachers’ constructivist-based teaching practices. It could be revealed that findings
from the analysis of reliability and validity demonstrated a successful adaptation into
Turkish, similar to the results for the original version of the RTOP. Therefore, it is clear
that it is both a reliable and valid instrument with which to assess a PTs’ constructivist-based
teaching practices related to science and mathematics instructions.
The second instrument is the Turkish form of the TSES developed by Tschannen-Moran
and Woolfolk Hoy (2001). There are two forms of this scale in the literature; long form and
short form. In the present study, the long form of the scale was used. It has 24 items and
measures teacher efficacy with nine-point Likert scale ranging from 1, nothing; 3, very little;
5, some influence; 7, quite a bit; and 9, a great deal. In this rating scale, score 1 means that
“the teacher feels they cannot do anything at all regarding the content of the items” and score
9 means that “the teacher feels they have excellent control over the topic of the item”
(Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001, p. 800). In this respect, scores ranged 24–216
points. It has three factors: efficacy in instructional strategies, efficacy in classroom man-
agement, and efficacy in student engagement. First of all, the factor of efficacy in instruc-
tional strategy has eight statements (e.g., How well can you respond to difficult questions
from your students?). The factor of efficacy in classroom management also has eight
statements (e.g., How well can you keep a few problem students form ruining an entire
lesson?). The other factor of efficacy in student engagement includes eight statements (e.g.,
How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is failing?). The
adaptation of this scale into Turkish was conducted by Capa et al. (2005). Capa et al. (2005)
conducted confirmatory factor analysis and reported that the reliability of whole scale was
1442 T. Temiz, M.S. Topcu

0.95, the reliabilities of factors ranged from 0.85 to 0.88. These findings confirm that this
scale is both reliable and valid. Also, it is clear that these findings about reliability and
validity are consistent with the values of the study of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy
(2001), including validation of the original version of the TSES.
Both instruments used in the present study are beneficial and appropriate for the rationale
of this research. First, the RTOP is practically useful while scoring PTs’ classroom teaching
practices organized with respect to the constructivist approach. There exists another benefit
that the instrument is quickly administered and emphasizes reform (i.e., constructivism)
rather than general characteristics, including classroom management, lesson closure, and
providing training and reference manuals (MacIsaac and Falconer 2001). Also, each item of
the instrument provides information about what the constructivist approach translates into in
terms of classroom experiences and the major properties of this approach (Henry et al.
2007). Second, the TSES is a beneficial instrument meeting the rationale of the study
appropriately. The most important benefit is that it has a unified and stable factor structure.
Another important benefit is that it measures teacher efficacy beliefs with three important
domains in teaching without being too specific (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001).
With this in mind, these two instruments, providing useful information for the present study,
were selected.

Data collection

All senior PTs enrolled in the undergraduate course titled “Science and Mathematics
Teaching Methods” were informed about the study and then invited to participate.
Following this, PTs who accepted voluntarily to take a role in the present study composed
the sample of the study. In the present research context, volunteer PTs designed micro-
teachings consistent with constructivist approach, including science and mathematics topics.
While they were planning their microteachings, they were allowed to ask their instructor
questions. Also, their instructor informed them about their lesson plans and effective
implementation. Then, they implemented their microteachings in their faculty classes in
teacher education programs in the period of the course in the 2010 fall and 2011 spring. Each
of these microteachings took approximately 35 min and each observation was made by two
researchers of the present study. While researchers were observing the lessons carefully, they
took notes about what to be done by PTs in their microteaching consistent with constructivist
approach and they did not control or manipulate PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs intentionally.
Also, the observers examined specific actions related to lesson design and implementation,
content and classroom culture as the characteristics of constructivist teaching and recorded
every effort of the participants. Then, after the observers had completed observing the
lessons, they convened and scored it by using the RTOP with the help of their notes taken
during the observation by discussing objectively. The results were reported directly from
objective assessments of the researchers of the present study. In this way, the participants
were given a RTOP score for their constructivist-based teaching practices. The participants
knew that they were being observed but they did not know that they were being scored by
the RTOP. The RTOP was used only in the evaluation of their microteachings. The micro-
teachings were observed and scored by the researchers of the present study since there were
no volunteer faculty members to observe the microteachings or score the observations. Some
of them did not accept their role in the study and others did not have experience in
observation. After the PTs’ implementation of their microteachings consistent with the
constructivist approach finished, the 24-item TSES were administered to them. While
participants were completing the questionnaire, the researchers answered any clarifying
Teacher efficacy belief and practice 1443

