Anda di halaman 1dari 16

Efikasi Guru Menurut Powell dan Anderson pula menyatakan efikasi guru sebagai suatu perasaan membuatkan seseorang

itu merasakan betapa bagusnya beliau dapat belajar yang dan

mempraktikkannya dengan baik. Dalam hal ini Allinder (1995) mendapati bahawa guru-guru yang mempunyai efikasi pengajaran yang tinggi mempunyai sasaran yang lebih tinggi terhadap pelajarnya, mudah menerima idea-idea baru dan mencuba teknik atau kaedah pengajaran baru (Guskey, 1988), daya ketahanan yang tinggi untuk melaksanakan suatu tugasan mengajar baru atau sukar (Coladarci, 1992).

Manakala menurut Tschannen-Moran, Hoy dan Hoy (1998) pula, efikasi guru merujuk kepada kepercayaan guru akan keupayaan diri untuk menyusun atur dan melakukan satu siri tindakan yang diperlukan untuk menyempurnakan satu tugasan pengajaran dalam konteks yang spesifik. Dengan lain perkatan, efikasi guru merujuk kepada kepercayaan guru akan keupayan diri untuk mengajar dalam situasi pengajaran. Justeru guru yang berefikasi tinggi akan berusaha yang lebih gigih untuk menguasai kemahiran-kemahiran mengajar sehingga berjaya. Sebaliknya guru yang berefikasi rendah mempunyai aspirasi yang rendah dan akan cuba mengelakkan diri daripada menghadapi tugasan pengajaran baru atau sukar. Apabila berhadapan dengan tugasan pengajaran yang sukar, guru berefikasi rendah akan menfokuskan kepada rintangan tetapi tidak menumpukan usaha untuk mengatasi rintangan tersebut. Malah mereka juga mudah berputusa asa dan kegagalan ini akan melemahkan lagi efikasi pengajaran yang mengakibatkan mereka berasa stress dalam melaksanakan tugasan pengajaran.

What is Self-Efficacy and Why is it Important? The theoretical foundation of self-efficacy is found in social cognitive theory, developed by former APA president (1974) and current Stanford professor Albert Bandura (1977, 1997). Social cognitive theory assumes that people are capable of human agency, or intentional pursuit of courses of action, and that such agency operates in a process called triadic reciprocal causation. Reciprocal causation is a multi-directional model suggesting that our agency results
1

in future behavior as a function of three interrelated forces: environmental influences, our behavior, and internal personal factors such as cognitive, affective, and biological processes. This trinity mutually impacts its members, determines what we come to believe about ourselves, and affects the choices we make and actions we take. We are not products of our environment. We are not products of our biology. Instead, we are products of the dynamic interplay between the external, the internal, and our current and past behavior. In reaction to more reductionist theories, Bandura noted: Dualistic doctrines that regard mind and body as separate entities do not provide much enlightenment on the nature of the disembodied mental state or on how an immaterial mind and bodily events act on each other (1986, p. 17). Central to Banduras (1997) framework is his concept of self-efficacy. Banduras aspirations about self-efficacy were grand, as reflected in the title of his 1977 article SelfEfficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. In this seminal work, Bandura defined self-efficacy as beliefs in ones capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments (p. 3). Self-efficacy beliefs were characterized as the major mediators for our behavior, and importantly, behavioral change. Over the last quarter century, Banduras other works continued to develop and defend the idea that our beliefs in our abilities powerfully affect our behavior, motivation, and ultimately our success or failure (cf. Bandura, 1982, 1986, 1993, 1996, 1997). Bandura (1997) proposed that because self-efficacy beliefs were explicitly self-referent in nature and directed toward perceived abilities given specific tasks, they were powerful predictors of behavior. The research literature has supported this proposition. Research has linked efficacy to a variety of clinical issues such as phobias (Bandura, 1983), addiction (Marlatt, Baer, & Teacher Efficacy Research 4 Quigley, 1995), depression (Davis & Yates, 1982), and smoking behavior (Garcia, Schmitz, & Doerfler, 1990). Educationally, self-efficacy beliefs are related to academic performance and self-regulated learning (cf. Hackett, 1995; Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1991; Zimmerman, 1995). Importantly, efficacy beliefs help dictate motivation (cf. Maehr & Pintrich, 1997; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Bandura observed: People regulate their level and distribution of effort in accordance with the effects they expect their actions to have. As a result, their behavior is better predicted from their beliefs than from the actual consequences of their actions (1986, p. 129). From the social cognitive theory perspective, because human agency is mediated by our efficaciousness, self-efficacy beliefs influence our choices, our effort, our persistence when facing adversity, and our emotions (cf. Pajares, 1997). In short, self-efficacy theory is a common theme in current views of motivation (Graham & Weiner, 1996), primarily because of its predictive power and application for practically any behavioral task. This article will focus on one area of self-efficacy application directly relevant to educational improvement: teacher self-efficacy. Unfortunately, teacher efficacy research has at times been theoretically confused. In effort to advance and strengthen the study of teacher efficacy, I will (a) briefly review the theoretical foundation of teacher efficacy and critically evaluate historical attempts to measure the construct, (b) discuss important substantive implications stemming from efficacy research that may advance the field, (c) present recent measurement advances, and (d) highlight several methodologies that have been underutilized in development of teacher efficacy instruments. What is Teacher Self-efficacy and Why is it Important? Consistent with the general formulation of self-efficacy, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (in press) defined teacher efficacy as a teachers judgment of his or her capabilities to bring
2

