This study assesses the training effect on increasing self-efficacy of teachers in the tertiary level. It focuses on the necessity of teachers' training at the very beginning of their careers and the continuation of it at regular intervals. Though many pieces of research have been conducted on training, the actual gap lies in the quality measures of research especially for the development of a positive mindset. The data were collected by a non-probability sampling technique while the corresponding hypothesis was tested with linear regression. The findings indicate that there lies significant positive relationship between teachers' training and self-efficacy. The study will assist the policymakers and concerned authorities to initiate training sessions at the designed timeframe. Thus, the value of the training program should be used to gain a competitive advantage and it should be viewed as a medium to enhance the capacity of an individual as human capital.
Keywords: Teachers’ training, Self-efficacy, Faculty, University, Bangladesh.
Received: 31 March 2020 / Revised: 5 May 2020 / Accepted: 9 June 2020/ Published: 29 June 2020
This study is one of very few studies which have investigated the faculty training and self-efficacy on the faculty members of universities in Bangladesh. This study can be base of further research on faculty training connecting with behavioral outcome.
The critical success factor of an organization is professional training (Grossman & Salas, 2011). Teachers take different approaches to their teaching pedagogy (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997). Teacher's training is required to improve their skills, knowledge and performance (Al-zoubi, Sultan, & Abdel, 2011). Learning is promoted by the appropriate and legitimate use of training (Sande, 2016). It has been observed in the study that inadequacy of training, scarcity of appropriate learning materials, dearth of remuneration and inadequate monitoring lead to the poor performance of the teachers (Senior, Hervie, & Winful, 2018).
Though previously teaching was treated as an art, it is also considered as a science in modern days (Shahmohammadi, 2014). Among some other forms, teaching plays an important role in educational reform (Shahmohammadi, 2014). The key role in educational institutions to develop knowledge and skills of general students is played by qualified teachers (Senior et al., 2018). It requires updating knowledge and skills from time to time because it gets obsolete with the passage of time (Shakoor, Ghumman, & Mahmood, 2013).
Professional competence is increased by a teacher's education, training and development (Senior et al., 2018). A teacher may become inappropriate if he fails to maintain a proper connection with rapid scientific and educational development (Rahman & Akhter, 2011). The trainers' success in changing the teaching approach often may bring up gradation in the student learning process and outcome (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004). Training may lead to practice diversity management at all levels of direction (Rahman & Akhter, 2011).
Training knowledge can't be transferred to the job in the majority of cases (Grossman & Salas, 2011). But, the inability to transfer the training knowledge can bring huge financial costs and time consumption (Wahlgren, 2011). Moreover, people sometimes fail to show their performance what was actually intended by their learning outcome (Grossman & Salas, 2011). However, self-efficacy of teacher is important to perform the teaching activities (Rowbotham, 2015). But there are very few studies performed to measure the association of training and self-efficacy particularly in the context of Bangladesh. Hence, the current study tries to measure the impact of training on self-efficacy of teachers in Bangladesh.
The professionalization of the teacher is the core of many international educational pieces of research (Wahlgren, 2011). It is the ability, dedication and hard work of teachers that determine the quality of education (Rahman & Akhter, 2011). Teaching skill is developed by proper investment in training (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004). An organization can reach its objectives whenever they spend their resources on training (Leach & Liu, 2003). To assess the impact of teachers’ training, various models have been proposed (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009a). The outcomes are changed by employee knowledge, expectation, behavior and these are critically evaluated by training investment (Leach & Liu, 2003). To examine the impact of training programs on teachers’ attitude, various studies have been carried out. Some scholars opine that training has legitimate impact on students satisfaction (Kreber, Brook, & Policy, 2001). Some people believe that teachers are born. Whereas, others believe that they are made what actually leads them towards training (Ellis, Bruijn, Norton, Winner, & Schlaug, 2013).Gibbs and Coffey (2004) found that appropriate training process can bring more focus on the students.
