A Study on preservice teachers ’ academic self-efficacy

DOI: 10.31704/ijocis.2018.012 The aim of this study was to explore if there is a significant difference between preservice teachers’ academic self-efficacy perceptions and their gender, fields of study in high school and departments at their university. The study was carried out through descriptive survey model, one of quantitative research models. The sample of the study consisted of 653 freshmen preservice teachers in the Faculty of Education at Gazi University. Convenience sampling method was used in the study. Percentage, frequency, arithmetic mean, standard deviation, Kruskal-Wallis and t test were used in the analysis of the data collected via “Academic Self-Efficacy Scale”. Findings reveal that there is no significant difference between preservice teachers’ academic self-efficacy levels and their gender, fields of study in high school and departments at their university. Findings also indicate that preservice teachers’ academic self-efficacy levels are in “partly sufficient” range. Article History: Received Revised Accepted Online 22 November 2018 10 December 2018 15 December 2018 27 December 2018


Introduction
One of the most important criteria of social development is the increase of knowledge and handing down this knowledge to future generations.In this sense, under today's circumstances where changes and developments in science and technology are rapid, the importance of education system is becoming more and more prominent in raising individuals who can adapt to these circumstances.The most significant component that determines the process of education system and the quality of service provided is the teacher.Thus, the quality of education also refers to quality of teachers.So, taking all the components of education into consideration, it is thought that the process of teacher training is of vital importance.
In teacher training, particularly in the early years of teacher education, it is mentioned that preservice teachers should be made aware of the fact that teaching is a job that requires expertise in this field (Şimşek, 2005); it is also mentioned that preservice teachers should be endeared to the job of teaching since it would not be right to expect loving teaching to happen naturally after starting this job (Yılman, 1987).Studies (Başbay, Ünver & Bümen, 2009;Duman & Yakar, 2017;Gömleksiz & Kan, 2012;Otluoğlu, 2002) reveal that preservice teachers, particularly during their preservice training, need to gain positive affective qualities toward teaching in addition to the required knowledge and skills.Among the positive affective qualities toward teaching as a job are being open to developments and innovations, loving human beings-students, being patient, being reliable, having high self-efficacy (Çelikten, Şanal & Yeni;2005;Özkan & Arslantaş, 2013) and many others.
Self-efficacy, which is one of the important components of affective qualities, is a concept frequently dealt with in educational research.Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) maintain that teachers' self-efficacy perceptions affect students' success, motivation and development of their self-efficacy perceptions.Likewise, Pajares (1996) emphasizes that one of the leading perceptions which influence teachers' vocational success and productivity is self-efficacy perception.On the other hand, Azar (2010) puts forth that preservice teachers' self-efficacy perceptions start in the preservice training process and develop and are shaped in line with their experiences in the teaching process.
The origin of the concept "self-efficacy'" goes back to Bandura's (1977) Social Learning Theory (Social Cognitive Theory) and this concept is defined as "one's belief in his/her own capacity in order to enhance his/her knowledge and skills to the targeted level".Schunk (1991) defines self-efficacy as the most important precursor of individual's behaviors.It is also pointed out that individual's self-efficacy is desired to be high and that those with high self-efficacy beliefs, be them learners or teachers, do not fear of being unsuccessful and are determined to cope with obstacles (Güven & Baltaoğlu, 2017).Teachers' self-efficacy perceptions that are reflected in classroom activities have a very important influence on providing quality teaching (Ashton, 1984;Lortie, 1975;Tobin, Tippin & Gallard 1994;Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001;Wolfolk & Hoy, 1990).As Brousseau, Book and Byers (1988) explain, it is necessary to bear in mind that teachers' and preservice teachers' vocational self-efficacy perceptions and ideas that are formed throughout their educational lives are influenced by teacher training institutions.The concept "self-efficacy" is usually referred to in different dimensions such as "general self-efficacy", "teacher self-efficacy", "emotional self-efficacy", "social selfefficacy" while