about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated. The study of teacher efficacy is a little over two decades old and began with RAND researchers evaluation of whether teachers believed they could control the reinforcement of their actions (Armor et al., 1976). This early work was founded on Rotters (1966) locus of control theory, and it was assumed that student learning and motivation were the relevant reinforcers of teaching action. Historically, the Bandura (1977) and Rotter (1966) traditions have influenced the study of teacher efficacy. Unfortunately, researchers' interpretations of these theories have significantly muddied the efficacy waters as regards the theoretical formulation of teacher efficacy and the psychometric attempts to measure the construct. Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998) provided a comprehensive review of these historical developments and they will not be reiterated here, with the exception of several measurement issues noted below. In spite of the measurement confusion, teacher efficacy still emerged as a worthy variable in educational research. As Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) noted, Researchers have found few consistent relationships between characteristics of teachers and the behavior or learning of students. Teachers sense of efficacy . . . is an exception to this general rule (p. 81). The idea that teachers self-beliefs are determinants of teaching behavior is a simple, yet powerful idea. The correlates of teacher efficacy are many when using a variety of efficacy scales and measurements. Students of efficacious teachers generally have outperformed students in other classes. Teacher efficacy was predictive of achievement on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Moore & Esselman, 1992), the Canadian Achievement Tests (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988), and the Ontario Assessment Instrument Pool (Ross, 1992). Watson (1991) observed greater Teacher Efficacy Research 5 achievement in rural, urban, majority Black, and majority White schools for students of efficacious teachers. Teacher efficacy is also related to students own sense of efficacy (Anderson et al., 1988) and student motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989). Regarding teacher behaviors, efficacious teachers persist with struggling students and criticize less after incorrect student answers (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). They are more likely to agree that a low SES student should be placed in a regular education setting and less likely to refer students for special education (Meijer & Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993). Teachers with high efficacy tend to experiment with methods of instruction, seek improved teaching methods, and experiment with instructional materials (Allinder, 1994; Guskey, 1988; Stein & Wang, 1988). Coladarci (1992) observed higher professional commitment for efficacious inservice teachers. Evans and Tribble (1986) found similar results for preservice teachers. Clearly the study of teacher efficacy has borne much fruit. However, teacher efficacy is the subject of current debate concerning its meaning and measure (cf. Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). The dialogue has centered on two issues. First, based on the theoretical nature of the selfefficacy construct as defined by Bandura (1977, 1997), researchers have argued that self-efficacy is most appropriately measured within context regarding specific behaviors (Pajares, 1996). Second, the construct validity of scores from the primary instruments purporting to measure teacher efficacy has been severely questioned (Coladarci & Fink, 1995; Guskey & Passaro, 1994). Accordingly, teacher efficacy is presently on the precipice of inquiry; it is ready to either move forward or fall to the wayside as a good idea that ultimately had little substance. As Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998)
3

noted: This appealing idea, that teachers beliefs about their own capacities as teachers somehow matter, enjoyed a celebrated childhood, producing compelling findings in almost every study, but it has also struggled through the difficult, if inevitable, identity crisis of adolescence. . . . teacher efficacy [now] stands on the verge of maturity. . . (p. 202) I hope to explicate several issues in the study of teacher efficacy that will facilitate this maturation. My discussion, while not exhaustive, focuses on current issues in defining the theoretical construct and appropriate measurement strategies. Current Issues in Teacher Efficacy Gibson and Dembos Teacher Efficacy Scale As noted, social cognitive theory provides the theoretical foundation for teacher efficacy. Historically, however, Banduras (1977) theory has been mixed with locus of control theory (Rotter, 1966). At the birth of teacher efficacy, RAND researchers (Armor et al., 1976) developed two items that were based on the locus of control orientation: Item 1: When it comes right down to it, a teacher really cant do much because most of a students motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment. Item 2: If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students. The items were intended to assess whether a teacher believed that student learning and motivation (assumed reinforcers for the teacher) were under the teachers control. These items and this orientation guided most teacher efficacy research during the late 70s and early 80s. Amidst concerns about construct definition and reliability of measurement with only two items, Gibson and Dembo (1984) sought to empirically develop a teacher efficacy measure. Teacher Efficacy Research 6 They argued that the two items used by the RAND researchers actually corresponded to Banduras (1977) outcome expectancy and self-efficacy dimensions of social cognitive theory, respectively. (Note: Outcome expectancy is theoretically independent from self-efficacy. Unfortunately, brevity prohibits discussion of outcome expectancy here and the reader is referred to Bandura [1997], Pajares [1997], and Tschannen-Moran et al. [1998] for thorough treatments.) RAND Item 1 was thought to assess an outcome expectancy regarding a teachers belief whether teaching can impact student learning despite external constraints. This construct was labeled teaching efficacy (later to be called general teaching efficacy, or GTE). RAND Item 2 was thought to assess self-efficacy, or a teachers perceived ability to positively impact student learning. This construct was named personal teaching efficacy (PTE). In their study, Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed additional items modeled after the RAND items and retained 16 after a factor analysis (PTE: 9 items, GTE: 7 items). The PTE and GTE factors were essentially uncorrelated (r = -.19), a result consistent with Banduras conceptualization of outcome expectancy and self-efficacy dimensions. A multitraitmultimethod construct validity study was conducted and the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) was born. The TES subsequently became the predominate instrument in the study of teacher efficacy, leading Ross (1994, p. 382) to label it a standard instrument in the field. The TES has also served as a launching point for the development of other similar instruments, such as the subject matter specific Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI; Riggs & Enochs, 1990). As teacher efficacy research flourished, serious questions about the TES arose. Specifically, in a study of correlations among scores from the major instruments of teacher
4

efficacy and related constructs, Coladarci and Fink (1995) largely found weak evidence for discriminant validity of PTE and GTE scores. Furthermore, Guskey and Passaro (1994) reported that the PTE and GTE factors correspond to not to self-efficacy and outcome expectancy dimensions, but to an internal versus external orientation, respectively. This dichotomy resembled locus of control and attributional theory orientations more than self-efficacy theory. Importantly, the Coladarci and Fink (1995) and Guskey and Passaro (1994) studies pointed out potential theoretical confounds in the TES. We must remember that the TES was originally developed from the two RAND items which were based on locus of control theory. Gibson and Dembo (1984) later interpreted the items as reflecting self-efficacy theory. Accordingly, the TES appears to have elements of both theoretical orientations captured in its items. As might be expected from an instrument that serves two theoretical masters, the study of teacher efficacy has suffered an adolescent identity crisis as researchers have struggled to clarify the construct (see e.g., Soodak & Podell, 1996). (Note: Tschannen-Moran et al. [1998] presented a more complete discussion of these theoretical strands in teacher efficacy research, along with specific results from the Coladarci and Fink [1995] and Guskey and Passaro [1994] studies.)