Teachers have own idea of their teaching which they gather from their own experiences on students and also from teachers’ perspective (Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001). Several researches have been conducted to investigate the teachers’ conception on their teaching style (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997). Other researches focus on the teachers experiences for developing teaching style (Ellis et al., 2013) and strategic alertness (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997). But, there may remain a huge gap between training contents and actual knowledge transfer (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009b; Grossman & Salas, 2011). We can regard the transmission of skill and return of investment as the most crucial index of training success (Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver, & Shotland, 2006; Galperin & Burke, 2006). But, it is also true that training doesn’t bring change in humans behavior always (Alliger et al., 2006). It may be seemed to them as uncomfortable (Sande, 2016). Samuelowicz and Bain (2001) focused more on teachers belief and their successive teaching practices gap analysis. In recent time, Antle, Barbee, and Van Zyl (2008) have shown that teachers who hold the belief of student-focused teaching practices does not clearly bring appropriate change in their service delivery. Ellis et al. (2013) believed that experience has no significant impact on the beliefs or conceptions.
Richardson (2015) found that teaching experience influences at the very minimum level for developing teaching conceptions. Changes in conceptions bring significant changes compared to those who make subsequent changes in their conceptual pedagogy. Teachers having high focus on the students and getting more concern on development do not appropriately get knowledge of technology without training (Duffin, French, & Patrick, 2012). Students rate much more to the teachers who have higher teaching qualifications (Cilliers & Herman, 2010). Similarly, it has been observed that new techniques can be gained by required teacher development program and adequate academic display (Hanbury, Prosser, & Rickinson, 2008). Better understanding of the student perspective and are more likely to engage in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Kinchin and Alias (2005) suggested to provide consistent support to bring required changes. Lack of consensus and collaboration with their colleagues are regarded as the most counted factors in the way of executing teachers’ development program.
Self-efficacy works as a significant indicator which is connected to positive teaching behavior and having a resultant effect on students’ outputs (Bümen, 2009). Self-belief of teachers which is the positive reflection of teachers training help students to develop specific skills in relevant career field (Yuen et al., 2010). Different sources of self-efficacy lead to better teaching performance (Rowbotham, 2015). Teachers having high self-efficacy can set the standards and ensure maximum student attainment (Veisi, Azizifar, Gowhary, & Jamalinesari, 2015). The level of efficacy also shows the degree of commitment towards their teaching career (Younger, 2011). The performance of a teacher is severely affected by the extent of their belief (Horvitz, Beach, Anderson, & Xia, 2015). People's belief and behavior affect the environment which ultimately leads to perceived capabilities (Fives & Buehl, 2009). Training leads to improved self-efficacy that helps to adjust to the stressed situation (Arbabi & Mehdinezhad, 2016). Self-efficacy is highly required to ensure the quality of delivery as a teacher and proper interaction with students. Training is an important determinant that can contribute to self-efficacy. Hence, the current study focuses to analyze the linkage of training and self-efficacy of teachers.
There are so many public and private universities in Bangladesh. They require a huge number of teachers in different designations within the organization. Knowledge is becoming the main source of sustainable competitive advantage. It is becoming the focal part of development. But, having the required candidates and using potential talents always remain the greatest matter of worry. Employees are hired based on present knowledge. As time goes, knowledge becomes outdated. Thus, organizations often fail to provide quality service, achieve greater academic excellence and attain higher accreditation standards. Whereas, training can reduce quality bottleneck and thus, give employees greater confidence and a higher level of performance. Even experienced employees need some sorts of training to improve their skills. People can achieve appropriate skills and adequate knowledge from improved training.
H1: Training has a profound impact on the self-efficacy of teachers at the university level.
This is a quantitative study that investigates the effect of training on the self-efficacy. This particular section covers sampling, instrument, collection of data, analysis of data and usage of required tools.
6.1. Sampling
The sample has been collected from different universities including both private and public. A convenient sampling method, a popular non-probability sampling technique, is used to collect data. A structured questionnaire was distributed to 150 respondents and returned by 107 respondents. Due to the missing value and incomplete response, only 100 responses were usable. Therefore, the sample size is 100. Dhaka city is considered as the sample frame as most of the private and public universities are in the capital.