the concept "academic self-efficacy" is regarded as a different dimension of self-efficacy, which is prevalent at all levels of academic life (Bandura, 1997;Ekici, 2012).Schunk (1991) defines academic self-efficacy as individuals' beliefs in being able to perform the assigned academic tasks successfully at certain levels.Similarly, academic self-efficacy is defined by Zimmerman (1995) as student's belief in his/her ability to accomplish an academic task.In many studies in literature, academic self-efficacy is also defined as student's self-confidence in the learning process, his/her being more persistent in the time of studying, ability to use different learning strategies, capacity to organize his/her performance effectively (Chemers, Hu & Garcia, 2001;Joo, Bong & Choi, 2000).Bandura (1993) maintains that students with high academic self-efficacy do not see the problems as a threat but as difficulties to cope with and master.Bandura (1993) also states that students with high academic self-efficacy set goals to cope with difficulties and they stick to their academic goals.It is stated that students with high self-efficacy are more successful in exams, show higher performance and resistance to cope with problems, set higher goals while students with low academic self-efficacy make less effort to solve problems (Lent, Broun & Larkin, 1984).It is known that academic self-efficacy not only affects learning and learning performance, but it also expresses students' various abilities such as self-assessment and self-control (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1998).Studies emphasize that affective factors as well as cognitive factors are influential in students' academic success and that academic self-efficacy has a significant place in affective factors (Alsop & Watts, 2000;Duit & Treagust, 2003;Thompon & Mintzes, 2002).Therefore, it is suggested that taking self-efficacy levels into consideration when organizing educational and teaching activities and applying the programs is of great significance in qualified teacher training in order for preservice teachers to maintain a quality pre-service training process (Aydın, 2010;Chemers, Hu & Garcia, 2001;).Academic self-efficacy can be regarded as one of the most important factors that will lead the preservice teachers to vocational success because it is very hard for an individual who has low self-efficacy perception to be successful.In this respect, it could be maintained that doing research on preservice teachers' views of their academic self-efficacy is important not only for themselves but also for their students since these preservice teachers will be involved in the future education system (Terzi & Tezci, 2007;Ünlü, 2011).There is a need for further research in order for preservice teachers to have a more positive attitude towards teaching as a job, to feel more sufficient in their jobs, and for their academic self-efficacy levels to be defined and improved.Although there seems to be quite many studies on self-efficacy in the faculty of education (Akbulut, 2006;Çakır, 2005;Çakır, Kan & Sümbül, 2006;Çapri & Çelikkaleli, 2008;Chemers, Hu & Garcia, 2001;Ekici, 2008;Morgil, Seçken & Yücel, 2004;Oğuz & Topkaya, 2008;Özdemir, 2008;Pajares, 1996;Phan 2012), it is noteworthy that the number of studies on academic self-efficacy is low.For example, Aktaş (2017) conducted a research on the relationship between theology students' academic motivation levels and their academic selfefficacy.In another study, academic motivations and academic self-efficacy levels of preservice teachers of physical education were examined in terms of some variables (Alemdağ, Öncü & Yılmaz, 2014).Reading anxieties and academic self-efficacy beliefs of secondary school students were examined in terms of different variables in another study (Arslan, 2017).Therefore, it is suggested that the results of this study will contribute to evaluation of the efficiency of teacher training institutions.

Aim of the Study
The aim of this study is to examine preservice teachers' academic self-efficacy perceptions in terms of variables such as gender, field of study in high school and department at the university.In line with this aim, answers were sought for the following questions: 1.Is there a significant difference between preservice teachers' academic self-efficacy perceptions in terms of gender? 2. Is there a significant difference between preservice teachers' academic self-efficacy perceptions in terms of field of study in high school?3. Is there a significant difference between preservice teachers' academic self-efficacy perceptions in terms of their departments at the university?

Model of the Study
This study was carried out through survey model in which data were collected in order to find out certain characteristics of a group and the collected data are described within their own conditions (Karasar, 2005).