questions that the participants had. The period of administering the questionnaire took
approximately 10 min. The participants completed both TSES and provided demographic
information. Then, semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 volunteer PTs in order
to obtain information related to their views on the relationship between teacher efficacy
beliefs and constructivist-based teaching practices and make this relationship clearer. Each
interview took 20–30 min, was audiorecorded, and later transcribed verbatim.
In the present study, in order to remove the limitations of the study, some precautions
were taken. First, it was thought that the descriptors of extreme ratings belonged to the items
of the RTOP (1 for “never occurred” and 5 for “very descriptive”) may cause some
problems. They do not demonstrate exact opposite situations; hence, the subjects being
observed might be incorrectly scored. In order to solve this potential problem, the Training
Guide of the RTOP and explanations belonging to each item on the RTOP were investigated
carefully. Then, the researchers conducted practical activities in which they coded some
practices before carrying out the actual observations. By practising, the researchers im-
proved necessary skills in using the instrument and became familiar with the items of the
instrument.

Data analysis

The aims of the present study were to determine PTs’ level of teacher efficacy beliefs and
constructivist-based teaching practice and explore the relationship between their teacher
efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based teaching practice. Descriptive statistics such as
mean and standard deviation have been used to estimate teacher efficacy beliefs and
performance of constructivist-based instruction. Also, in order to investigate the relationship
between PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based teaching practice, the Pearson
Product Moment Correlation method was used, and this method was also used to examine
the relationships between each factor of teacher efficacy (TSES) and each factor of
constructivist-based teaching practice (RTOP). Meanwhile, this method’s assumptions such
as representative sample, normal distribution, interval measures and linearity and homosce-
dasticity were met. For all quantitative analyses in the present study, the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences version 15.0 for Windows was used.
The qualitative analysis technique suggested by Marshall and Rossman (1999) was used
to analyze qualitative data of the present study. This technique consists of six steps:
organizing the data, coding the data, generating categories and themes, testing the emergent
understandings as considering individual differences, searching for alternative explanations,
and writing the report. With respect to this technique, first, data were designed in the
consideration of two perspectives such as responses to each interview question and by each
interviewee. Second, the researchers independently used open coding to the interview
transcripts for the sake of searching patterns. Third, the researchers compared their list of
codes, and formed a list including common codes by discussion and negotiation. Fourth, all
the transcripts were coded in an iterative process. Fifth, similar codes were gathered together
as themes. For example, one of the interview questions was as follows “How do you think a
teacher’s teacher efficacy belief is related to designing and implementing his/her lessons?”
In analyzing the responses to this question, two themes that emerged were “selecting
appropriate materials” and “connection with real life”. Themes were confirmed or discon-
firmed with the help of the triangulation with findings from the analysis of interviewees’
other responses. In other words, in order to support the validity and reliability of qualitative
data, investigator triangulation was made. Two investigators coded the data independently
and they compared their coding and themes. The coding and themes which were similar with
1444 T. Temiz, M.S. Topcu

85 % accepted to use in the study. Then, the 15 % that was dissimilar was discussed and as a
result a supporting consensus was reached. At the end, the relationship between PTs’ teacher
efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based teaching was explained with the help of the formed
themes. After the qualitative analysis was completed, a third researcher evaluated the
process of the findings of qualitative analysis in the consideration of consistency and
coherence. Thus, the validity of the analysis was provided by the investigator triangulation
(Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Results

Turkish preservice teachers’ performance of constructivist-based teaching practice