6.2. Instrument
To collect data, a well-furnished questionnaire is used from faculties of different universities in Bangladesh. The questionnaire comprises three particular sections. The first part includes seven items related to the effectiveness of training which are adapted from Chami-Malaeb and Garavan (2013). Self-efficacy is incorporated into the second section which contains eight items adapted from Chen, Gully, and Eden (2001). The third section covers the demographic information including designation, gender, age, experience and education. Therefore, total of twenty items under three variables are used to design the complete questionnaire.
6.3. Data Collection Procedure
The questionnaire was distributed through on-line using Google form. Before sending the link, we have formally communicated with proper authority to get access to research information. Then, Google form link was sent to teachers mails who have received training for academic purposes. The data collection process takes almost one-month and the response received option was also opened the aforementioned time. Along with the link, we have also sent information about the research and its purpose so that respondents can be clear about the motive of collecting data.
6.4. Data Analysis Tools and Techniques
Self-efficacy is considered as a predicted variable whereas training is the predictor. The aim of the study is to find their association. Internal consistency has been measured by using Cronbach’s alpha technique. Alpha value staring for 0.7 is an indicator of the standard consistency of items. However, to measure the state of the respondent’s opinion we used descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation). A linear regression model is employed to find the linkage between proctor and predicted variable and the influence of predictor on the predicted variable. Besides, the demographic profile is presented using frequency and percentage. SPSS 20 has been used to analyze the data of the current study.
This section shows the numerical outcome of quantitative analysis. The aim of this paper is to analyze the association of teachers training and self-efficacy of teachers. This part of the research contains demographic analysis, reliability statistics, descriptive analysis and finally regression analysis.
7.1. Demographic Analysis
Demographic profile of participants reflects that most of respondents are male that constitutes 77% of total sample (Table 1). More than 50% of are senior faculty members starting from assistant professor to Professor and almost 49% are lecturer and senior lecturer. PhD holders are few in the sample only 2% whereas rest of the faculty members has at least Master’s degree. Age distribution indicates most of the respondents are in the range of 25-45 and only two are above 50. Their experience range is quite good as 34% of them have above 9 years of teaching experience and 91% have at least 1 year of experience.
7.2. Descriptive and Reliability Analysis
Table 2 shows that most of the respondents agreed with the statements on training as the mean value is 3.84. Therefore, teachers supported that training is organized by the universities at least once in a year, training programs are strictly adhered to the learning objectives, trainers are enough skilled, training contents are relevant, online tools are used in the training and learning materials are updated and relevant. The mean value for self-efficacy is 3.85 that reflects that most of the participants approved the statements under this variable. Hence, findings supported that they feel comfortable with the job, believe their quality, confident about performance, ready to face challenges, professionally sound, energetic in the classroom, enthusiastic dealing with students, feeling happy and proud of their job.
Table-1. Demographic profile of participants.
| Demographic Information | Frequency |
Percentage |
|||
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 77 |
77 |
|||
| Female | 23 |
23 |
|||
| Designation | |||||
| Lecturer | 24 |
24 |
|||
| Senior lecturer | 25 |
25 |
|||
| Assistant Professor | 25 |
25 |
|||
| Associate Professor | 22 |
22 |
|||
| Professor | 4 |
4 |
|||
| Education | |||||
| Bachelor | 27 |
27 |
|||
| Master | 71 |
71 |
|||
| PhD | 2 |
2 |
|||
| Age | |||||
| Above 20 | 5 |
5 |
|||
| Above 25 | 20 |
20 |
|||
| Above 30 | 33 |
33 |
|||
| Above 35 | 19 |
19 |
|||
| Above 40 | 12 |
12 |
|||
| Above 45 | 9 |
9 |
|||
| Above 50 | 2 |
2 |
|||
| Experience | |||||
| Below 1 | 9 |
9 |
|||
| Above 1 | 10 |
10 |
|||
| Above 3 | 17 |
17 |
|||
| Above 5 | 18 |
18 |
|||
| Above 7 | 12 |
12 |
|||
| Above 9 | 34 |
34 |
|||
| Total | 100 |
100.0 |
|||
Cronbach’s alpha value of training is 0.865 that denotes that the items under the variable training are highly consistent internally. On the other hand, Cronbach’s alpha value for self-efficacy is 0.788 which is also supporting the internal consistency of the items and outcome ensures both the variables statistically reliable to conduct further analysis.