ang

memperhalusi

Kajian

Keberkesanan

Guru

Penyelidik telah melaporkan bahawa kepercayaan guru terhadap keberkesanan peribadi menjejaskan aktiviti pengajaran dan orientasi mereka ke arah proses pendidikan mereka. Sebagai contoh, guru rasa preservice keberkesanan guru yang berkaitan dengan kepercayaan mereka tentang pelajar kawalan. Guru dengan rasa rendah keberkesanan yang cenderung untuk mengadakan orientasi tahanan yang mengambil pandangan pesimis motivasi pelajar, menekankan kawalan tegar tingkah laku bilik darjah, dan bergantung kepada dorongan ekstrinsik dan sekatan negatif untuk mendapatkan pelajar untuk mengkaji (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990). Guru-guru dengan keberkesanan yang tinggi mewujudkan pengalaman penguasaan bagi pelajar-pelajar mereka manakala guru-guru dengan keberkesanan pengajaran yang rendah menjejaskan perkembangan kognitif pelajar serta penghakiman pelajar keupayaan mereka sendiri (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Cohn & Rossmiller, 1987). Keberkesanan guru juga meramalkan pencapaian pelajar dan kepercayaan pencapaian pelajar merentasi pelbagai bidang dan tahap (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Midgley, Feldlaufer & Eccles, 1989). Maka adalah perlu untuk mencari hubung kait tambahan keberkesanan guru, serta untuk memahami bagaimana kepercayaan ini mempengaruhi pembolehubah hasil pendidikan seperti amalan pengajaran atau kepercayaan dan pencapaian pelajar. Dalam kebanyakan kajian, perasaan guru keberkesanan yang telah terutamanya dinilai dengan dua faktor: rasa keberkesanan pengajaran peribadi dan rasa keberkesanan pengajaran (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Yang pertama merujuk kepada individu penilaian kecekapan guru mereka sendiri; yang kedua merujuk kepada jangkaan guru yang mengajar boleh mempengaruhi pembelajaran pelajar. Guskey dan Passaro (1994) melaporkan bahawa kedua-dua faktor ini tidak sesuai dengan peribadi berbanding orientasi keberkesanan pengajaran umum tetapi sebaliknya kepada perbezaan dalaman berbanding luar yang serupa dengan lokus-kawalan ukuran atribusi.
5

Jika memang demikian, ia akan menjadi instruktif untuk mengetahui apa yang kedua-dua faktor ini sebenarnya boleh mengukur. Selain itu, instrumen keberkesanan guru biasanya meminta guru untuk merakamkan penghakiman keyakinan mengenai perkara-perkara yang berbeza sebagai pengurusan bilik darjah dan pengaruh latar belakang keluarga ke atas pembelajaran pelajar dan kemudian membandingkan skor komposit ini penghakiman dengan hasil seperti indeks pencapaian pelajar atau amalan pengajaran pelbagai. Jika itu Bandura (1986) mengingatkan mengenai surat menyurat kepercayaan kepada tugas criterial adalah berasas, apa-apa langkah keberkesanan guru tidak peka kepada konteks dan boleh meminimumkan pengaruh sebenar kepercayaan guru tentang amalan pengajaran atau pencapaian pelajar. Selaras dengan garis panduan ini, penyelidik dalam bidang ini haruslah berusaha untuk menilai kepercayaan guru yang sesuai dengan kriteria kepentingan dan bukannya menilai orang-orang kepercayaan dengan langkah teritlak dan kemudian membuat berkaitan dengan penilaian ini kepada amalan atau hasil tertentu. Keberkesanan guru telah menjadi binaan yang penting dalam pendidikan guru, pendidik guru harus terus meneroka bagaimana keberkesanan guru berkembang, apakah faktor yang menyumbang kepada keberkesanan pengajaran yang kukuh dan positif dalam bidang-bidang yang pelbagai, dan bagaimana program pendidikan guru boleh membantu guru preservice membangunkan keberkesanan guru yang tinggi. Kepercayaan bertindak sebagai penapis melalui mana fenomena baru ditafsirkan dan berperantaraan tingkah laku berikutnya, tetapi maklumat boleh ditapis bahawa kepercayaan yang sama boleh telah hasil yang berbeza. Sebagai contoh, keberkesanan guru yang tinggi boleh menggalakkan atau menghalang perubahan konsep (Guskey, 1986, 1989). Iaitu, guru sangat yakin dalam pengajaran mereka mungkin sangat tahan untuk menukar mana-mana aspek dalam sebahagian besar kerana keyakinan yang ada dalam diri mereka sendiri; atau, guru sangat yakin dalam pengajaran mereka mungkin juga yakin cukup dalam diri mereka untuk cuba perubahan konsep . Ia perlu membuktikan berwawasan untuk mengetahui bagaimana guru membuat hubungan di antara kepercayaan dan tindakan dan di bawah apa keadaan yang sama kepercayaan efikasi guru boleh mengakibatkan berbeza persembahan. Juga, jika kepercayaan adalah sukar untuk mengubah (Pajares, 1992), bagaimana keberkesanan guru yang rendah boleh dibangkitkan? Dan, jika kepercayaan keberkesanan adalah penting untuk proses pengajaran, bagaimana mereka boleh membuat fokus yang jelas program pendidikan guru, dan apa yang akhir? Penyelidikan yang berterusan ke atas sendiri keberkesanan dan Pilihan Kerjaya Keputusan pelbagai kajian telah menunjukkan peranan mediational kepercayaan keberkesanan diri dalam pemilihan pilihan kerjaya (lihat Hackett, 1995; Lent & Hackett, 1987, untuk ulasan). Secara amnya, penemuan menunjukkan bahawa kepercayaan diri-keberkesanan mempengaruhi pilihan major dan keputusan kerjaya pelajar kolej. Mahasiswa memilih jurusan kolej dan kerjaya dalam bidang-bidang di mana mereka rasa paling cekap dan mengelakkan orang-orang yang mereka percaya diri mereka kurang berwibawa atau kurang mampu untuk bersaing. Penyelidik telah melaporkan bahawa matematik sendiri keberkesanan mahasiswa kolej lebih ramalan kepentingan matematik dan pilihan kursus dan jurusan yang berkaitan dengan matematik daripada sama ada pencapaian matematik sebelum mereka atau jangkaan hasil matematik dan bahawa mahasiswa lelaki melaporkan diri matematik yang lebih tinggi keberkesanan daripada melakukan pelajar wanita (Hackett, 1985; Hackett & Betz, 1989; Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991, 1993; Pajares &
6