Population and Sample
Population of the study consisted of 1272 freshmen students from six departments of Gazi Faculty of Education in Gazi University in spring semester of 2017-2018 academic year.Convenience sampling method was applied in the study.Convenience sampling removes the restrictions in time, money and work force; it enables to reach the sampling easily and perform an application (Büyüköztürk, Kılıç-Çakmak, Akgün, Karadeniz & Demirel, 2016).The reason for the researcher to choose this sampling type is that she teaches professional teaching knowledge in the faculty where she works at the same time.Thus, data were collected from the departments of Fine Arts Education, Maths and Science Education, Turkish Language and Social Sciences Education, Primary Education, Special Education and Foreign Languages Education.A total of 637 freshmen preservice teachers from these departments were conducted a questionnaire.47 questionnaires were excluded from the study because of various reasons (blank items, missing information in personal details, etc.).297 of 1272 freshmen students need to be taken as the sample of the study regarding ± 5.00% margin of error (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970).So, 653 participants of the study would well represent the population of the study.Demographic details of the preservice teachers in the sample of the study are given in Table 1.

Data Collection Tools
The data collection tool used in this study had two parts.In the first part preservice teachers were asked about their personal details.The second part included "Academic Self-Efficacy Scale" developed by Owen and Froman (1988) and adapted into Turkish by Ekici (2012).Adaptation of the scale into Turkish was done with the students of Faculty of Education.Therefore, it was found acceptable for the scale to be applied to the students studying in the Faculty of Education.Five point Likert scale consisted of 33 items and three sub-dimensions.The items in the scale were classified depending on the degree of agreement, 1 being "Very little", 2 "Little", 3 "Partly agree", 4 "Agree", 5 "Strongly agree".Limits between the items are as follows: 1 Very little 1.00 -1.80 2 Little 1.81 -2.60 3 Partly agree 2.61 -3.40 4 Agree 3.41 -4.20 5 Strongly agree 4.21 -5.00The minimum point to be taken form the scale is 33 whereas the highest is 165.In the adaptation study made by Ekici (2012), in the context of validity study of the original scale, confirmatory factor analysis and varimax technique has been used.At the end of the varimax rotation a total of three factors the eigen value of which were 6,951,3,478 and 1,280 has come out.After the analysis a 33 item scale which explained the 45.8% of the total variance.The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient for the whole scale was determined as .86(Ekici, 2012).

Analysis of the Data
In the process of analyzing the collected data, firstly, whether the data had normal distribution or not was tested.To this end, central distribution, coefficient and kurtosis values were examined on the distribution of total number that was taken for the factors forming the scale.Also, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used.Thus, it was found that the score of the academic self-efficacy scale had normal distribution.In addition, homogeneity of variances of the measurements was examined through Levene F test.In the analysis of the data depending on the sub-problem, percentages, frequencies, arithmetic means, standard deviation, Kruskal Wallis and t test analyzes were employed.While comparisons regarding the total score of academic self-efficacy scale in terms of gender were made via t test, comparisons regarding the total score of academic self-efficacy scale in terms of the variables of field of study in high school and department at university were made via Kruskall Wallis H test, which is the nonparametric counterpart of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).In testing the significance of the differences, the level of significance was accepted as .05.

Findings Regarding Preservice Teachers' Academic Self-Efficacy Perceptions in terms of Gender
In order to compare preservice teachers' self-efficacy in terms of gender, normality of the distributions was tested first, and according to Kolmogorov Smirnov test results the distributions were found normal (K-Sfemale=.04;p=.06>.05;K-Smale=.05;p=.20>.05).Moreover, homogeneity of the variances of the measurements were examined via Levene test, and it was found that the requirement of homogeneity of the variances was met (F= 2.344, p<005).Accordingly, t test for independent samples, which is a parametric test, was applied in order to compare the total score means of teacher trainers' academic self-efficacy perceptions in terms of gender.The results are shown in Table 2.The results revealed that there is no significant difference between score means in terms of gender (t (651) = -1.10,p>.05).It was observed that score means of female and male preservice teachers' academic selfefficacy perceptions are very close to each other (3.22 and 3.28) and they are in "partly agree" range.In other words, it could be maintained that preservice teachers' academic self-efficacy perceptions do not differ in terms of gender.