Table-2. Descriptive and reliability statistics.
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Cronbach's Alpha |
No of Items |
|
Training |
100 |
3.8486 |
.66444 |
0.865 |
7 |
Self-efficacy |
100 |
3.8563 |
.56641 |
0.788 |
8 |
Valid N (list wise) |
100 |
7.3. Regression Analysis
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
1 |
.776a |
.603 |
.599 |
.35874 |
Note: a. Predictors: (Constant), Training.
The extent of correlation between training and self-efficacy is strong enough as the value of R is .776. The fitness of this model is quite good as value of R2 is 0.603 (Table 3). Hence, 60% of total variations of self-efficacy the outcome variable can be explained by training the predictor of this model. Moreover, the value of R2 (0.603) and adjusted R2 (0.599) is very close that indicates if new predictor variables are added with this model, it may not have significant impact on the result of this regression model. Finally, outcome supports that the model has good fitness value.
Model |
Sum of Squares |
Df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
1 |
Regression |
19.149 |
1 |
19.149 |
148.796 |
.000b |
Residual |
12.612 |
98 |
.129 |
|||
Total |
31.762 |
99 |
||||
Note: a. Dependent Variable: Self-efficacy.
b. Predictors: (Constant), Training.
The value of F stat is 148.796 which is a positive value that not near to 1.0, the critical value, so the null hypothesis is rejected as the null hypothesis ‘there is no relationship between training and self-efficacy’ (Table 4). Moreover, the p value is .000 that indicates a strong relationship between training and self-efficacy.
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
T |
Sig. |
||
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
1 |
(Constant) |
1.309 |
.212 |
6.177 |
.000 |
|
Training |
.662 |
.054 |
.776 |
12.198 |
.000 |
|
Note: a. Dependent Variable: Self-efficacy.
In the current paper, we have tried to find the association of training and self-efficacy where self-efficacy is predicted variable and training is the predictor. The standard beta coefficient is .776 which means a positive and strong impact of training on self-efficacy (Table 5). Moreover, the p value is .000 which is less than .05, therefore, the connection between training and self-efficacy is statistically significant. Thus, the study reveals that training has significant and positive influence on the self-efficacy of teachers. If teachers get proper training based on their need, it definitely enhances their level of self-efficacy to perform their academic activities and deal with students.
The study findings support that effective training can contribute to increase the level of self-efficacy of teachers. Proper materials, appropriate training module, instructor quality, interest of trainee, training need assessment and innovative training methods are important to make the training effective. When the training is being executed, teachers become self-confident, devoted, energetic and enjoy teaching to maximum extent. Such findings are also supported and presented in studies with various arguments.
The actual objective of higher education is to prepare students as productive workforce (Strickland-Davis, Kosloski, & Reed, 2019). Better and enthusiastic training mechanism can bring enough confidence, required happiness and sound classroom management. People who find themselves very capable of doing the tasks tend to perform so effectively (Torkzadeh & Koufteros, 1994). Newly entrants’ teachers prefer training much more for their development of career compared to senior teachers. Many teachers want to have pedagogical issues from their teaching centers rather than only focusing on students’ assessment (Potter, Kustra, Prada, Potter, & Kustra, 2015). Majority teachers expect to have training session at least once in a year for their support to update themselves. Teachers having lower self- efficacy tend to feel less secured in managing situation (Horvitz et al., 2015). Many trainees do believe that trainers must have required skills, online expertise, and content validity and so on. Faculties who have adequate training can better handle the classroom environment, engage students and develop strategies for future career (Strickland-Davis et al., 2019). Teachers expect that the training will be given based on their need and this enhances their efficacy level to demonstrate through performance. People like to avoid uncertainties when they believe that their skills are inadequate to cope with challenged situation (Torkzadeh & Koufteros, 1994).