The mean and standard deviation values of the RTOP’s factors and total factor based on all
PTs’ microteachings scores were calculated in order to clarify their performance of
constructivist-based teaching practices, as shown in Table 1. Moreover, the participants with
a minimum score attained 2.20 and those with maximum scores obtained 5.00 with respect
to RTOP. First, with respect to the lesson design and implementation factor of the instru-
ment, it can be explained that PTs indicated their constructivist-based teaching practice
levels with a mean of 4.11 and standard deviation of 0.86. Second, with respect to content
factor of the instrument, it can be said that there were PTs with constructivist-based teaching
practice levels with a mean of 4.15 and standard deviation of 0.79. Third, with respect to the
classroom culture factor of the instrument, it can be deduced that PTs showed their
constructivist-based teaching practice levels with a mean of 4.14 and standard deviation of
0.87. Hence, it can be claimed that the levels of PTs’ constructivist-based teaching practices
concerning lesson design and implementation, content, and classroom culture were high.
Generally, PTs’ constructivist-based teaching practice levels in classrooms (M=4.13, SD=
0.81) were also significantly high. In other words, in this study, PTs used significantly high
constructivist teaching practice levels in their microteachings.
In light of the scores in Table 1, it can be claimed that the levels of PTs’ constructivist-
based teaching practices concerning lesson design and implementation, content, and class-
room culture were high.

Turkish preservice teachers’ teacher efficacy beliefs

The data, mean, and standard deviation of the teacher efficacy belief scores of the PTs were
computed as illustrated in Table 2. The mean and standard deviation of each factor and total
factor of the PTs concerning the TSES instrument were calculated. Moreover, the participant
having the minimum score attained 4.08 and the one having maximum score got 8.46 with
respect to TSES. First, the calculated values: mean as 7.15 and standard deviation as 0.96,
clarify the PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs concerning the efficacy in instructional strategy

Table 1 Mean scores and

standard deviations of participants Subsets Mean SD
based on the RTOP
Lesson design and implementation 4.11 0.86
Content 4.15 0.79
Classroom culture 4.14 0.87
RTOP 4.13 0.81
Teacher efficacy belief and practice 1445

Table 2 Mean scores and

standard deviations of participants Subsets Mean SD
based on the TSES
Efficacy in instructional strategy 7.15 0.96
Efficacy in classroom management 7.15 1.03
Efficacy in student engagement 6.99 0.89
TSES 7.10 0.92

factor of the TSES instrument. Second, PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs were estimated with a
mean of 7.15 and standard deviation of 1.03 concerning the efficacy in classroom manage-
ment factor of the instrument. Third, PTs’ efficacy beliefs were explained with a mean of
6.99 and standard deviation of 0.89 concerning the efficacy in student engagement factor. In
the respect of the scores in Table 1, PTs received high scores with respect to teacher efficacy
beliefs in terms of efficacy in instructional strategies, classroom management, and student
engagement. In general, the level of PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs with a mean of 7.10 and
standard deviation of 0.92 was also significantly high.
In respect of the scores in Table 2, PTs received high scores with respect to teacher
efficacy beliefs in terms of efficacy in instructional strategies, classroom management and
student engagement.

Relationship between preservice teachers’ constructivist-based teaching practice and teacher

efficacy beliefs

The “Pearson Product Moment Correlation quotients” was estimated between the scores
attained from the factors of the TSES and the RTOP. Also, it is clear that there are
meaningful associations between the factors of the TSES: efficacy in instructional
strategies, efficacy in classroom management, and efficacy in student engagement and
the RTOP: lesson design and implementation, content, and classroom culture. There
exist significantly high values as correlation quotients varying between 0.643 and 0.782
(Table 3).
The qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts made clearer this relationship and
showed PTs’ opinions about it. All 20 semistructured interviews conducted with the PTs
provided the conclusion that “there is a positive relationship between teacher efficacy beliefs
and constructivist-based teaching”. They explained their views and reasons about this
relationship.
The following is an indicative interviewee response selected from participants having
high scores of constructivist-based teaching practice and teacher efficacy belief to the