Miller, 1994, 1995). Dalam banyak kes, wanita muda mengelakkan kursus yang berkaitan dengan matematik dan kerjaya kerana mereka memandang rendah keupayaan mereka dan bukannya kerana mereka kekurangan kecekapan atau kemahiran. Hackett (1995) di tempat lain telah diperhatikan implikasi utama daripada penemuan ini dan yang serupa dan mencatat beberapa hala tuju masa depan penyelidikan kerjaya sendiri keberkesanan, dan mereka tidak perlu diulangi di sini. Ia merit perhatian, bagaimanapun, bahawa Implikasi yang paling kritikal adalah bahawa, memandangkan situasi di mana ramai wanita muda mendapati diri mereka sebagai akibat daripada kekurangan surat-menyurat antara kepercayaan keberkesanan dan pencapaian prestasi, meningkatkan pencapaian ini sahaja tidak akan membetulkan masalah tersebut. Sebarang program atau campur tangan itu akan disertai oleh orang lain yang direka untuk meningkatkan akademik dan kerjayakeberkesanan kepercayaan dengan perhatian yang tertumpu kepada pembangunan kerjaya. Manakala Mohammed Sani, Zamri dan Norasmah (2006) memberi defi nisiguru novis sebagai guru baru yang terlatih dan mula berkhidmat di antara satu hingga tiga tahun, dalam tempoh percubaan dan belum disahkan lagi dalam jawatan. Dalam keadaan yang masih baru dengan profesyen guru dan komuniti sekolah, mereka dikelilingi dengan persekitaran serta tanggungjawab pengajaran yang serupa dihadapi oleh guru berpengalaman; yang menuntut aplikasi pelbagai pengetahuan dan kemahiran pedagogi. Namun dapatan kajian lepas menunjukkan program latihan guru bukanlah jaminan bahawa seseorang guru telah bersedia sepenuhnya menjalankan pengajaran sebenar (Housego, 1990). Sementara kajian Marso dan Pigge (1987) mendapati guruguru biasanya menganggap kursus-kursus yang diambil semasa mengikuti pengajian pendidikan guru lebih bersifat teori dan secara praktikalnya tidak berkesan dalam melaksanakan pengajaran sebenar. Keadaan sedemikian memberi kesan negatif khususnya terhadap efi kasi guru novis dalam melaksanakan pengajaran. Konsep efi kasi guru adalah berkaitan dengan kepercayaan guru terhadap keupayaan diri untuk melakasanakan tugas-tugas pengajaran bagi mencapai matlamat pengajaran secara khusus (Bandura, 1997; Woolfolk-Hoy, 2000). Tschannen-Moran dan Woolfolk-Hoy (2001) mendefi nisikan efi kasi guru sebagai pertimbangan guru terhadap keupayaannya untuk mencapai hasil yang diharapkan dalam penglibatan dan pembelajaran murid, walaupun ada di antaranya murid yang sukar dan tidak bermotivasi. KAJIAN-KAJIAN LEPAS Menerusi literatur kajian-kajian lepas mendapati faktor-faktor berkaitan guru seperti jantina, latihan guru dan subjek pengajaran merupakan antara beberapa faktor yang berpotensi mempengaruhi pola efi kasi guru. Misalnya, isu berkaitan jantina biasanya dikaitkan dengan sifat, peranan dan pembawaan yang berbeza antara lelaki dan perempuan. Isu berkaitan faktor jantina berpotensi mencorakkan aras kekuatan kolektif profesionalisme guru; dan seterusnya memberi kesan ke atas pencapaian murid. Misalnya efi kasi guru perempuan di sekolah menengah didapati lebih tinggi berbanding guru lelaki (Egger, 2006; Kurz, 2001). Terdapat kajian yang mendapati efi kasi 144 MJLI VOL. 6 (2009) guru lelaki lebih tinggi berbanding guru perempuan (Imants & De Brabander, 1996; Rahmah, Mohd Majid, Habibah & Foo, 2006). Namun kajian Tschnannen Moran dan Woolfolk Hoy (2007) mendapati faktor jantina dan latihan guru tidak mempunyai perkaitan dengan efi kasi guru. Dapatan kajian Rahmah et al. (2006) menunjukkan efi kasi
7

guru novis berbeza mengikut jantina dan latihan guru. Guru lelaki dan guru siswazah lebih berefikasi berbanding guru perempuan dan guru bukan siswazah. Kajian Little (1995) pula melaporkan bahawa 44 % guru mengatakan mereka tidak diberi latihan formal mengenai pengurusan kelas ketika menjalani latihan guru di Victoria. Terdapat banyak kajian lepas yang mendedahkan tanggapan guru bahawa mereka tidak dilatih dengan baik dalam mengurus masalah tingkah laku murid (Buell, Hallan, Gamel-Mc Cormich & Scheer 1999; Cains & Brown, 1996; Villa, Thousand & Chapple, 1996). Dalam aspek subjek pengajaran, kajiankajian lepas (Capa, 2005; Wilson & Tan, 2004) mendapati bahawa subjek pengajaran mampu memberi pengaruh yang signifi kan ke atas efi kasi guru novis. Dapatan kajian Capa (2005) menunjukkan subjek pengajaran merupakan penyumbang utama ke atas efi kasi guru-guru yang baru mengajar pada tahun pertama berbanding faktor sokongan guru berpengalaman. LITERATUR BERKAITAN Menurut Bandura (1997) efikasi guru adalah sejenis efikasi kendiri yang terhasil daripada proses kognitif di mana seseorang membina kepercayaan mengenai kebolehannya untuk melaksanakan sesuatu tugas pada sesuatu tahap kompetensi. Kepercayaan ini mempengaruhi setakat mana guru berusaha, sejauh mana guru tabah dalam menghadapi kesusahan dan sejauh mana guru bertahan dalam menghadapi kegagalan dan tekanan dalam keadaan yang mendesak. Kajian juga menunjukkan efikasi guru berkait rapat dengan perlakuan guru yang memupuk pencapaian pelajar (Goddard et al. 2005). Ini adalah kerana guru yang mempunyai efikasi kendiri yang tinggi menunjukkan semangat dan komitmen yang tinggi dalam perancangan dan organisasi serta kesanggupan menghadapi karenah perlakuan pelajar (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Ini menunjukkan bahawa efikasi penting dipertingkatkan kerana ia mempengaruhi pemikiran, emosi dan tindakan guru dalam menjalankan tanggung jawab mendidik lebih-lebih lagi dalam membentuk sahsiah pelajar. Andrew Milson dan Lisa Mehlig (2002) menjalankan kajian untuk mengenal pasti kepercayaan guru tentang keberkesanan pendidikan sahsiah. Mereka mendapati kebanyakan guru sekolah rendah percaya tentang kebanyakan aspek daripada pendidikan sahsiah. Mereka juga mendapati guru yang memperolehi ijazah pertama daripada universiti swasta yang bersekutu dengan institusi keagamaan mempunyai kesedaran yang lebih terhadap pendidikan sahsiah. Sehubungan itu Milson dan Mehlig menyarankan supaya diberi komitmen terhadap pendidikan sahsiah di institusi-institusi perguruan. Narendra Kumar (2004) menjalankan kajian efikasi guru Maktab Perguruan Melayu Melaka yang melibatkan 138 orang pelajar KPLI. Pengukuran tahap efikasi guru dibuat pada minggu pertama pelajar mendaftar di maktab dan selepas pelajar menduduki peperiksaan akhir semasa mengikuti Kursus Induksi Sistem Saraan Baru. Beliau telah menggunakan instrumen Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) dengan format respon skala Likert 6 mata. Kajian beliau mendapati min tahap efikasi guru menurun setelah tamat mengikuti kursus KPLI. Menurut beliau, kemungkinan pelajar memulakan latihan perguruan dengan kepercayaan bahawa guru tidak banyak memberi kesan terhadap prestasi pelajar berbanding dengan keluarga, IQ dan persekitaran sekolah. Kepercayaan ini didapati tidak banyak berubah walau pun telah tamat latihan perguruan EFIKASI GURU Kesungguhan guru dalam mempengaruhi pencapaian murid adalah merujuk kepada konstruk efikasi guru (Bandura 1997). Guru melakukan pertimbangan terhadap keupayaan diri dalam mempengaruhi hasil pembelajaran murid. Efikasi guru dikenal pasti mempunyai hubungan yang signifikan dengan pencapaian murid (Anderson et al. 1991; Ashton & Webb 1986; Bandura 1993, 1997; Gibson
8

& Dembo 1984; Ross 1992; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy 2001; Tschannen-Mora.n et al. 1998b). Konsep efikasi mempunyai kaitan dengan kekuatan aras kepercayaan individu yang mempengaruhi tingkah laku berhubung dengan sesuatu keadaan yang dihadapi. Kepercayaan bahawa seseorang mempunyai keupayaan untuk melakukan tindakan yang diperlukan. Pertimbangan individu terhadap keupayaan diri dalam menjalankan tugas pengajaran yang mendorong ke arah merancang dan menyelaras tingkah laku yang diperlukan untuk mencapai matlamat tugasan yang diharapkan. Kajian Gibson dan Dembo (1984) menunjukkan bahawa guru yang berefikasi rendah kurang kesungguhan dalam memperbaiki kelemahan murid, selain cenderung menilai murid berdasarkan kecerdasan tanpa mengambil kira persediaan pembelajaran murid serta memberi layanan yang baik kepada murid yang cerdas (Ashton et al. 1983). Guru yang berefikasi rendah juga cenderung menerapkan kawalan disiplin dalam bilik darjah serta amalan ganjaran-hukuman untuk memastikan murid mengikuti pengajaran (Woolfolk et al. 1990; Woolfolk et al. 1990). Manakala guru yang berefikasi tinggi menerapkan strategi pengalaman masteri berbanding guru yang rendah efikasi pengajarannya cenderung mengabaikan perkembangan kognitif dan keupayaan murid (Gibson & Dembo 1984). Kepercayaan efikasi yang tinggi mendorong guru supaya lebih berusaha dalam tugas pengajarannya dengan mempelbagaikan aktiviti pengajaran dan tidak mudah mengalah (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy 2001). KELAYAKAN PROFESION DAN EFIKASI GURU Teori efikasi kendiri menerangkan tentang aras keyakinan individu terhadap kemampuan melaksanakan tugasan tertentu (Bandura 1997). Menerusi teori 6 Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia 34(2) ini, konsep reciprocal determinism, iaitu kitaran interaksi antara kognitif, persekitaran dan tingkah laku membolehkan individu mempelajari persekitarannya untuk menghasilkan tingkah laku yang diperlukan berdasarkan kepada pengetahuan terdahulu yang dimiliki. Menurut Welch (1995) kejayaan-kejayaan yang dicapai berupaya meningkatkan efikasi. Sebaliknya kegagalan yang dilalui berpotensi menjadikan guru berefikasi rendah kerana telah wujud pertimbangan negatif terhadap kemampuan pengajaran guru. Dapatan kajian Tschannen-Moran dan Hoy (2002) menunjukkan efikasi guru berpengalaman (mengajar lebih dari lima tahun) lebih tinggi berbanding dengan guru novis (mengajar kurang dari lima tahun). Looney (2003) juga cenderung berpihak kepada pengalaman mengajar mempengaruhi efikasi guru. Menerusi kajiannya (Looney 2003), beliau mendapati bahawa memang wujud hubungan yang signifikan, tetapi lemah antara pengalaman dengan efikasi guru. Tschannen-Moran dan Hoy (2002) juga menegaskan bahawa guru yang berpengalaman berefikasi tinggi kerana telah melalui peluang demi peluang menerusi tugas pengajaran harian untuk tempoh yang lama berbanding dengan guru novis untuk mengembangkan kemahiran dalam pengurusan kelas dan strategi pengajaran. Dapatan kajian Soodak dan Podell (1996) juga memperlihatkan wujudnya sumbangan pengalaman mengajar terhadap efikasi pengajaran guru.
9

Namun dalam kajian Hoy dan Woolfolk (1993) mendapati pengalaman mengajar tidak memberi pengaruh secara statistik terhadap efikasi guru. Dalam tinjauan Ross (1994) terhadap 88 kajian berkaitan efikasi guru dalam kalangan guru-guru pelatih mendapati bahawa wujud hubungan antara efikasi guru dengan tingkah laku. Menurut Ross lagi guru yang berefikasi tinggi cenderung mempelajari dan menerapkan pendekatan dan strategi baru dalam pengajaran, menerapkan teknik pengurusan ke arah mengembangkan autonomi murid, memberi bantuan kepada murid yang lemah, membina tanggapan kendiri murid terhadap kemahiran akademik, menetapkan matlamat, dan tidak mudah mengalah berdepan dengan murid yang lemah. Dapatan kajian lepas juga mendapati efikasi guru berada pada tahap yang tertinggi ketika masih menjadi guru pelatih kemudian menurun ketika tahun pertama mengajar (Brousseau et al.1988; Soodak & Podell 1996).Kajian-kajian berkaitan efikasi guru banyak tertumpu kepada implikasinya,di samping mengaitkannya dengan guru-guru pelatih dan novis. Namun, kajiankajian yang mempelajari perbezaan pola efikasi guru berdasarkan faktor-faktor personal masih banyak yang perlu dijalankan (Giallo & Little 2003; Goddard 2002). Meskipun beberapa kajian yang mengaitkan efikasi guru dengan pengalaman mengajar namun perbezaan dapatan yang diperoleh menuntut lebih banyak kajian serupa dijalankan. Di samping itu, kajian-kajian yang mengaitkan jenis latihan dengan efikasi guru masih kurang diberi tumpuan, khususnya dalam konteks pendidikan di Malaysia, selain kajian yang dijalankan oleh Rahmah, Mohd. Majid, Habibah & Foo (2006). Secara teorinya, setiap institusi pengajian Pengaruh Jenis Latihan Guru dan Pengalaman Mengajar 7 tinggi awam yang mengendalikan program pendidikan guru di Malaysia adalah di bawah kawal selia Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia (KPTM) bagi menjamin kualiti program, namun keberkesanan guru dalam menjalankan pengajaran masih banyak dipersoalkan (Ingersoll 2007). School-level effects. Teachers sense of efficacy is related to a number of school-level variables, such as the climate of the school, behavior of the principal, sense of school community, and decision making structures. Using Gibson and Dembos (1984) measure of efficacy, greater personal teaching efficacy (PTE) and higher general teacher efficacy (GTE) have been found among teachers who perceived a positive school atmosphere (Moore & Esselman, 1992) and a strong press for academic achievement among the staff in their schools (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Moreover, sense of community in a school was the single greatest predictor of teachers level of efficacy in a study using the High School and Beyond data (Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991). The leadership of the principal has also been linked to teacher efficacy. Teachers who felt their principals were sufficiently influential with their superiors within the district, as measured on the Organizational Health Inventory, had higher personal teaching efficacy (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Principals who used their leadership to provide resources for teachers and to buffer them from disruptivefactors, but allowed teachers flexibility over classroom affairs, created a context that allowed efficacy to develop, and schools where student disorder was kept to a minimum were schools in which teachers felt a greater sense of efficacy (Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991). When the principal of a school modeled appropriate behavior and provided rewards contingent on performance, both aspects of teacher efficacy were higher. The principals ability to inspire a common sense of purpose among teachers was tied to higher general teaching efficacy (Hipp & Bredeson, 1995). Teachers participation in the decisions that affect their work lives also bears on teachers sense
10

of efficacy. Among teachers in an urban, Midwestern school district, the greater freedom teachers felt to make decisions affecting their own classrooms, the greater was their general teaching efficacy. Teachers who felt they had a greater influence in school-based decision making, and perceived fewer impediments to teaching had a stronger sense of personal teaching efficacy (Moore & Esselman, 1992). Teachers with a stronger sense of personal teaching efficacy rated intervention by a consultant as more acceptable than teachers whose personal teaching efficacy was lower (DeForest & Hughes, 1992). In another study, four 15school factors were found to be significantly associated with teacher efficacy: receiving positive feedback on teacher performance, collaboration with other teachers, parent involvement in the school, and schoolwide coordination of student behavior (Rosenholtz, 1989). In a qualitative study, Ashton and Webb (1986) investigated whether the structure of the school would play any role in teachers sense of efficacy. They found that teachers working in a school with a middle-school structure and philosophy had a higher sense of efficacy than teachers in a junior-high structure. The middle-school teachers had higher expectations of academic success for their students and were more satisfied with teaching, although they also had more difficulties with collegial relations. To explore the environmental factors that might tend to diminish teachers sense of efficacy Webb and Ashton (1987) interviewed teachers and found a number of factors that contribute to lower teacher efficacy. These include excessive role demands, poor morale, inadequate salaries, low status, and lack of recognition. In addition, professional isolation, uncertainty, and alienation tended to weaken teachers efficacy beliefs. In examining the efficacy beliefs among both novice and experienced teachers during their first year of teaching in an urban context, Chester and Beaudin (1996) found that experienced teachers generally saw a decrease in their sense of efficacy in their first year of teaching in an urban district. However, certain school practices apparently contributed to increased efficacy among the newly hired teachers. The greater the opportunity for collaboration with other adults and the more observations that were made the greater was the teachers sense of efficacy. Surprisingly, the availability and quality of resources did not have a significant independent relationship to efficacy. Chester and Beaudin speculated that there may be a decision-overload effect when new teachers are presented with a large number of resources in the absence of guidance and support to make instructional choices. A low sense of efficacy can be contagious among a staff of teachers, creating a self-defeating and demoralizing cycle of failure. Low teacher efficacy leads to low student efficacy and low academic achievement, which in turn leads to further declines in teacher efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Organizational features that create a cohesive culture that is orderly, with a strong press for academic achievement, where administrators are responsive to teachers concerns and encourage them to try new ideas, and whereteachers encourage one another in their attempts to address student needs, may reverse this cycle (Hoy &Sabo, 1998). As academic achievement is improved, efficacy beliefs are enhanced, which then furtherenhances student achievement, regardless of the socioeconomic status of the students. The collective efficacy of schools appears to act in powerful ways which merit further exploration. The Meaning of Teacher Efficacy Teachers sense of efficacy has been shown to be a powerful construct related to student outcomes such as achievement (Armor, et al., 1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992;Ross, 1992), motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), and sense of efficacy (Anderson, Greene,& Loewen, 1988). It was also related to teachers behavior in the classroom. It affects the effort they put into teaching, the goals they set, and their level of aspiration. Teachers
11

with a strong sense of efficacy are open to new ideas and more willing to experiment with new methods to better meet the needs of their students (Berman et al., 1977; Guskey, 1988, Stein & Wang, 1988), and tend to exhibit greater levels of planning and organization (Allinder, 1994). Efficacy influences teachers persistence when things do not go smoothly and their resilience in the face of setbacks. Greater efficacy enables teachers to be less critical of students when they make errors (Ashton & Webb, 1986), to work longer with a student who is struggling (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), and to be less inclined to refer a difficult student to special education (Meijer & Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993). Teachers with a higher sense of efficacy exhibit greater enthusiasm for teaching (Allinder, 1994; Guskey, 1984; Hall et al. 1992), have greater commitment to teaching (Coladarci, 1992; Evans & Tribble, 1986; Trentham, et al. 1985) and are more likely to stay in teaching (Burley, et al., 1991; Glickman, & Tamashiro, 1982). At the school level, higher teacher efficacy is related to the health of the organizational climate (Hoy &Woolfolk, 1993), an orderly and positive school atmosphere, greater classroom-based decision making (Moore & Esselman, 1992), and the strength of the collective efficacy (Fuller & Izu, 1986; Newmann, Rutter & Smith, 1989). Clearly the study of this construct has born much fruit in the field of education. And yet there remains a lack of clarity about its structure and antecedents. Studies of teacher efficacy have consistently found two separate dimensions or factors, although considerable confusion and debate have arisen over their meaning. While there is general agreement that the first factor, commonly called personal teaching efficacy, has to do with ones own feelings of competence as a teacher, the meaning of the second factor has been in question. Although it is often called general teaching efficacy, some have argued for other labels. Emmer and Hickman (1990) called the second factor external influences which is reminiscent of Rotters construct of external control.Riggs and Enochs in the development of the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (1990) have labeled Factor 2 as an outcome expectancy, the second component of Banduras social cognitive theory in which a person assesses the likely consequences of the performance level he or she expects to achieve. Riggs and Enochs (1990), (along with Ashton, et al. 1982; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; and Soodak & Podell, 1996), reasoned that what teachers in general could be expected to accomplish was the outcome anindividual teacher could expect from his or her own teaching. Bandura (1986) argued that an outcome expectancy is a judgment of the likely consequences of aspecific action, given an individuals anticipated level of performance (a means-ends relationship as described by Skinner, 1996). Bandura pointed out that outcome expectancy adds little to the explanation of motivation because the outcome a person expects stems from that persons assessment of his or her own capabilities and expected level of performance, not from what it would be possible for others to accomplish under similar circumstances. Therefore the items used to measure the second factor of teacher efficacy about the potential impact of teachers in general (GTE) cannot be considered an outcome expectancy (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). To capture the contingency relationship between means and ends, items would have to refer to outcomes the individual teacher could expect, given certain actions or means he or she felt capable of delivering. Guskey and Passaro would argue that Emmer and Hickmans label external influences strikes closer to the mark of what the current GTE items capture.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS


12

The literature on teacher efficacy has important implications for the induction of new teachers and the professional development of practicing teachers. Broadly, research on teacher efficacy can help teachers think about the ways in which they approach tasks in their classrooms including how accurate they are in identifying the challenge level of tasks and the extent to which they try to break down complex, challenging tasks into something more manageable. Teachers can think about the ways in which they attempt to structure their teaching tasks (e.g. selecting activities, employing new strategies/methods) in such a way that allows them to both grow professionally and feel competent. Moreover, teachers need to be reflective about the areas where they feel most and least competent. How do discrete experiences of success and failure shape their beliefs about their ability to carry out similar behaviors in the future? Teachers need to be aware that feeling incompetent may lead them to avoid important classroom tasks. Over time, teachers may purposely make decisions to avoid certain schools and students or even avoid examining data as a way to protect their sense of self. When faced with feelings of failure, teachers need to engage in active help seeking aimed at building their efficacy through mastery experiences or observing colleagues. Preservice and Early Career. The task of teacher education is, fundamentally, to develop competent and confident teachers. Preservice teachers with little or no teaching experience may lack a sense of efficacy, and program developers need to think carefully about how to structure entry into the field in a way that promotes mastery. On the other hand, if all of their early experiences lead to success, pre-service teachers may enter the field with a false, or uncali-brated, sense of efficacy because it was developed without the demands of running one's own classroom, dealing with parents and teachers or managing student problems. In a seminal paper by Rohrkemper and Corno (1985), teachers were cautioned not to ignore the value of functional failure. They encouraged teachers to create context in which students can learn from mistakes and learn to persist even when unsuccessful. Their work also has important implications for teacher educators, encouraging programs to rank task difficulty, complexity and frustration of field placements for student-teachers. Experienced and Veteran Teachers. Throughout their careers, practicing teachers must strive to maintain a competent teacher identity while continuing to serve their students. This can be challenging particularly in light of the increasing complexity of the teaching task (Woolfolk Hoy, Davis, & Pape, 2005). Some scholars argue that teachers with higher sense of efficacy may be more prone to experience burnout because they tend to set higher standards and expectations (Fives et al., 2007). Faced with rapid changes in student populations and reform movements, practicing teachers may feel threatened and, in lieu of seeking professional development to build mastery, may engage in behaviors designed to preserve their sense of self. While it may preserve sense of self, resistance to change may come at the cost of serving important populations of students. For this reason, it is important for administrators to consult teachers prior to and during reform movements to identify the types of professional development experiences necessary for building mastery, carefully monitoring and adjusting the level of arousal, and providing the feedback that persuades teachers they can be successful (Gregoire, 2003). Several studies suggest practicing teachers' efficacy can be enhanced through participation in action research (Henson, 2001), reviewing lessons with colleagues (Puch-ner & Taylor, 2006), regular feedback on their goal pursuit (Labone, 2004), and self-reflection that helps identify and interpret mastery experiences while developing self-regulatory skills.