Researchers find some positive changes through bringing trust, confidence and understanding level which are fundamental blocks of self-efficacy (Potter et al., 2015). Teacher belief over his students must have greater impact on teaching. They develop an imagination of students’ expectation, disposition and motivational level (Younger, 2011). The inherent power of self-efficacy lies in achieving organizational goals and ensuring career sustainability (Horvitz et al., 2015).
This study furnishes many theoretical contributions and enriches the existing literature of effectiveness of teachers training and teachers’ self-efficacy. Prior studies mainly address teachers’ self-efficacy for a particular subject. For examples, Britten and Lai (1998); Siegle and McCoach (2007); Velthuis, Fisser, and Pieters (2014) examined the relationship of teachers training and self-efficacy for a particular subjects in school level. But this study aims to assess the effectiveness of teachers’ training on self-efficacy at tertiary level. Furthermore, this study had been conducted in developing country. So, the results of this study will help policy makers, university authority and trainers to develop training module for the teachers of developing countries.
Though this study provides significant implications, it is not free form limitations. Firstly, the result of this study cannot be generalized and should be application only in developing countries. So, future research should be done on cross-cultural level to make the results generalized. Secondly, this study did not take the feedback from students. That is why; the effectiveness of teachers training and teachers’ self-efficacy cannot be measured perfectly. As students are the key beneficiaries of teachers’ training program. So, ignoring the key beneficiaries may raise the question about the effectiveness of training. Therefore, future studies may take feedback from students about the performance of teachers after training period.
Teaching is the combination of science and arts. People take this profession mostly because of their inherent characteristics to deal with the dreamers. They like to instill their outlooks and traits on others. However, appropriate training is not only required by the other professionals but also to the teachers. If teachers get required training specially in tertiary level, they will be able to better handle the classroom environment and prepare students for the job market. Moreover, effective training modules can increase their confidence level and students can put higher trust on teachers because of their trained dealing. As we know job market is always changeable especially due to this digitalized era, better training can bring higher perfection in teachers’ skill. Though training can be costly sometimes, the ultimate result of such mechanism can facilitate the organizational success and ensures the long-term sustainability as well.
Funding: This study received no specific financial support. |
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. |
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009a). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009b). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams. Organizations, and Society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451–474.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505.
Al-zoubi, S. M., Sultan, M., & Abdel, B. (2011). The effects of a training program in improving instructional competencies for special education teachers in Jordan. Educational Research, 2(3), 1021–1030.
Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (2006). A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 341–358.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00911.x.
Antle, B. F., Barbee, A. P., & Van Zyl, M. A. (2008). A comprehensive model for child welfare training evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(9), 1063–1080.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.02.002.
Arbabi, A., & Mehdinezhad, V. (2016). School principals' collaborative leadership style and relation it to teachers' self-efficacy. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 5(3), 3-12.
Britten, P., & Lai, M. K. (1998). Structural analysis of the relationships among elementary teachers’ training, self-efficacy, and time spent teaching nutrition. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 30(4), 218–224.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3182(98)70322-x.
Bümen, N. T. (2009). Possible effects of professional development on Turkish teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom practice. Professional Development in Education, 35(2), 261–278.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580802568385.
Chami-Malaeb, R., & Garavan, T. (2013). Talent and leadership development practices as drivers of intention to stay in Lebanese organisations: the mediating role of affective commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(21), 4046-4062.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.789445.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62-83.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004.
Cilliers, F. J., & Herman, N. (2010). Impact of an educational development programme on teaching practice of academics at a research-intensive university. International Journal for Academic Development 15(3), 253-267.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2010.497698.
Duffin, L. C., French, B. F., & Patrick, H. (2012). The teachers’ sense of efficacy scale: Confirming the factor structure with beginning pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 827–834.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.004.
Ellis, R. J., Bruijn, B., Norton, A. C., Winner, E., & Schlaug, G. (2013). Training-mediated leftward asymmetries during music processing: A cross-sectional and longitudinal FMRI analysis. NeuroImage, 75, 97–107.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.02.045.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2009). Examining the factor structure of the teachers’ sense of efficacy scale. Journal of Experimental Education, 78(1), 118–134.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903224461.