Findings Regarding Preservice Teachers' Academic Self-Efficacy Perceptions in terms of Their Fields of Study in High School
Normality of the distributions was tested in order to compare total score means in the scale for preservice teachers' academic self-efficacy in terms of their fields of study in high school.Kolmogorov Smirnov test results revealed that the distributions were normal (K-STM=.06;p=.20>.05;K-SSM=.05;p=.20>.05;K-S SocialSci=.04; p=.20>.05).Kruskal Wallis H. test was applied (p<.05) since variances were not homogeneous (degree of freedom of Levene test value: 2-650) although normality of distributions was provided according to the results of analysis.The data are shown in Table 3. Results of the analysis reveal that there is no statistically significant difference between the total scores of preservice teachers' academic self-efficacy perceptions in terms of their fields of study in high school (p>.05).In other words, it could be stated that fields of study in high school do not influence teacher trainers' academic self-efficacy perceptions.
Table 4 shows that there is no statistically significant difference between total scores of teacher trainers' academic self-efficacy perceptions in terms of their departments ("x" ^"2" =9.49; p>.05).In other words, it might be suggested that preservice teachers' academic self-efficacy perceptions are similar in terms of their departments at university.When median values of the departments were examined, it was found out as: M (Fine Arts Education) = 3.40; M (Maths and Science Education) = 3.27; M (Turkish Language and Social Sciences Education) = 3,22; M (Primary Education) = 2.27; M (Special Education) = 3.18; M (Foreign Languages Education) = 3,24.When median values of preservice teachers were examined, it was seen that the scores were very close to each other and they were in "partly agree" range.

Findings regarding Preservice Teachers' Academic Self-Efficacy Perceptions in terms of Their Departments
In order to compare total score means in the scale for teacher trainers' academic self-efficacy in terms of their departments, first the normality of the distributions was tested.Kolmogorov Smirnov test results revealed that distributions were normal (K-S FineArts =.09; p=.20>.05;K-S Maths-Science Edu.=.05; p=.20>.05);K-S Turkish- SocialSci Edu.=.07; p=.20>.05);K-S PrimaryEducation =.07; p=.20>.05);K-S SpecialEducation =.06; p=.20>.05);K-S ForeignLang.Edu =.06; p=.20>.05).Table 4 shows that there is no statistically significant difference between total scores of teacher trainers' academic self-efficacy perceptions in terms of their departments ("x" ^"2" =9.49; p>.05).In other words, it might be suggested that teacher candidates' academic self-efficacy perceptions are similar in terms of their departments at university.When median values of the departments were examined, it was found out as: M (Fine Arts Education) = 3.40; M (Maths and Science Education) = 3.27; M (Turkish Language and Social Sciences Education) = 3.22; M (Primary Education) = 2.27; M (Special Education) = 3.18; M (Foreign Languages Education) = 3.24.When median values of teacher candidates were examined, it was seen that the scores were very close to each other and they were in "partly agree" range.
Results of the study revealed that preservice teachers' academic self-efficacy perceptions did not differ in terms of their fields of study in high school.In literature, there are some studies that found no significant differences between preservice teachers' academic self-efficacy perceptions in terms of their fields of study in high school (Altunçekiç, Yaman & Koray, 2005;Saracaloğlu, Yenice & Özden, 2013).One of these studies is on general self-efficacy, the other is on self-efficacy in Science teaching.On the other hand, there are many studies which do not support the results of this study (Alemdağ et al., 2014;Altunçekiç, Yaman & Koray, 2005;Biricik, 2015;Çakır, Kan & Sünbül, 2006;Demir, 2008;Demirtaş, Cömert & Özer, 2011;Gürbüztürk & Sad, 2009;Koçer, 2014;Oğuz, 2012;Pekel, 2016;Yağcı & Aksoy, 2015).This finding of the study is similar to that of another study carried out in 2013 (Saracoğlu, Yenice & Özden.However, that study is on general self-efficacy perception.On the other hand, Altunçekiç, Yaman and Koray (2005) carried out their study on self-efficacy belief in Science teaching.Yet, this study is on academic self-efficacy.So, it could be suggested that their findings do not overlap with this study.
A study conducted in 2011 revealed that preservice teachers' self-efficacy perceptions differed significantly in terms of their fields of study in high school (Gürol, Altunbaş & Karaaslan, 2011).The study also highlighted that the difference was in favor of preservice teachers who studied social sciences in high school while it was to the detriment of those who studied science.Similarly, Çakır, Kan and Sünbül's study (2006) showed that selfefficacy perceptions of preservice teachers who studied social sciences in high school were higher than those who studied science and maths.
In this study, when preservice teachers' self-efficacy perceptions were examined in terms of their departments it was found out that there was no statistically significant difference.Thus, it could be stated that the department variable does not influence academic self-efficacy belief.There are studies the results of which overlap with this study (Çubukçu & Girmen, 2007;Demir, 2013;Elkatmış, Demirbaş & Ertugrul, 2013;Eroğlu, Yıldırım & Şahan, 2017;Güven & Baltaoğlu,2017;Kavrayıcı & Bayrak, 2016;Oğuz, 2009;Saracaloğlu, Yenice & Özden, 2013;Uysal & Kösemen, 2013).Eroğlu, Yıldırım and Şahan (2017) found in their study that there was no significant difference between the self-efficacy levels of students studying in the Faculty of Physical Education in terms of department variable.Likewise, Saracoğlu, Yenice and Özden's study (2013) revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the self-efficacy perceptions sub-dimension and total scores of preservice teachers studying Science Education, Social Sciences Education and Primary Education in terms of their departments.
Looking at the results of this study, it could be stated that the variable of field of study in high school does not influence academic self-efficacy belief.One reason for this could be that participants are yet freshmen in the Faculty of Education.Besides, it could be suggested that experiences and outcomes gained by preservice teachers throughout their undergraduate years may well contribute positively to their academic self-efficacy.Another reason why there was no difference between the two variables could be that participants preferred teaching as an occupation regardless of their fields of study in high school.
In this study, when preservice teachers' self-efficacy perceptions were examined in terms of their departments, it was found out that there was no statistically significant difference.Thus, it could be maintained that the department variable does not influence academic self-efficacy beliefs.There are studies the results of which overlap with this study (Çubukçu & Girmen, 2007;Demir, 2013;Elkatmış, Demirbaş & Ertuğrul, 2013;Eroglu, Yıldırım & Şahan, 2017;Güven & Baltaoglu,2017;Kavrayıcı & Bayrak, 2016;Oguz, 2009;Saracaloğlu, Yenice & Özden, 2013;Uysal & Kösemen, 2013).Eroğlu, Yıldırım and Şahan (2017) found in their study that there was no significant difference between the self-efficacy levels of students studying in the Faculty of Physical Education in terms of department variable.Likewise, Saracoğlu, Yenice and Özden's study (2013) revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the self-efficacy perceptions subdimension and total scores of preservice teachers studying Science Education, Social Sciences Education and Primary Education in terms of their departments.
Literature review of relevant studies indicate that there are quite a lot of studies in which researchers found significant difference between preservice teachers' self-efficacy perceptions in terms of their departments as variables (Altunçekiç, Yaman & Koray, 2005;Aydın, Ömür & Argon, 2014;Biricik, 2015;Gençtürk & Memiş, 2010;Demirtas, Cömert & Özer, 2011;Donmuş, Akpınar & Eroğlu 2017;Gürol, Altunbaş & Karaaslan, 2011;Güvenç, 2011;Tabancalı & Çelik, 2013).Özgül and Diker's study (2017) revealed that there were significant differences between preservice teachers' social status scores, sub-dimension of academic self-efficacy, and their departments.This difference was indicated to be between the departments of Physical Education and Sports Management.In their study carried out in all departments of Faculty of Education at İnönü University, Demirtaş, Cömert and Özer (2011) stated that self-efficacy perceptions differed significantly in terms of departments.Their study also revealed that students studying Turkish Language, Art and Computer Education had the highest mean rank in "Participation" sub-dimension; students studying Music, Art and Social Sciences Education had the highest mean rank in "Management" sub-dimension; in "Total" scores, on the other hand, students studying Turkish Language, Social Sciences, Music and Art Education had the highest mean rank.It could be inferred from the literature review that the difference between the findings of the studies which revealed significant difference in terms of department variable and those of this study may result from the difference between students' departments.For example, Özgül and Diker (2017) carried out their study with students doing their Master's in Physical Education and Sports program at the Institute of Health Sciences.Another reason could be the differences in class levels.Participants of Özgül and Diker's study (2017) were postgraduate candidates and participants of Demirtaş, Cömert and Özer' study (2011) were senior students at the Faculty of Education.On the other hand, sample of this study includes freshmen students at the Faculty of Education.Thus, this might be the cause of differences between the findings of relevant studies and those of this study.
It was found out in this study that preservice teachers' academic self-efficacy levels are in "partly sufficient" range.In other words, the study revealed that preservice teachers have academic self-efficacy at a medium level.However, academic self-efficacy levels of preservice teachers, who are volunteered to become teachers, are expected to be higher (Akbay & Gizir, 2010;Haycock, McCarthy & Skay, 1998;Klassen, Krawchuk & Rajani, 2007).In literature there are studies which support this finding (Güven & Baltaoğlu, 2017;Güvenç, 2011;Güzel, 2017;Uysal & Kösemen, 2013) as well those which do not (Özdemir, 2008(Özdemir, , Yeşilyurt, 2013)).The fact that this study was carried out with freshmen students in the Faculty of Education could be a reason for academic selfefficacy levels not being within the expected range yet.Hence, Orhan and Akkoyunlu (2003) found in their study that as high school students' ages increase, their self-efficacy perceptions get higher.In addition, unfavorable experiences that preservice teachers have throughout their studies may well have an adverse effect on their self-efficacy perceptions.Relevant studies in literature revealed that academic selfefficacy levels were usually high.Oğuz (2012) found in his study that academic self-efficacy perceptions of primary school preservice teachers were at high levels.Similarly, Yılmaz, Gürçay and Ekici's study (2007) revealed that academic self-efficacy levels of university students were at high levels.Still another study carried out by Yalmancı and Aydın (2014) showed that self-efficacy levels of science preservice teachers were at high levels.
In conclusion, findings of the studies indicate that there is no significant difference between self-efficacy levels of students studying at the Faculty of Education in terms of gender, their fields of study in high school and their departments at university.Findings also show that self-efficacy levels of these students are partly sufficient.Hidden curriculum could be applied to preservice teachers in order to enhance the development of their self-efficacy.Besides, it is maintained that more practice could be included in preservice teachers' specialized field courses and pedagogical courses hand in hand with theory in order to support the development of their self-efficacy.Teaching with such well-balanced curriculum throughout the process of education is believed to be effective.Studies aiming to identify lecturers' self-efficacy could be planned and carried out.Qualitative research could be carried out in order to thoroughly examine the finding that preservice teachers' self-efficacy perceptions are in "partly sufficient" range.In addition, longitudinal studies could be conducted in order to monitor preservice teachers throughout their university lives.

Table 1 .
Demographic Details of the Preservice Teachers.

Table 2 .
Preservice teachers' Academic Self-Efficacy Perceptions in terms of Gender.

Table 3 .
Preservice teachers' Academic Self-Efficacy Perceptions in terms of Their Fields of Study in High School.

Table 4 .
Preservice teachers' Academic Self-Efficacy Perceptions in terms of Their Departments.