Table 3 Correlations between the preservice teachers’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based
teaching practice

RTOP Lesson design and Content Classroom culture

implementation

TSES 0.780* 0.703* 0.752* 0.790*

Efficacy in instructional strategy 0.874* 0.643* 0.685* 0.723*
Efficacy in classroom management 0.777* 0.702* 0.752* 0.782*
Efficacy in student engagement 0.758* 0.679* 0.729* 0.771*

*p<0.001
1446 T. Temiz, M.S. Topcu

question of “How do you think a teacher’s teacher efficacy belief is related to his/her
constructivist-based teaching practice?”
I think that there exists a positive relationship between teacher efficacy belief and
constructivist-based teaching. In other words, teacher efficacy belief is an important
effecting factor in constructivist-based teaching. Teachers with a high level of teacher
efficacy belief design and implement their lessons in connection with real life and
other disciplines. They can choose appropriate student-centered strategies to teach and
implement them effectively. Also, they have a high level of motivation with regards
their occupation. Also, these teachers can transfer their knowledge to their students
effectively. While teaching topics, they can choose appropriate materials and examples
to prevent misconceptions. They can also underline important parts of the topic in the
process of instructing effectively. They can help students attain the objectives of the
lesson properly. Moreover, they can provide a beneficial atmosphere in which students
share their ideas actively.
The following explanation is an illustrative example interviewee response of a participant
with low scores of constructivist-based teaching practice and teacher efficacy belief for the
responses of ones having high scores of constructivist-based teaching practice and teacher
efficacy belief:
In my opinion, teacher efficacy belief is positively correlated with constructivist-based
teaching. I want to demonstrate this idea by referencing my micro-teaching practice.
While I was planning my micro-teaching lesson, I wanted to implement different
strategies than those I used in the lessons. The students could be more active with the
strategies I did not use in the lesson. The reason I did not implement them during the
lesson was I did not feel confident that I could do so successfully. Therefore, I had to
limit the strategies used in the lesson plan. Moreover, I wanted to use more materials
than I used in the lesson. Had I felt my lesson would be more efficacious, I would have
used more materials and more activities encouraging students to participate and
discuss. I think that I will be an efficacious teacher in the future since I have improved
myself as a teacher candidate.
Overall, in the light of the findings of both qualitative and quantitative data, it can be
suggested that there exists a positive correlation between PTs’ constructivist-based teaching
practices and their teacher efficacy beliefs.

Discussion and implications

The first research question of this study is to investigate the level of PTs’ constructivist-
based instruction in Turkey. This question was answered satisfactorily by examining PTs’
levels of constructivist-based teaching practice by the RTOP. PTs’ constructivist-based
teaching practice levels were estimated to be high in the factor of lesson design and
implementation, content, and classroom culture. Overall, PTs’ constructivist-based teaching
practice levels were sufficiently high. The findings in the present study indicate that in this
study, PTs’ instructions were consistent with the constructivism approach in Turkey. Thus,
PTs paid attention to the main features of constructivist-based teaching in designing and
implementing lessons, and in helping students to attain propositional and procedural knowl-
edge. In addition, they were good at constituting classroom culture consistent with the
constructivist approach. Moreover, these findings corroborate the finding of the previous
study of Author et al. (2011) investigating Turkish PTs’ constructivist-based teaching
Teacher efficacy belief and practice 1447

practice levels. In light of these findings, it can also be claimed that PTs designed and
implemented the lesson consistent with constructivism, and so they were more likely to help
students to gain propositional and procedural knowledge and organize communicative
interactions between students and student–teacher relationships consistent with constructivism
successively in Turkey. In other words, it can be explained that the higher the score the PTs
received from the Turkish form of the RTOP scale in any factor of the instrument, the higher the
score they received from the overall instrument.
With respect to the judgments about the level of PTs’ constructivist-based teaching
practice, it can be suggested that PTs were able to instruct consistent with the constructivist
approach successfully in the present study. Moreover, it can be claimed that current teacher
education programs benefitted PTs in providing them with the necessary skills and infor-
mation to instruct effectively in the future. Also, it can be added that teacher educators could
provide beneficial information consistent with teacher ability and skills. The reason for PTs’
high scores related to constructivist-based teaching practices can be explained in a way that
teachers in schools and academicians on teacher education programs educate their students
with respect to the constructivist approach. Therefore, PTs can attain necessary the knowl-
edge and skills in their undergraduate teacher education programs and see examples of how
the constructivist approach has been effectively implemented in the faculties of teacher
education. With this motivation, they can prepare well as future teachers to instruct effec-
tively and in compliance this approach. Moreover, the participants could attain necessary
information about how to instruct effectively at any time and they were provided opportu-
nities to discuss their plans with the instructor and replan their microteachings with respect
to the comments of the instructor. In other words, during science and mathematics methods
courses, PTs were provided opportunities to discuss their lesson plans with the course
instructor and replan their microteachings in light of the suggestions of the instructor.
Meanwhile, all of the preservice teachers in Turkey have been encouraged by the Council
of Higher Education and Ministry of National Education in order to learn and use
constructivist-based teaching method in their science or mathematics methods courses.
Because of these reasons, PTs could attain high scores in terms of constructivist-based
teaching practice and teacher efficacy beliefs.
The second research question was answered satisfactorily by examining PTs’ levels of
teacher efficacy beliefs by TSES. According to the findings of the study, PTs’ teacher
efficacy beliefs levels were high in each factor of Turkish form of the TSES. In other words,
PTs’ teacher efficacy belief levels were high in terms of its factors: efficacy in instructional
strategy, classroom management and student engagement. Generally, PTs’ teacher efficacy
belief levels were sufficiently high and these findings show that PTs feel competent
concerning their teaching practice levels. According to the findings of the present study, it
can also be claimed that Turkish PTs who were efficacious in one component of teacher
efficacy were more likely to be efficacious in the other two factors. In other words, the more
efficacious PTs were in one of the factors of TSES, the more efficacious they were overall in
the scale. This claim corroborates the finding of the study of Ortactepe (2006). In this
previous study, the researcher claimed that the more efficacious English as a foreign
language teachers were in one of the factors of the TSES, the more efficacious they were
overall in the TSES. Moreover, in the present study, the PTs’ TSES scores in each factor and
total factor of the scale indicated that they were slightly above the medium level.
The findings of the present study related to mean and standard deviation values of PTs’
teacher efficacy beliefs corroborate the findings of the previous studies investigating ele-
mentary teachers’ sense of efficacy beliefs (Cerit 2007) and English as a foreign language
teachers’ sense of efficacy beliefs (Ortactepe 2006). In their studies, the teacher efficacy
1448 T. Temiz, M.S. Topcu

belief levels of the participants who were preservice teachers were above the medium level,
similar to the finding of the present study. In consideration of the judgments above about the
level of PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs, it can be suggested that PTs believe in their capacity to
instruct effectively in the present study. Moreover, it can be claimed that current teacher
education programs benefitted PTs by providing them with the necessary opportunities to
attain sufficiently high teacher efficacy beliefs to become effective teachers in the future.
The high scores of teacher efficacy beliefs of PTs could result from the practice and
experience of the participants. The participants in the present study were senior; in other
words, they were in the third year of their undergraduate programs. During the years in
which they spent in teacher education programs, they could attain effective knowledge and
experiences related to the constructivist approach and how to practice consistently with it.
These experiences could have affected their teacher efficacy beliefs in a positive way. It can
also be added that teacher educators could be beneficial for PTs to help them in attaining
high teacher efficacy beliefs to become a successful teacher in the future.
The small standard deviations related to the score of PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and
constructivist-based teaching practice might show that their teacher efficacy can be close to
each other. The small standard deviations for scores from each instrument can be resulted from
their very similar age and teaching/learning experiences. The participants’ ages were very close
to each other. Moreover, during their teacher education program they have enrolled in the same
courses with the same instructors because all PTs in Turkey must enroll same courses in order to
graduate teacher education programs. They also had same opportunities while planning their
microteachings in the science and mathematics teaching methods courses.
The last research question was to investigate the relationship between PTs’ teacher
efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based teaching practices. This study revealed that PTs’
teacher efficacy beliefs were related to their level of constructivist-based instructions and
their opinions support that finding. Based on the number and magnitude of correlations
found between factors of teacher efficacy and constructivist-based instructions in this study,
it can be suggested that both variables are interrelated. In light of the findings of both
quantitative and qualitative data analysis, it can be claimed that PTs with high teacher
efficacy belief tend to instruct in ways that are consistent with the constructivist approach
successfully. This finding is also similar to the findings of the previous studies of Allinder
(1994), Guskey (1988), and Stein and Wang (1988). They explained that highly efficacious
teachers are more likely to practice teaching by using instructional materials and improved
teaching methods. Czernaik (1990) also explained that teachers with high efficacy are more
willing and interested in teaching by using inquiry based (Swackhamer et al. 2009) and
student-centered approaches as instructional innovations (Ashton and Webb 1986) and
attaining information about them (Swackhamer et al. 2009). Coladarci (1992) added that
highly efficacious teachers show higher professional commitment. Moreover, Allinder
(1994) claimed that teachers with high teacher efficacy beliefs displayed great performance
in matters related to their work as good planners and organizers being appeared enthusiastic.
He also emphasized that “teachers with strong self- efficacy beliefs show a greater readiness
to adopt innovative educational practices” (Evers et al. 2002, p. 238). With this motivation, it
can be suggested that teacher efficacy beliefs appear to be an important variable for PTs’
positive teaching behavior (Ashton and Webb 1986; Cakiroglu et al. 2005; Enochs et al.
1995; Henson 2001). Cakiroglu et al. (2005) reported that teachers with high teacher
efficacy beliefs tend to experience their instructions by “using open-ended, inquiry,
student-directed teaching strategies” (p. 31) whereas less efficacious teachers tend to practice
by using “teacher-directed teaching strategies such as lectures or reading from the textbook”
(p. 31). It is clear that these strategies are different kinds of constructivist-based teaching
Teacher efficacy belief and practice 1449

strategies. The findings of the previous research confirmed the result of the present study. In
other words, in this study, it was found that PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs were positively
correlated to their level of constructivist-based instructions with a significant and sufficient
correlation coefficient value, and this result was similar to the findings of previous research
mentioned above.
In consideration of all the judgments related to the correlation between teacher efficacy belief
and constructivist-based teaching practice, it can be suggested that when PTs are provided with
necessary knowledge and opportunities to practice the constructivist approach they can improve
their performance of instruction and also their teacher efficacy beliefs through teacher education
programs in the preservice years. Also, PTs can realize the difference between the necessary
teaching standards of recent reformed curriculum and their own practice consistent with recent
curriculum. Therefore, they can remove their deficiencies and solve the problems of their
instruction consistent with recent curriculum and also teacher efficacy beliefs and improve them.
As a result, they would become an effective teacher with a stable and high teacher efficacy and
high and improving constructivist-based instruction performance in the future. Overall, the
present study is significant since it sheds light on the current condition of PTs’ teacher efficacy
beliefs and instruction quality before they go on to become a real teacher in the future.
In the last part of this section, it is necessary to highlight a couple of limitations related to
the present study. First, this study was conducted among preservice teachers enrolled in two-
semester sequence methods courses during fall 2010 and spring 2011 in an Eastern
University of Turkey. Second, the authors of the present study were responsible for observ-
ing the microteachings of the participants and rating them because of the limited number of
faculty members and volunteer observers. This can be a limitation related to the data
collection and analysis part of the study.

Conclusion

One of the purposes of the present study was to determine the levels of PTs’ teacher efficacy
beliefs and their constructivist-based instruction in Turkey. It is beneficial to understand PTs’
levels of constructivist-based instruction levels and teacher efficacy beliefs of preservice
teachers in order to ensure future teachers will be successful in their real instructions. The
scores of PTs attained from the TSES and the RTOP instruments are as sufficiently high
values as that a successful inservice teacher is expected to get.
The main purpose of the present study was to determine the relationship among levels of
PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based instruction in Turkey. The results of
the present study allow us to suggest some conclusions. The qualitative and quantitative
findings of the present study indicated that there are fairly strong and statistically significant
relationships between PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and constructivist-based instructions. The
significantly high correlation coefficient values also found between the factors of the TSES:
efficacy in instructional strategies, classroom management and student engagement and the
factors of the RTOP: lesson design and implementation, content, and classroom culture.
Moreover, the direction and magnitude of the correlation quotient values is such that as
Turkish PTs’ levels of constructivist-based teaching practice increase when their teacher
efficacy belief levels increase. In other words, Turkish PTs who might be assumed to show a
high level of constructivist-based teaching practice are more likely to have high level of
teacher efficacy beliefs. On the other hand, those who might be assumed to indicate lower
level of constructivist-based teaching practice appear to have low level of teacher efficacy
beliefs. This finding and conclusion are important since negative effect of earlier curriculum
1450 T. Temiz, M.S. Topcu

has been removed while considering the results based on PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and
constructivist-based teaching practice. With this motivation, it can be claimed that this
negative effect of earlier curriculum has been decreased at a sufficient level but it is not
enough. Further effort should be given to remove more negative effect.
The results obtained in this study supported a research foundation for the relationship
between PTs’ teacher efficacy beliefs and their constructivist-based teaching practice.
Likewise, this research can be conducted to inservice teachers. In this view, teachers with
high and low teacher efficacy can be compared and their choices of teaching strategies and
their impacts on student outcomes can be investigated comparatively. With this motivation,
beneficial information about the relationship between teacher efficacy belief and teaching
practice in the actual environments can be provided. In light of findings of this recommen-
ded research and the present research, more certain and trustful judgment can be made. It is
also essential to investigate the classroom and school practices of the high and low
efficacious teachers. Therefore, the relationship between teacher efficacy and performance
of constructivist-based teaching can be examined clearly.

References

Allinder, R. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education
teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86–95.
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking
skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2),
148–165.
Ashton, P. T. (1984). Teaching efficacy. Journal of Teacher Education, 25(2), 41–54.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement.
New York: Longman.
Avenstrup, R. (2007). The challenge of curriculum reform and implementation: some implications of a
constructivist approach. Ministry of National Education. Retrieved December 10 2010 from: http://
www.tedp.gov.tr.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search for understanding the case for constructivist classrooms.
Alexandria: ASCD.
Bulut, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkey: a case of primary school mathematics curriculum. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 203–212.
Cakiroglu, E., & Isiksal, M. (2009). Preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs toward
mathematics. Education in Science, 34(151), 132–139.
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(1), 31–41.
Capa, Y., Cakiroglu, J., & Sarikaya, H. (2005). Ögretmenlik öz-yeterlik ölçeginin Türkçe uyarlamasının
geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalısması. Egitim ve Bilim, 30(137), 74–81.
Cerit, Y. (2007). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin öz yeterlik inanç düzeyleri. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi İlköğretim
Kongresi: İlköğretimde Eğitim ve Öğretim.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 60, 323–337.
Cole, B. L., & Hopkins, B. L. (1995). Manipulations of the relationship between reported self-efficacy and
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 15, 95–123.
Cruz, M. J. T., & Arias, P. F. C. (2007). Comparative analysis of expectancies of efficacy in in-service and
prospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 641–652.
Teacher efficacy belief and practice 1451

Czernaik, C.M. (1990). A study of self-effcacy, anxiety, and science knowledge in preservice elemen-
tary teachers. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
Atlanta, GA
Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preservice
elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Education, 79(1), 63–75.
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: a study on teachers’ beliefs
when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72, 227–243.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationship among experience, teacher efficacy and attitudes toward the
implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 451–458.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: theoretical develop-
ments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self, concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional
innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: a study of construct factors. American Educational
Research Journal, 31(3), 627–643.
Henry, M., Murray, K. S., & Phillips, K. A. (2007). Meeting the challenge of STEM classroom observation in
evaluating teacher development projects: A comparison of two widely used instruments. St. Louis: Henry
Consulting.
Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17, 819–836.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research
Journal, 27, 279–300.
Lawson, A., Benford, R., Bloom, I., Carlson, M., Falconer, K., Hestenes, D., et al. (2002). Evaluating college
science and mathematics instruction; a reform effort that improves teaching skills. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 31(6), 388.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
MacIsaac, D., & Falconer, K. (2001). Using the reform teacher observation protocol (RTOP) as a catalyst for
self-reflective change in secondary science teaching. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Association of Physics Teachers, Rochester, NY.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mendro, R. L. (1998). Student achievement and school and teacher accountability. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 257–267.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (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.
Miskel, C., McDonald, D., & Bloom, S. (1983). Structural and expectancy linkages within schools and
organizational effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 19, 49–82.
Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992). Teacher effcacy, power, school climate and achievement: A desegregating
district’s experience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco.
Ortactepe, D. (2006). The relationship between teacher efficacy and professional development within the
scope of an in-service teacher education program. Unpublished Master dissertation, Bogazici University.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of
Education, 17(1), 51–65.
Ross, J. A. (1994). The impact of an inservice to promote cooperative learning on the stability of teacher
efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 381–394.
Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 12(4), 385–400.
Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., et al. (2000). Reformed teaching
observation protocol (RTOP) training guide. (ACEPT Technical Report No.IN00-2). Collaborative for
Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers, Arizona State University.
Smeal, M. A. (2008). Exploring beliefs and practices of teachers of secondary mathematics who participated
in a standards-based preservice education program. Proceedings of the 5th Annual TEAM-Math
Partnership Conference Pre-Session. Tuskegee: Tuskegee University.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: the relationships
between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 16, 649–659.
1452 T. Temiz, M.S. Topcu

Stein, M., & Wang, M. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: the process of teacher change.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171–187.
Sullivan, L. E. (2009). The Sage glossary of the social and behavioral sciences. New York: Sage.
Swackhamer, L. E., Koellner, K., Basile, C., & Kimbrough, D. (2009). Increasing the self-efficacy of inservice
teachers through content knowledge. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(2), 63–78.
Takahashi, S. (2011). Co-constructing efficacy: a “communities of practice” perspective on teachers’ efficacy
beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 732–741.
Topcu, M. S. (2011). Turkish elementary student teachers’ epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 99–125.
Topcu, M. S., & Uygun-Temiz, T. (2012). Translation and Validation of the Reformed Teaching Observation
Protocol (RTOP) into Turkish. National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis-
Indiana, USA, March, 25–28.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 17, 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, 944–956.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure.
Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81–91.

Tugba Temiz. Research Assistant, Faculty of Education, Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, Turkiye. E-mail:
tugba.temiz86@gmail.com

Current themes of research:

Teachers’ beliefs. Educational practice.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Topcu, M. S., & Uygun-Temiz, T. (2012). Translation and Validation of the Reformed Teaching Observation
Protocol (RTOP) into Turkish. National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis-Indiana,
USA, March, 25–28.

Mustafa Sami Topcu. Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla,
Turkiye. E-mail: msamitopcu@gmail.com

Current themes of research:

Socioscientific issues. Argumentation. Teachers’ beliefs and educational practices.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. & Topcu, M. S. (2008). Relationships among Preservice Science Teachers’ Epistemological
Beliefs, Epistemological World Views, and Self-efficacy Beliefs. International Journal of Science Education,
30(1), 65–85.

Topcu, M. S. (2011). Turkish Elementary Student Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs and Moral Reasoning.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 99–125.