Galperin, B. L., & Burke, R. J. (2006). Uncovering the relationship between workaholism and workplace destructive and constructive deviance: An exploratory study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 331–347.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500404853.
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of teachers on their teaching skills. Their Approach to Teaching and the Approach to Learning of Their Students, 5(1), 87–100.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787404040463.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00373.x.
Hanbury, A., Prosser, M., & Rickinson, M. (2008). Studies in higher education the differential impact of UK accredited teaching development programmes on academics. Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 469-483.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802211844.
Horvitz, B. S., Beach, A. L., Anderson, M. L., & Xia, J. (2015). Examination of Faculty Self-efficacy Related to Online Teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 305–316.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9316-1.
Kinchin, I. M., & Alias, M. (2005). Exploiting variations in concept map morphology as a lesson-planning tool for trainee teachers in higher education. Journal of In-Service Education, 31(3), 569–592.
Kreber, C., Brook, P., & Policy, E. (2001). Impact evaluation of educational development programmes. International Journal for Academic Development, 6(2), 96–108.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440110090749.
Leach, M. P., & Liu, A. H. (2003). Investigating interrelationships among sales training evaluation methods. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 23(4), 327–339.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2003.10749007.
Potter, M. K., Kustra, E., Prada, L., Potter, M. K., & Kustra, E. (2015). The effects of long-term systematic educational development on the beliefs and attitudes of university teachers. Centre for Teaching and Learning Publications, 1–63.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(1), 25–35.
Rahman, F., & Akhter, Y. (2011). Relationship between training of teachers and effectiveness teaching. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(4), 150–160.
Richardson, L. (2015). Geoforum performing the sharing economy. GEOFORUM, 67, 121–129.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.11.004.
Rowbotham, M. A. (2015). The impact of faculty development on teacher. Illinois Education Research Council, 1, 1–28.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics' beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 299-325.
Sande, R. N. (2016). influence of training on performance of public primary school teachers. 4(3), 535–563.
Senior, E., Hervie, D. M., & Winful, E. C. (2018). Enhancing teachers’ performance through training and development in Ghana education service (A Case Study of Ebenezer Senior High School). Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(1), 1–8.Available at: https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jhrm.20180601.11.
Shahmohammadi, N. (2014). The effect of in-service training courses on the teacher ’ s attitude and performance. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 19, 183–191.Available at: https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.19.183 .
Shakoor, A., Ghumman, M. S., & Mahmood, T. (2013). Effect of in-service training on the working capacity and performance of science teachers at secondary level. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(3), 337.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2013.v4n3p337
Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2007). Increasing student mathematics self-efficacy through teacher training. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(2), 278-312.
Strickland-Davis, S., Kosloski, M., & Reed, P. A. (2019). The impact of professional development grounded in social learning on community college faculty efficacy. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1-16.
Torkzadeh, G., & Koufteros, X. (1994). Factorial validity of a computer self-efficacy scale and the impact of computer training. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 813-821.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054003028.
Veisi, S., Azizifar, A., Gowhary, H., & Jamalinesari, A. (2015). The relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ empowerment and teachers’ self-efficacy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 185, 437–445.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.362.
Velthuis, C., Fisser, P., & Pieters, J. (2014). Teacher training and pre-service primary teachers’ self-efficacy for science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(4), 445-464.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9363-y.
Wahlgren, B. (2011). What impact does teacher training have on the students ’ performance? , 60, 1–14.
Younger, D. L. (2011). Factors influencing teaching efficacy among Kansas career and technical education faculty. 172. Retrieved from: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etdhttp://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/172 .
Yuen, M., Chan, R. M. C., Gysbers, N. C., Lau, P. S. Y., Lee, Q., Shea, P. M. K., & Chung, Y. B. (2010). Pastoral care in education. An International Journal of Personal, 37–41.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2010.528015.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), World Journal of Vocational Education and Training shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |