Heliyon 9 (2023) e16854

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Understanding and practice of active learning among upper

primary school science and mathematics teachers
Kassa Michael a, *, Mekbib Alemu a, Yekoyealem Desie b, Mulugeta Atnafu a,
Shimelis Assefa a, Challa Regassa a, Habtamu Wodaj a, Abera Abate a
a
Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
b
School of Psychology, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Active learning methods have established significance in the teaching-learning of science and
Active learning mathematics. This study investigated the understanding, beliefs, self-efficacy, practices, and
Science and mathematics challenges of active learning among upper primary school (grades 7 and 8) science and mathe­
Teachers’ understanding
matics teachers in Ethiopia. Data were collected from 155 teachers drawn from nine schools of
Teachers’ practices
Addis Ababa, Amhara, and the Southern Regional States using validated questionnaires and
Teachers’ challenges
observation. Descriptive analysis was employed to make meaning of the collected data. The result
showed that teachers lack to have an appropriate understanding of active learning. But they have
shown fairly consistent positive belief and self-efficacy about the outcomes of active learning if
they use them in their classes. Teachers believed that they implement active learning to a higher
extent. The result further indicated that teachers differ in their understanding, practices, and
efficacy of active learning across their gender and educational levels. High teaching load, large
class size, lack of teachers’ motivation, shorter instructional time, the subject they teach, absence
of guidelines for active learning methods at school, and lack of appropriate knowledge and skill of
active learning methods were the common challenges reported by teachers. The findings of this
study imply that there is a need to enhance teachers’ understanding of active learning and to
provide continuous support to them to use active learning even in challenging situations.

1. Introduction

Contemporary advancement of the need for effective student learning focuses on developing the core attributes of effective
teaching-learning. Among those critical needs is the use of active learning. Active learning comprises a wide range of activities that are
defined as any instructional method that engages students in the learning process [1]. Active learning is also an approach to teaching
that requires students to demonstrate their learning through doing things and provides an alternative to more passive forms of
knowledge acquisition, such as listening to lectures [2]. Hence, it becomes essential to enhance teachers’ understanding of the content
they teach and equip them with a range of strategies that enable their students to learn that content [3]. Developments in the un­
derstanding of learning, and science studies strongly evidenced that students can have a deep understanding of science and mathe­
matics and be scientifically literate citizens when they are allowed to learn in conditions where they are active. Active learning not only
develops the cognitive aspect of science and mathematics but also gives students chances to expand their horizons of knowledge into

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: raskassamichael@gmail.com (K. Michael).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16854
Received 2 December 2022; Received in revised form 27 May 2023; Accepted 31 May 2023
Available online 1 June 2023
2405-8440/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
K. Michael et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16854

the epistemological and social aspects of learning [4].

Developing students’ knowledge and abilities beyond the cognitive aspect are demanded by the complex life requirements of 21
century [5]. As knowledge regarding human development and learning has grown at a rapid pace, the opportunity to shape more
effective educational practices has also increased [6]. Given these, it is underscored that societal problem-solving is one of the
fundamental outcomes of Ethiopian Education (Ministry of Education [7,8] that seeks the implementation of active learning. The goal
of active learning is to enhance students’ abilities to frame, investigate, and solve problems; improve their ability to acquire and
evaluate information; allow them to effectively participate in the activities that take place inside the classroom, develop the ability to
collaborate effectively with others; enrich the ability to work with a variety of technologies; and stimulate the ability to develop new
ideas and products [9,10]. Development of such fundamental abilities with the usual direct instruction without the active involvement
of students is difficult if not impossible.
Active learning, in Ethiopia, is one of the major focuses of education and training policy. It has been indicated as one of the core
principles and functions of instruction in various national educational programs such as the education sector development programs III
and IV [8,11], the recent ESDP V (program for 2015/16–2019/20) [12] and ESDP VI (program for 2020/21–2024/25) [13]. The K – 12
curricular framework of Ethiopia [14] and the General education curriculum framework [15] also adopt the principles of active
learning and a competency-based approach to education as the most flexible means to achieve the desired changes. Research and
anecdotal pieces of evidence overwhelmingly support the claim that students learn best when they engage with course materials and
actively participate in their learning [5,16]. However, researchers who looked into Ethiopian education agreed that direct instruction
has been the whole mark of school pedagogy [17,18,19,20,21,22]. Teachers frequently utilize lectures (chalk-and-talk) at all levels:
primary schools [20], secondary schools [23], and tertiary levels [18,19,20,21,22] were not productive in students learning and
consequently their achievement. In comparison to some low-income nations in the world, Ethiopian children scored the least in lit­
eracy and numeracy tests [24,25,26].]. In the national learning assessments conducted in four years intervals, a formidable decline
below the already low achievement baseline was observed for primary school children [19,22]. In addition to the poor achievement
levels reported in the various research and government reports, a study by Joshi and Verspoor indicated that there were increasing
achievement gaps between male and female students and also between urban and rural schools [23]. The problem is severing in those
fields of science and mathematics.
Active learning is also bound to teachers’ roles as it is the teacher who has to judiciously select from a variety of strategies and
techniques to most effectively enable learners to develop deep understandings of the topics and meet the intended learning targets [3]
and approach the classroom instruction in ways that are not solely bound into the usual lecture and talk-chalk method, but active
involvement of the learners in their learning. Thus, it is essential to study active learning starting from how teachers conceptualize
active learning to what beliefs and self-efficacy they hold, and how they practice it in class to come up with an impactful understanding
of the situation that could serve as a platform for change [22,27]. It is also useful to investigate if the theoretical principles of active
learning for effective teaching of science and mathematics are being properly understood and implemented by science and mathe­
matics teachers.

1.1. Teachers’ understanding, beliefs, efficacies, practices, and challenges of active learning

Active learning is conceptually fluid with which teachers develop varying understandings. According to Sethushaany attempt to
improve the quality of teaching must begin with teachers’ understanding of their understanding of learning and teaching, and whether
and how these relate to their pedagogical practices [28]. However, the implementation of active learning in everyday classrooms
remains a problematic issue. Many teachers not only find this approach demanding but also remain unclear about what they should do
to foster this type of approach in their classrooms [29]. Due to such varying understanding and the assumption that active learning is a
demanding endeavor, many teachers still use traditional teachings such as lectures and the inability to create scientific activity [16].
Despite the varying assumptions, some claim that there is a critical need to determine what teacher knowledge is important for the
effective implementation of active-learning instruction [30]. These suggest one has grounded content knowledge and appropriate
understanding and implementation of active learning that helps transform meaningful instruction. So it is wise to uncover teachers’
understanding of active learning which dictates their beliefs, and implementation practices.
Teachers’ belief is one of the factors that impact their practice and active learning heavily depends on how teachers execute their
roles whereas their roles also depend on their beliefs. So, investigating whether teachers believe to take their roles in implementing
active learning and ensuring student learning is paramount.
Teacher self-efficacy has been associated with several factors of teaching effectiveness [31]. It is, believed to be one of the major
ingredients in building capability and in implementing active learning. Accordingly, active learning seeks an improved level of
self-efficacy belief of teachers which must be higher than average [32].
Active learning is exposed to various factors that challenge its successful implementation. While some emerge from the belief and
competence of teachers themselves, others are accounted for factors external to the teacher. In support of this Nekatibeb indicated that
in Ethiopian primary schools practicing and promoting active learning methods pose enormous challenges in the classroom [33]. It is
hence useful to investigate what challenges teachers are facing in their implementation of active learning in upper primary schools of
Ethiopia, beyond understanding, belief, and self-efficacy.
Efforts to introduce teachers to student-centered instructional pedagogy have been undertaken in Ethiopia for some years,
particularly after the introduction of the Teacher Education System Overhaul (TESO) program was introduced in 2003. Though there
have been all these concerted efforts by the government and other important stakeholders in the education sector to sensitize and
support teachers about the use of active learning in Ethiopia, much is needed to know how teachers conceptualize active learning,

2
K. Michael et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16854

beliefs about active learning, the efficacy of teachers, their practices, and challenges of using active learning in their instructional
activities. Particularly studies about upper primary school science and mathematics teachers are lacking, though science and math­
ematics education is a priority area of the nation [14,15]. Interventions that ultimately aim to increase the quality of science and
mathematics teaching require a proper understanding of teachers’ understanding, practices, and challenges of active learning, among
others. Therefore, the present study was intended to examine upper primary school science and mathematics teachers’ understanding,
belief, self-efficacy, practice, and challenges in the use of active learning in the teaching-learning process.
This study sought to address the following general and specific objectives:
The general objective of the study is to examine understanding, belief, self-efficacy, practice, and challenges of active learning
among upper primary school science and mathematics teachers in Ethiopia. The specific objectives to account for these include to:

1. identify how teachers conceptualize active learning

2. examine teachers’ beliefs and efficacy about the use of active learning in teaching science and mathematics subjects
3. examine the practice of active learning in teaching science and mathematics subjects in upper primary schools in Ethiopia, and
4. identify major challenges experienced by teachers in using active learning in teaching science and mathematics subjects in upper
primary schools

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Design

Survey research refers to a particular type of research design where the primary method of data collection is by survey, and surveys
are used as a tool by researchers to gain a greater understanding of individual or group perspectives relative to a particular concept or
topic of interest [34]. Several survey types include exploratory, descriptive, and causal, and descriptive research is an appropriate
choice when the research aim is to identify characteristics, frequencies, trends, and categories. As this study planned to identify un­
derstanding, examine beliefs, and efficacy on the use of active learning in middle school in Ethiopia, a descriptive survey research
method was preferred. The survey consisted of a set of structured questions to obtain specific information from teachers on how they
conceptualize active learning and their belief and efficacy in using active learning including the challenges they face to implement it.

2.2. Participants and sampling

The participants of this study were upper primary school (grades 7 and 8) science and mathematics teachers sampled from three
regions of Ethiopia: Addis Ababa City Administration, Amhara, and Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region (SNNPR).
The regions were purposely selected as science and mathematics subjects were offered in the English language starting from grade 7 in
those regions. It was believed that this would help mitigate confounding problems that would limit variables to perform comparisons
across regions.
The study followed a multistage cluster sampling method. Initially, nine administrative sites, three zones from each region, and
three sub-cities from the Addis Ababa city administration were selected using simple random sampling. The two regions and Addis
Ababa City Administration have roughly comparable numbers of administrative sites (zones and sub-cities). After securing the zones or
sub-cities, three schools, one school from each zone and sub-city, and a total of nine schools were selected using a simple random
sampling technique. Then, all science and mathematics teachers (n = 155) in the selected schools were included as participants in the
study. Table 1 presents the regional and demographic distributions of the participants.
Regional distribution of the participants presented in Table 1 indicates that nearly 19% were from Addis Ababa, 42% from SNNPR,
and 39% from the Amhara Regional States. In terms of gender, 41 (26.5%) were female teachers and 114 (73.5%) were males. The chi-

Table 1
Regional and demographic profile of the participants (n = 155).
Variables n %

Region Addis Ababa 29 18.7

SNNPRa 65 41.9
Amhara 61 39.4
Gender Female 41 26.5
Male 114 73.5
Educational Level Diploma 96 61.9
Degree 59 38.1
Subject they teach Biology 35 22.6
Chemistry 41 26.5
Mathematics 51 32.9
Physics 28 18.1
Service year 1 to 5 years 16 10.3
6 to 15 Years 67 43.2
Above 15 years 72 46.5
a
SNNPR – Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region.

3
K. Michael et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16854

square test showed that there was an uneven distribution of the two genders over the subject matter they teach. The uneven distri­
bution was noted to be due to a little bit more male chemistry teachers than expected and a relatively larger number of female biology
teachers than expected (χ2 = 12.05, df = 3, n = 155, p = 0.007). Ninety-six (61.9%) were diploma holders and 59 (38.1%) were
bachelor’s degree holders. In terms of teaching experience, 16 (10.3%) were beginners with experience of fewer than six years, 67
(43.2%) with experience of six to 14 years, and 72 (46.5%) were senior teachers with experience of 15 years and above.

2.3. Data collection instruments

Data was collected by using questionnaires and classroom observation that was conducted during the first semester of the 2020/
2021 academic year.

2.3.1. Questionnaire
38 items of a five-point Likert scale-type self-report questionnaire were developed by the authors based on an extensive literature
review. The questionnaire was classified into five subscales: understanding of active learning (5 items), belief towards active learning
(7 items), self-efficacy of teachers in implementing active learning (5 items), the classroom-level practice of active learning (12 items),
and challenges teachers face to implement active learning in teaching science and mathematics in upper primary schools (9 items). The
questionnaire also contains items about the background characteristics of the participants. The questionnaire was reviewed by experts
and colleagues for face and content validity. The questionnaire was pilot tested for reliability at a school that was not considered for the
final data collection on 40 teachers and the reliability coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.84 for the entire questionnaire and above
0.7 for each subscale which shows acceptable internal consistency reliability with an acceptable alpha.

2.3.2. Observation
A classroom observation checklist was developed by the researchers to check how teachers implement active learning strategies
and how they manifest their self-reported understanding, beliefs, and self-efficacy in class. The observation checklist was designed to
be in correspondence with the questionnaire, largely with the twelve items subscales of teachers’ practice in implementing active
learning. It also included additional observation items related to the teacher’s confidence and challenges encountered in class. The
observation checklist was used to triangulate data obtained from the teachers’ questionnaire. The observation protocol thus accounted
for data gathered through the questionnaire and was tracked against the implementation of active learning in the classroom. This
helped to relate the understanding, belief, and self-efficacy the teachers demonstrated in their response to the questionnaire and their
practice in the classroom. Classroom observations were conducted once for each teacher per subject per school during the study period.
A total of 72 teachers were observed.

2.4. Data collection procedures and ethical issues

The tools were developed by the researchers and they were pilot tested for internal consistency at a school that was not included in
the final study. After pilot testing of the instruments, six Ph.D. students from the department of science and mathematics education
were recruited and got trained for data collection. As noted earlier target schools were selected in advance, and the data collectors were
deployed to each of the regions in teams to visit the schools and collect data. School principals of the selected schools were reached and
permission for data collection was gained. After securing the consent from the principals, the data collectors contacted science and
mathematics teachers in the selected schools and obtained their oral consent. Teachers were briefed about the purpose of the study.
Teachers completed the questionnaires with the guidance of the data collectors and a 100% response rate was attained. After the
questionnaire was collected a follow-up classroom observation was conducted in pairs one from the Ph.D. students and one from the
research team, and the observation checklist was filled through discussion of the two observers. The data collected were coded and
entered into SPSS 24, and cleaned for data analysis. Items that were negatively worded were inversely coded to ensure unidimen­
sionality. Anonymity and confidentiality are respected to protect the identity of participants. The thematic research project from which
this article was extracted secured ethical approval by the institutional review board of the College of Education and Behavioral Studies,
Addis Ababa University. The ethical approval Reference No. is CEBS_IRB/003/2022.

2.5. Methods of data analysis

Data were entered, cleaned, and analyzed with IBM SPSS version 24. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to make
meaning of the collected data. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentages, mean and standard deviation were used to
summarize participants’ profiles and describe teachers’ understanding, belief, efficacy, practice, and challenges. Inferential statistics
(Independent t-tests, ANOVAs, Chi-square) were used to examine variations between genders, educational levels, regions, subjects
they teach, and service years, and the fitness of the proportionality of observed against expected frequencies. While making the
analysis, a mean for the five-point Likert scale (with minimum = 1 and maximum = 5) was computed. A mean of less than 3 (the central
location of the scale) was considered to disagree and a mean of more than 3 in to agree. A mean close to 3 was considered as a neutral
opinion representing neither disagree nor agree. For the descriptive frequency and percentages, the scales of agree and strongly agree
(and disagree and strongly disagree) were unified to indicate the proportion of those who stand to agree and disagree, clustering the
five levels into three. Observation data were organized in parallel to the sub-sections of the questionnaire data and these were analyzed
quantitatively to triangulate the results obtained from the questionnaire data.

4
K. Michael et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16854

3. Results

3.1. Teachers’ understanding of active learning

Teachers’ understanding of active learning was assessed based on five core areas of active learning methods as roles of the teacher,
the role of students, students learning outcome, the instructional process, and assessment. Teachers were required to rate their
agreement to the five statements on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. However, in the analysis,
the five-point scales were unified into three: agree, neutral, and disagree. The means and standard deviations were also determined for
each item with which a mean of less than 3 (the central location of the scale) represents disagreement, more than 3 represents
agreement, and a mean close to 3 is neutral. This means the higher the mean, the better teachers’ understanding of active learning. In
addition, negatively worded items were reverse-coded before the mean ratings were calculated. Table 2 presents the frequency dis­
tribution of teachers’ ratings and the means of the ratings.
The overall mean (M = 2.66, SD = 0.52) for teachers’ understanding of active learning tends to show poor understanding. But, for
some of the items, for example, assessment, there was a mean score (M = 3.97, SD = 0.97) indicating that the teachers understand
assessment as a part of the instructional process. The majority of the teachers (82.5%) agreed with this statement which is an indication
of a good understanding of assessment as part of active learning. However, the same proportion of teachers agreed that active learning
considers the teacher as a knowledge source, which is against the characteristics of active learning. The other favorable response to
active learning was whether students should be “passive receivers of knowledge during instruction”, which was disagreed by about half
of the respondents (49.7%). However, about the same proportion of primary school teachers either accepted the idea (39.3%) or
assumed a neutral position (11%). These results indicate that many of the teachers do not have an appropriate understanding of active
learning or they have varying understandings of it depending on specific characteristics. Further, the low mean scores of the items
‘teaching-learning is the responsibility of the teacher’ (M = 2.15 and SD = 1.23) and ‘the focus is on student’s mastery of content
knowledge’ (M = 2.09 and SD = 1.02), respectively corroborate the conclusion that the primary school teachers do not have
appropriate understanding of active learning. The major features of direct teaching, high status to the teacher in the teaching-learning
process, and high emphasis on subject matter content were found to be still the main understanding held by the majority of the teachers
(75.5% and 78.1%, respectively).

3.2. Teachers’ beliefs about active learning

Teachers’ belief in active learning is one of the key determinant factors that affect practice. With this view, upper primary school
teachers were asked to rate their belief in active learning as this would influence what works in the teaching-learning process.
According to the data in Table 3, upper primary school science and mathematics teachers seem to believe that active learning has a
more positive impact on students learning. Their overall mean rating was M = 3.86 with SD = 0.57. The small standard deviation of
their overall belief about active learning implies that the teachers responded similarly to the seven items. From the mean of 3.86 which
stands towards the positive side of the scale, we can say that upper primary school science and mathematics teachers have positive
beliefs about the outcomes of active learning if they use them in their classes. In arriving at this mean rating, the teachers’ response to
item 5 (I believe active learning methods discourage students’ science/math learning.) is interpreted in reverse. Accordingly, about
half of the respondents (n = 77, 49.68%) disagreed with the statement while a significant proportion (n = 60, 38.71%) of them showed
that they agree that the use of active learning in their lessons would “discourage” their students from learning of science and
mathematics.
When responses against each item were considered, the majority of the teachers (128, 82.6%) believe that in active learning they
are the ones to facilitate students’ learning. About the same number of teachers (127, 82%) believe that their students learn best in
active learning from seeking solutions to solving problems by themselves. Equally, a significant number of teachers (n = 107, 69.03%)
believe that thinking of solutions to practical problems should be done by students themselves before the teacher gives hints or
clarification of the problem. Even though the mean implied positive belief, teachers were divided into two groups in responding to the
effect of active learning on students’ motivation. In contrast to their emphasis on content learning, in the understanding responses, the
teachers highly rated M = 4.23 with 137 (88.4%) of them agreeing with the potential of active learning in promoting critical thinking.
From the responses, one can see varying views among teachers which could have emanated from various factors, but this demands the
implementation of some support to teachers to improve their beliefs on active learning and its influence in learning science and

Table 2
Science and mathematics teachers’ conception on active learning methods (n = 155).
Variables Disagree Neutral Agree Mean SD

n % n % N %

Teaching- learning is the responsibility of the teacher 30 19.35 8 5.16 117 75.48 2.15 1.233
The focus is on student’s mastery of content knowledge 21 13.55 13 8.39 121 78.06 2.09 1.022
Assessment is taken as a part of the process of instruction 12 7.74 15 9.68 128 82.58 3.97 0.97
Gives emphasis to the teacher as a knowledgeable person of the subject matter 17 10.97 10 6.45 128 82.58 1.85 1.037
students are the passive receivers of knowledge in the process of instruction 77 49.68 17 10.97 61 39.35 3.25 1.443
Conception on Active Learning (Grand Mean) 2.66 0.52

5
K. Michael et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16854

Table 3
Teachers’ Rating of their Belief about Active Learning (n = 155).
No Variables Disagree Neutral Agree Mean SD

I believe that n % n % n %

1 My role is to facilitate students’ own learning 17 10.97 10 6.45 128 82.58 4.09 0.976
2 Students learn best by finding solutions to problems on their own 17 10.97 11 7.10 127 81.94 3.97 1.022
3 Students should be allowed to think of solutions to practical problems themselves 33 21.29 15 9.68 107 69.03 3.68 1.134
before the teacher shows them how they are solved
4 Thinking and reasoning processes are more important than passively listening to the 14 9.03 23 14.84 118 76.13 4.01 0.967
lecture
5 Active learning methods discourage students’ science/math learning. 77 49.68 18 11.61 60 38.71 3.26 1.498
6 Students learn more effectively when they learn through active learning methods 13 8.39 7 4.52 135 87.10 4.29 0.919
7 Active learning methods promote critical thinking in students 13 8.39 5 3.23 137 88.39 4.23 0.889
The belief in Active Learning (Grand Mean) 3.86 0.57

mathematics.

3.3. Teachers’ self-efficacy toward using active learning

As can be seen from Table 4, teachers showed stronger confidence in their ability to use active learning (M = 4.09, SD = 0.98). The
majority of them (n = 123, 79.35%) said that they are confident. Only about 20% of these teachers are either not sure or do not think
that they are confident about their ability to use active learning. Le Fevre stated that the confidence teachers have to appropriately
implement that pedagogy determines whether they use it in their classes [35]. In this regard, respondents were asked to rate their
confidence through the item ‘I am not sure about what to do in using active learning methods in my class. Still, the majority of them (n
= 103, 66%) disagreed with the statement indicating their knowledge of what to do in class. The majority of them (n = 110, 71%) think
that they have sufficient knowledge and skills in active learning methods. They also expressed their confidence in their ability to relate
their students learning with real life (M = 3.81, SD = 0.98), and that their resourcefulness in handling problems in teaching with active
learning (M = 3.59, SD = 1.02). The overall mean self-efficacy rating of the teachers’ was M = 3.54 (SD = 0.59) which tends to be
positive but not found to be strong enough, to seek further intervention to empower teachers’ confidence.

3.4. Science and mathematics teachers’ practice of active learning

From Table 5 one can see that the overall average of the rating of the respondents is (M = 4.06, SD = 0.564) which depicts that
upper primary school teachers perceive they practice active learning better and to a higher extent. Their perception was reflected in
that they are implementing active learning by “creating a classroom environment that supports active learning” (M = 4.2, SD = 0.98)
in which their students were “actively engaged” (M = 3.94, SD = 0.96) in hands-on/practical learning activities, (M = 3.97, SD =
1.01), and individual (M = 4.09, SD = 0.96) and group (M = 4.18, SD = 0.90) reflection activities. They also exhibited that they think
they are implementing active learning because they believe “active learning helps students to think critically” (M = 4.26, SD = 0.74)
and let them seek solutions to problems by collaborating in learning activities (M = 4.00, SD = 0.97). Their positive perception of their
practice concerning active learning was also reflected in the majority’s high rating of the use of multiple teaching methods (n = 134,
86.45%) and instructional strategies to accommodate students’ diversity and needs (n = 119, 76.77%). The mean for preference of
classes in which students are quiet (M = 2.15, SD = 1.08) does not seem to be supported by the majority of the teachers’ (n = 112,
72.3%) perception of implementing active learning. Although teachers have the perception that they are implementing active learning
properly, they had challenges in fully manifesting active learning in the classrooms. This seeks further investigation in association with
understanding, belief, and self-efficacy.

3.5. Challenges to implement active learning

The upper primary school science and mathematics teachers were asked to rate factors that negatively affect them when

Table 4
Teachers’ Rating of their Self-Efficacy in Active Learning (n = 155).
No Variables Disagree Neutral Agree

n % n % n % Mean SD

1 I am confident in my ability to use active learning methods 13 8.39 19 12.26 123 79.35 4.09 .976
2 I have sufficient knowledge and skills in active learning methods 24 15.48 21 13.55 110 70.97 3.86 1.131
3 I am not sure about what to do in using active learning methods in my class 103 66.45 16 10.32 36 23.23 3.66 1.26
4 I thank my resourcefulness; I know how to handle problems in my teaching 27 17.42 30 19.35 98 63.23 3.59 1.024
5 I can relate students learning to real life 18 11.61 35 22.58 102 65.81 3.81 .981
Self-efficacy in Active Learning (Grand Mean) 3.54 .595

6
K. Michael et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16854

Table 5
Teachers’ Perceptions of their Practices of Active Learning (n = 155).
No Variables Not better practice Neutral Good Practice Mean SD

In my teaching I n % n % n %

1 try to create a classroom environment that supports active learning 13 8.39 10 6.45 132 85.16 4.2 .976
2 prefer classes in which students are quiet 24 15.48 19 12.26 112 72.26 2.15 1.08
3 actively engage students in my classes 18 11.61 16 10.32 121 78.06 3.94 .958
4 let students be involved in hands-on/practical learning activities 18 11.61 24 15.48 113 72.90 3.97 1.01
5 encourage students to individually reflect on activities 16 10.32 14 9.03 125 80.65 4.09 .963
6 help students relate classroom instruction with real life 10 6.45 18 11.61 127 81.94 4.15 .889
7 design good questions/activities for students 4 2.58 5 3.23 146 94.19 4.36 .701
8 help students think critically 6 3.87 9 5.81 140 90.32 4.26 .737
9 support students to reflect on activities in pairs/groups 12 7.74 9 5.81 134 86.45 4.18 .901
10 use more than two teaching methods in one lesson 17 10.97 19 12.26 119 76.77 3.97 1.016
11 vary instructional strategies to accommodate student diversity and need 15 9.68 27 17.42 113 72.90 3.79 .845
12 let students collaborate in learning activities & come up with solutions 14 9.03 21 13.55 120 77.42 4.00 .967
The practice of Active Learning (Grand Mean) 4.06 .564

implementing active learning. The mean score of their rating indicated in Table 6 is 3.43 (SD = 0.87). However, it is surprising that
every factor was rated as a limiting factor while they strongly claimed that they have confidence in using active learning and they
indeed claimed that they are implementing it in their class. Even though their mean ratings of all the challenge items in the ques­
tionnaire were not significantly different from each other (Mmin = 3.27 and Mmax = 3.65), they put “High teaching load” (M = 3.65, SD
= 1.25), “Large class size” (M = 3.61, SD = 1.41), and “Lack of teachers’ motivation” (M = 3.55, SD = 1.32) as the top three limiting
factors. The teachers (n = 90, 58.1%) also indicated that the instructional time is short to implement active learning. A little more than
half of the respondent teachers (n = 84, 54.2%) indicated that the nature of the subject they teach does not allow them to use active
learning in their teaching (M = 3.28, SD = 1.23). About half of the respondent teachers (n = 81, 52.3%) said that the “Absence of
guideline/manual for active learning methods at school” is another reason that negatively affected their use of active learning in their
science and mathematics classes. About half of the respondent teachers also attributed the negative influence to their own “Lack of
appropriate knowledge and skill” of active learning methods (M = 3.28, SD = 1.36). These all high ratings of the challenges indicate
that teachers have difficulties implementing active learning methods in their classes for teaching science and mathematics. These
indicate that teachers have heard of active learning and feel they are confident in implementing it, but the actual practice is a challenge
that seeks critical thinking as to how these should be mitigated.

3.6. Further analysis of teachers’ understanding, belief, self-efficacy, and practice of active learning

In the above responses of the participant teachers in terms of understanding, belief, self-efficacy, practices, and challenges were
presented independently. In Table 7, the aggregate mean ratings for the first four variables are presented to show the relationships
between the primary teachers’ responses for each variable.
The data in Table 7 exhibit that upper primary school teachers claimed that they strongly believe they were implementing active
learning (M = 4.06, SD = 0.56) even if they do not have an adequate understanding (M = 2.66, SD = 0.52) of what active learning is. In
addition, those teachers demonstrated that they have positive beliefs (M = 3.86, SD = 0.57) about the purpose of active learning
methods in their teaching. As it stands, the data seems to indicate that there are encouraging results about the status of active learning
in science and mathematics grade 7 & 8 classes though teachers have a poor understanding of active learning. However, a closer look at
the data in Table 7 and a detailed investigation of the teachers’ responses at each item level revealed that there are problems. There is
an incompatibility between a high claim for the actual implementation of active learning in their classes and a low and inconsistent
understanding. Further, the high self-efficacy the teachers claimed to have in active learning and the favorable belief in the contri­
bution of active learning to students learning cannot be anything other than the desire to conform to what seems mandated by the

Table 6
Teachers’ rating of challenges of use of active learning (n = 155).
Variables Lower influence Neutral Higher influence Mean SD

No n % n % n %

1 Large class size 42 27.10 12 7.74 101 65.16 3.61 1.411

2 Absence of guidelines/manual for Active learning methods at school 54 34.84 20 12.90 81 52.26 3.27 1.34
3 Lack of appropriate knowledge and skill 50 32.26 27 17.42 78 50.32 3.28 1.365
4 Lack of resources, materials, equipment 48 30.97 20 12.90 87 56.13 3.41 1.328
5 Negative attitude towards active learning method 54 34.84 28 18.06 73 47.10 3.28 1.333
6 High teaching load 38 24.52 24 15.48 93 60.00 3.65 1.246
7 Lack of teachers’ motivation 42 27.10 17 10.97 96 61.94 3.55 1.32
8 The nature of my subject matter 45 29.03 26 16.77 84 54.19 3.28 1.231
9 Shortage of instructional time 37 23.87 28 18.06 90 58.06 3.50 1.17
Challenge in Applying Active Learning Methods (Grand Mean) 3.43 .874

7
K. Michael et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16854

Table 7
Descriptive data about teachers’ overall conception, belief, self-efficacy, and practice of active learning (n = 155).
n Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

The conception of active learning 155 1.60 4.40 2.66 .517

Belief about the purpose of active learning 155 2.00 5.00 3.86 .569
Self-Efficacy of using active learning 155 2.20 5.00 3.53 .595
Perception of practice in teaching 155 2.08 5.00 4.06 .565

social discourse.
The teachers’ higher claim about their implementation of active learning (M = 4.06, SD = 0.56) and the higher rating (M = 3.43,
SD = 0.87) of all the possible challenges indicate the prevalence of a problem in actually implementing active learning in their class. In
addition, the high rating of challenges also indicates the doubt that there is a profoundness of the high self-efficacy claims.
Theoretically, those who have a better understanding are expected to have better self-efficacy and practice, but in the context of this
study, this does not seem to happen. From the results indicated in Table 8, belief in self-efficacy, and both with practice have shown to
have a positive and statistically significant correlation. But, the lack of significant correlation between these variables with under­
standing seeks further examination.
From the classroom observation data, it was noted that all of the teachers were implementing the direct instruction approach in
which more than 90% of class time was used by the teacher for lecturing and writing notes on the chalkboard. Even the very short time
left for students’ independent work was left for a poorly organized group exercise that seeks mere facts which were already given in the
teachers’ presentation or the textbook. The “problem-solving” activities given to the groups were to be solved by inserting given
numerical values in the formula that the teacher already discussed during the presentation part of the lesson. Thus, one can see that the
primary school teachers’ self-responded high levels of self-efficacy and positive beliefs about active learning did not lead to a favorable
practice concerning active learning in reality.
Taking sex, region, educational qualification level, subject teachers teach, and service year as demographic variables, inferential
statistics (t-test and ANOVA) were used to see if groups were different in their perceptions of active learning and their understanding,
belief, self-efficacy, practice, and challenges. Primary school science and mathematics teachers in the different demographic groups
were found to have in general similar ratings except at very few points. While the teachers’ understanding of active learning, in
general, was low, a statistically significant different result was observed between the two sexes (t = 2.234, df = 153, p = 0.027 < 0.05)
in favor of female teachers (Mfemale = 2.81 > Mmale = 2.61). The teachers were also found to have a statistically significant difference
by educational level and region for their self-efficacy ratings. Bachelor degree holders (M = 3.69, SD = 0.587) were found to have a
higher rating (t = 2.550, df = 153, p = 0.012 < 0.05) than diploma holders (M = 3.442, SD = 0.586). Further, the teachers statistically
significantly differed (N = 29, 65, 61, F = 7.883, p = 0.001 <0 .05) by a region where teachers in Addis Ababa City (M = 3.81, SD =
0.574) had a higher rating than Amhara region (M = 3.32, SD = 0.554).

4. Discussion

This study was conceived to investigate upper primary school science and mathematics teachers’ understanding, belief, self-
efficacy, the practice of active learning, and the challenges they face to implement active learning in their instructional process.
Data gathered from upper primary school teachers from Addis Ababa City, Amhara region, and SNNP region with a self-reported
questionnaire and observation were used to address the above purpose of the study. The analyses of the data revealed that upper
primary school science and mathematics teachers from the three regions have a uniformly lower level of understanding of active
learning. Even if researchers put the knowledge of theoretical principles of active learning as preconditions for effective use of the
method in science and mathematics teaching (for example [27], the finding in the current study indicated understanding is a problem
among the upper primary school teachers.
The teachers’ understanding was not just low, but the understanding about individual natures of active learning was also found to
be self-contradictory where they rated high for some and lower for others. As the literature indicates, in student-centered and active
learning classrooms the teacher is more of a learning facilitator than a knowledge dispenser, and assessment, which is an integral part
of instruction, has a formative purpose [4,36]. However, the upper primary school teachers perceived themselves as critical knowledge
sources while at the same time, they recognized assessment as an important part of active learning.
Upper primary school science and mathematics teachers from the three regions claimed that they have highly positive beliefs about
the role of active learning in impacting learning which is in line with the theory of active learning [5,16]. Those teachers also showed a

Table 8
Association between the key variables of conception, belief, self-efficacy, and practice of active learning (n = 155).
1 2 3 4

1. Understanding of Active Learning 1 − .089 − .070 − .020

2. Belief in Active Learning 1 .446a .515a
3. Self-efficacy in Active Learning 1 .463a
4. Practice of Active Learning 1
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

8
K. Michael et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16854

high level of confidence in their capacity to successfully implement it in their classes. The positive beliefs and high confidence were
encouraging even if other studies with a direct teaching background indicated that teachers would have a high level of belief in
traditional teaching than in constructivist approaches such as active learning [37]. However, these positive perceptions the teachers
have are confusing when viewed in light of their low and contradictory rating of understanding items.
Practically the research into Ethiopian science and mathematics classrooms reveals that teachers are practicing the traditional
chalk-and-talk approach of teaching in their classrooms [20,23,38]. In contrast to this Meral and Colak found that teachers with a
strong belief in traditional teaching confirm it with their direct teaching practice [37]. In this research, the primary school teachers
highly rated (M = 4.06 on a 5-point scale) their implementation of active learning in their classes. The finding is that these teachers are
claiming a high level of implementation of active learning even though their understanding was found to be low and that this claim is
all against what has been reported in other studies and from observation. These require further investigation of the teachers’ classroom
practice.
As indicated in the result section, classroom observations were conducted in the sample schools from the three regions. The results
of the observation, as indicated above, were not confirming the teachers’ claims. All of the observed teachers were found to be engaged
in direct teaching where they were lecturing and writing notes on the chalkboard with fewer poorly guided group activities. A study
report by Alemnew indicated that the majority of the respondents had a perception of the active learning method as the best meth­
odology that enhances students learning and facilitates the teaching-learning process in the best way [38]. But, in Alemnew’s study as
well teachers were found to be justifying their lack of active learning implementation as a “hard to practice methodology” because
active learning stands against the school tradition [38]. These brought the contending explanation that even if the teachers have a
higher level of understanding of active learning that will not guarantee its implementation in a school cultural background of direct
teaching. This was also corroborated in the current study by the high rating of all the possible sources of a challenge for the imple­
mentation of active learning.
The other very important finding in this study is, that different demographic sub-groups of the upper primary school science and
mathematics teachers have a fairly uniform perception of active learning with small but statistically significant differences in un­
derstanding levels between female and male teachers. Male teachers were found to be slightly better than female teachers based on
their ratings. Furthermore, the teachers were found to be statistically different in their self-efficacy of using active learning in their
teaching based on their educational level and the regions where they are teaching. In general, bachelor’s degree holders felt stronger
efficacy than those with a diploma.
In the Ethiopian education system, many of the teachers acquired their degrees after serving many years with their diplomas and
with the on-job continuing education program [19,23]. This implies that the majority of degree holders are in general more experi­
enced than diploma holders. Nevertheless, a study report indicated that as the teachers’ seniority increases, the level of their beliefs
about traditional learning also increases [39]. This implies that the primary teachers’ positive belief in the current study stands against
the result found elsewhere. Some other studies reported that there were significant differences between teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
based on age or seniority [40], even though some other studies reported that there were no significant differences between teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs and age or seniority [32,41,40]. However, Bay and his colleagues recommended conducting further research on
teachers’ beliefs about traditional and constructivist (such as active) learning to make a broader evaluation and clarification of the
dilemma observed.

5. Conclusion

Based on the results of the study the following conclusions are drawn. Upper primary school science and mathematics teachers were
found to have fairly uniformly low levels of understanding of active learning. In contrast to this, the teachers demonstrated a higher
level of positive beliefs about the learning outcomes of active learning if used in their classroom instruction. They not only have
positive beliefs, but they also exhibited a higher level of self-efficacy with a higher score of degree-holder teachers than the diploma
holders. In contrast to their low level of understanding, the upper primary science and mathematics teachers also claimed that they are
practicing active learning in their classes. However, this claim has not been supported by the anecdotal data from the classroom
observations and it was not found admissible in light of other numerous research reports on Ethiopian classroom realities. Further­
more, the claim of a high level of implementation was found to contradict the same teachers’ high rating of challenging factors
including their negative attitude towards the implementation of active learning. Therefore, the implementation of active learning is a
challenge for the teachers and there is the need to improve their understanding confounded with their higher mean scores of belief and
self-efficacy.

5.1. Implications

Based on the findings in this study and from the conclusions drawn above, the following implications are forwarded.
Further training of primary school teachers that focuses on enhancing the understanding of active learning and enabling the
principled implementation of active learning is needed. Likewise, the teachers’ classroom practice requires critical observation and
analysis to identify which elements of their practice were perceived as appropriate to active learning implementation so that during
training sessions the teachers will reflect and upraise useful practices. The challenges the teachers faced during the implementation of
active learning also need critical focus and engagement as these could be identified as pillars during teachers’ continuous professional
development schemes. Finally, further study is important to investigate how best active learning can be implemented in the upper
primary school science and mathematics subjects, realistically capture the teachers’ beliefs and self-efficacy levels, and find ways how

9
K. Michael et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16854

to mitigate concurring challenges.

5.2. Limitations of the study

The study had some limitations. One is the small sample size when disaggregated by some categories limiting the use of inferential
statistics that could have enforced the results.
The data collection used only a questionnaire and observation. Other tools could have helped to extract more meaning that might
have been hidden to be explicated through questionnaires and observation.

Declaration

This article was extracted from bigger research that was undertaken after being approved by the office of the research directorate of
Addis Ababa University and supported by the same financially. We acknowledge the generous support rendered by Addis Ababa
University. The research was also approved by the institutional review board of the College of Education and Behavioural Studies,
Addis Ababa University with Reference No. CEBS_IRB/003/2022.

Production notes

Author contribution statement

Kassa Michael: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Mekbib Alemu: Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.
Yekoyealem Desie, Mulugeta Atnafu: Conceived and designed the experiments; Wrote the paper.
Shimelis Assefa, Challa Regassa, Habtamu Wodaj, Abera Abate: Performed the experiments; Wrote the paper.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Michael Prince, Does active learning work? A review of the research, J. Eng. Educ. 93 (3) (2004) 223–231.
[2] R. DiYanni, A. Borst, Active learning, in: The Craft of College Teaching: A Practical Guide, Princeton University Press, 2020, pp. 42–57, https://doi.org/
10.2307/j.ctvp2n3jt.11.
[3] T.P. Scott, C. Schroeder, H. Tolson, A. Bentz, Effective K-12 Science Instruction: Promoting STEM Education, College of Science Center for Mathematics and
Science Education; Texas A&M University, 2010.
[4] R. Duschl, Science education in three-Part Harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals, Rev. Res. Educ. 32 (2008) 268–291.
[5] S. Dole, L. Bloom, K. Kowalske, Transforming pedagogy: changing perspectives from teacher-centered to learner-centered, Interdis. J. Prob. Bas. Learn. 10 (1)
(2016), https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1538.
[6] Linda Darling-Hammond, Lisa Flook, Channa Cook-Harvey, Brigid Barron, David Osher, Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and
development, Appl. Dev. Sci. 24 (2) (2020) 97–140, https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791.
[7] Ministry of Education (MoE), General Education Curriculum Framework (KG – Grade 12), Addis Ababa, 2020.
[8] Ministry of Education (MoE), Education Sector Development Program IV, Addis Ababa, 2010. http://www.unesco.org/education/edurights/media/docs/
574e244af3e39b830d278a2c367304af5b603109.pdf.
[9] E.J. Cambaya, D.A. Tan, Enhancing students’ problem-solving skills and engagement in mathematics learning through contextualized instruction, Sci. Int. 34 (2)
(2022) 101–109. http://www.sci-int.com/pdf/637837170468018431.edited.pdf.
[10] Y. Al-Odwan, Effectiveness of active learning strategy in improving the acoustic awareness skills and understanding what is heard by the basic stage students in
Jordan, Educ. Res. Rev. 11 (20) (2016) 1896–1905, https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2016.2944.
[11] Ministry of Education (MoE), Education Sector Development Program III, Addis Ababa, 2006. http://info.moe.gov.et/ggdocs/ESDPIII.pdf.
[12] Ministry of Education (MoE), Education Sector Development Program V, Addis Ababa, 2015. https://moe.gov.et/Publication.
[13] Ministry of Education (MoE), Education Sector Development Program VI, Addis Ababa, 2021. https://moe.gov.et/Publication.
[14] Ministry of Education (MoE), (MoE), Curriculum Framework For Ethiopian Education (KG – Grade 12), Addis Ababa, 2009.
[15] Ministry of Education (MoE), (MoE), General Education Curriculum Framework, Addis Ababa, 2020. December 2020.
[16] R. Dearamae, W. Nammungkhun, Understanding an active learning of pre-service teachers in southern Thailand, in: R. Dearamae, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 12th International Conference on Educational Research. Thailand, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, 2019, 2019.
[17] S.A. Bekalo, A.G. Welford, Secondary pre-service teacher education in Ethiopia: its impact on teachers’ competence and confidence to teach practical work in
science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 21 (12) (1999) 1293–1310, https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290084.
[18] T. Semela, Who is joining physics and why? Factors influencing the choice of physics students among Ethiopian university, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 5 (3)
(2010) 319–340.
[19] A. Shibeshi, D. Mekonnen, T. Semela, Y. Endawoke, Assessment of Science Education Quality Indicators in Addis Ababa, Bahir Dar, and Hawassa Universities.
Ethiopian Teacher Education Project Report, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia, 2009.
[20] A. Singh, Emergence and Evolution of Learning Gaps across Countries Panel Evidence from Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam, 2014. http://www.younglives.
org.uk/files/YL-WP124_Singh_learning%20gaps.pdf.

10
K. Michael et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16854

[21] W.M. Tarekegn, Higher education instructor’s perception and practice of active learning and continuous assessment techniques: the case of jimma university,
Bulg. J. Sci. Educ. Policy (BJSEP) 13 (1) (2019) 50–70.
[22] O. Mohammed, D. Seid, T. Abdurahman, The practice and prospects of active learning methods in wollo university, Am. Scien. Res. J. Eng. Tech. Sci. (ASRJETS)
65 (No 1) (2020) 1–15.
[23] R.D. Joshi, A. Verspoor, Secondary Education in Ethiopia: Supporting Growth and Transformation, World Bank Publications, The World Bank, 2013 number
13088, September.
[24] NEAEA, Ethiopian Fifth National Learning Assessment of Grades Four and Eight Students, 2016.
[25] NEAEA, Ethiopian Sixth National Learning Assessment of Grades Four and Eight Students, 2020.
[26] USAID Reading for Ethiopia’s Achievement Developed Monitoring and Evaluation (Read M&E) (2018). Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA), 2018 (Endline
Report).
[27] M. Fullan, M. Langworthy, A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning, Pearson, 2013.
[28] M.J. Sethusha, A vision of improvement of learning: South African teachers’ conceptions of classroom assessment’, Perspect. Educ. 31 (2) (2013) 14–21.
[29] M. Dobber, R. Zwart, M. Tanis, B.V. Oers, Literature review: the role of the teacher in inquiry-based education, Educ. Res. Rev. 22 (2017) 194–214.
[30] A.J. Auerbach, M. Higgins, P. Brickman, T.C. Andrews, Teacher Knowledge for Active-Learning Instruction: Expert–Novice Comparison Reveals Differences,
2018, https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-07-0149.
[31] Akil M. Nurindah, B. Jafar, Teachers’ self-efficacy and performance in teaching literature in the interest-based classes at senior high school, J. Lang. Teach. Res.
10 (6) (2019) 1271–1278, https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1006.16.
[32] Ö. Şahin, E. Erdem, K. Başıbüyük, B. Gökkurt, Y. Soylu, Examining the development of secondary mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge on
numbers, Turk. J. Com. Math. Edu. 5 (3) (2014) 207–230.
[33] T.B. Nekatibeb, Classroom participation and development of student attitudes: a study of active learning practices in Ethiopian primary education, Int. J.
Human. Soci. Sci. Edu. (IJHSSE) 4 (3) (2017), https://doi.org/10.20431/2349-0381.0403008.
[34] J.G. Millis, Survey Research, A Simple Introduction Learn How to Conduct Research Using Online Surveys, 2021. https://www.supersurvey.com/Research.
[35] Le Fevre, Barriers to implementing pedagogical change: the role of teachers’ perceptions of risk, Teach. Teach. Educ. 38 (2014) 56–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2013.11.007.
[36] J.C. Ngwenya, Accounting teachers’ understandings and practices of teaching and assessment in a context of curriculum change, Alternation 21 (1) (2014)
171–190.
[37] M. Meral, E. Colak, An Investigation of Student-Teachers’ Scientific Epistemological Beliefs, vol. 27, Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Faculty of Education,
2009, pp. 129–146.
[38] B. Alemnew, An Assessment of Practice of Active Learning Approach in Wolita Sodo University Health Science College, Southern Ethiopia, 2018. http://etd.aau.
edu.et/handle/123456789/13527.
[39] E. Bay, M. İlhan, Z. Aydın, İ. Kinay, C. Yiğit, R. Kahramanoğlu, et al., An investigation of teachers’ beliefs about learning, Croat. J. Educ. 16 (3) (2014) 55–90.
[40] A. Gündüz-Özsoy, Investigation of the Relationship between Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Change Resistance Behaviors in State High Schools. Unpublished
Master Thesis, Marmara University, Turkey, 2017.
[41] B. Aydoğdu, M. Peker, N. Duban, An Investigation on Pre-service Teachers’ Levels of Self-Efficacy. Paper Presented at the 2nd International Conference on Best
Practices and Innovations in Education, Izmir, Turkey, 2017.

11