13

See also:Attribution Theory, Caring Teachers, Relevance of Self-Evaluations to Classroom Learning, Self-Efficacy Theory, Social Cognitive Theory, Teacher Beliefs, Weiner, Bernard 1935Kajian-kajian lepas mendapati guru-guru yang merasa kurang bersedia berdepan dengan masalah dalam pengajaran kerap menganggap diri mereka tidak berpengalaman dan tidak mendapat latihan yang mencukupi (Buell et al. 1999; Cains & Brown 1996; Martin et al. 1999). Dalam konteks profesion guru, pengalaman dan latihan guru merupakan dua isu yang saling berbeza. Pengalaman merupakan pengetahuan empirikal sementara latihan guru lebih bersifat teoritikal. Kedua-duanya saling memerlukan untuk menjadikan seseorang guru mencapai tahap kecekapan yang dituntut. Sehubungan itu, Goodwin (1999) mentakrifkan latihan guru dan pengalaman mengajar sebagai antara kelayakan asas yang utama dalam pengajaran berkesan.Pendidikan dan latihan iktisas guru merupakan faktor yang paling utama dalam menentukan kualiti guru dan kualiti pengajaran. Kalangan pakar telah sepakat bahawa penguasaan pengetahuan dalam bidang pengajaran menjadi ciri yang paling penting dalam pengajaran guru. Dapatan kajian menyokong secara sederhana tetapi konsisten bahawa pengetahuan bidang pengajian dan pengetahuan tentang cara mengajar menjadi penentu utama dalam kualiti pengajaran (Greenwald et al. 1996; Ingersoll 2000; Ingersoll & Gruber 1996). Menurut Cohen, Raudenbush dan Ball (2003), bukti-bukti statistik menunjukkan bahawa amalan pengajaran yang disertai dengan pengetahuan dan tindakan memberi pengaruh terhadap pembelajaran murid.Selain itu, faktor pengalaman mengajar merupakan pengetahuan yang dibentuk oleh interaksi antara faktor-faktor persekitaran kerja. Tempoh dan kekerapan melalui tugas pengajaran sama ada berjaya atau sebaliknya, sedikit demi sedikit membina pengetahuan dan kemahiran profesion yang diperlukan. Guru-guru berpengalaman banyak bergantung kepada ingatan dan tafsiran terhadap pengalaman pengajaran terdahulu yang berkaitan (Gist & Mitchell 1992). Dalam kajian Goodwin (1999) berkaitan demografi guru dengan pencapaian murid mendapati kelayakan guru merupakan prediktor terbaik berbanding faktorfaktor luaran guru (saiz kelas, pendidikan ibu bapa, pendapatan dan latar belakang bahasa) dalam meramal pencapaian murid. Namun di sebalik kepentingan Pengaruh Jenis Latihan Guru dan Pengalaman Mengajar kelayakan guru, kajian-kajian lepas mendedahkan banyak kritikan terhadap kelayakan guru dalam melaksanakan pengajaran (Ingersoll 2007). Selain faktor kelayakan guru dalam mempengaruhi keberkesanan pengajaran guru, terdapat juga faktor-faktor lain yang berpotensi mencorakkan pencapaian murid, antaranya ialah kepercayaan efikasi guru. Bandura (1997) mendefinisikan efikasi guru sebagai kepercayaan guru terhadap keupayaan diri untuk mengendalikan pengajaran secara berkesan ke arah mempengaruhi pencapaian murid. EFIKASI GURU Kesungguhan guru dalam mempengaruhi pencapaian murid adalah merujuk kepada konstruk efikasi guru (Bandura 1997). Guru melakukan pertimbangan terhadap keupayaan diri dalam mempengaruhi hasil pembelajaran murid. Efikasi guru dikenal pasti mempunyai hubungan yang signifikan dengan pencapaian murid (Anderson et al. 1991; Ashton & Webb 1986; Bandura 1993, 1997; Gibson & Dembo 1984; Ross 1992; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy 2001; Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998b). Konsep efikasi mempunyai kaitan dengan kekuatan aras kepercayaan individu yang mempengaruhi tingkah laku berhubung dengan sesuatu keadaan yang dihadapi. Kepercayaan bahawa seseorang mempunyai keupayaan untuk melakukan tindakan yang diperlukan. Pertimbangan individu terhadap keupayaan diri dalam menjalankan tugas pengajaran
14

yang mendorong ke arah merancang dan menyelaras tingkah laku yang diperlukan untuk mencapai matlamat tugasan yang diharapkan. Kajian Gibson dan Dembo (1984) menunjukkan bahawa guru yang berefikasi rendah kurang kesungguhan dalam memperbaiki kelemahan murid, selain cenderung menilai murid berdasarkan kecerdasan tanpa mengambil kira persediaan pembelajaran murid serta memberi layanan yang baik kepada murid yang cerdas (Ashton et al. 1983). Guru yang berefikasi rendah juga cenderung menerapkan kawalan disiplin dalam bilik darjah serta amalan ganjaran-hukuman untuk memastikan murid mengikuti pengajaran (Woolfolk et al. 1990; Woolfolk et al. 1990). Manakala guru yang berefikasi tinggi menerapkan strategi pengalaman masteri berbanding guru yang rendah efikasi pengajarannya cenderung mengabaikan perkembangan kognitif dan keupayaan murid (Gibson & Dembo 1984). Kepercayaan efikasi yang tinggi mendorong guru supaya lebih berusaha dalam tugas pengajarannya dengan mempelbagaikan aktiviti pengajaran dan tidak mudah mengalah (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy 2001). KELAYAKAN PROFESION DAN EFIKASI GURU Teori efikasi kendiri menerangkan tentang aras keyakinan individu terhadap kemampuan melaksanakan tugasan tertentu (Bandura 1997). Menerusi teori 6 Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia 34(2) ini, konsep reciprocal determinism, iaitu kitaran interaksi antara kognitif, persekitaran dan tingkah laku membolehkan individu mempelajari persekitarannya untuk menghasilkan tingkah laku yang diperlukan berdasarkan kepada pengetahuan terdahulu yang dimiliki. Menurut Welch (1995) kejayaan-kejayaan yang dicapai berupaya meningkatkan efikasi. Sebaliknya kegagalan yang dilalui berpotensi menjadikan guru berefikasi rendah kerana telah wujud pertimbangan negative terhadap kemampuan pengajaran guru. Dapatan kajian Tschannen-Moran dan Hoy (2002) menunjukkan efikasi guru berpengalaman (mengajar lebih dari lima tahun) lebih tinggi berbanding dengan guru novis (mengajar kurang dari lima tahun). Looney (2003) juga cenderung berpihak kepada pengalaman mengajar mempengaruhi efikasi guru. Menerusi kajiannya (Looney 2003), beliau mendapati bahawa memang wujud hubungan yang signifikan, tetapi lemah antara pengalaman dengan efikasi guru. Tschannen-Moran dan Hoy (2002) juga menegaskan bahawa guru yang berpengalaman berefikasi tinggi kerana telah melalui peluang demi peluang menerusi tugas pengajaran harian untuk tempoh yang lama berbanding dengan guru novis untuk mengembangkan kemahiran dalam pengurusan kelas dan strategi pengajaran. Dapatan kajian Soodak dan Podell (1996) juga memperlihatkan wujudnya sumbangan pengalaman mengajar terhadap efikasi pengajaran guru. Namun dalam kajian Hoy dan Woolfolk (1993) mendapati pengalaman mengajar tidak memberi pengaruh secara statistik terhadap efikasi guru. Dalam tinjauan Ross (1994) terhadap 88 kajian berkaitan efikasi guru dalam kalangan guru-guru pelatih mendapati bahawa wujud hubungan antara efikasi guru dengan tingkah laku. Menurut Ross lagi guru yang berefikasi tinggi cenderung mempelajari dan menerapkan pendekatan dan strategi baru dalam pengajaran, menerapkan teknik pengurusan ke arah mengembangkan autonomi murid, memberi bantuan kepada murid yang lemah, membina tanggapan kendiri murid terhadap kemahiran akademik, menetapkan matlamat, dan tidak mudah mengalah berdepan dengan murid yang lemah. Dapatan kajian lepas juga mendapati efikasi guru berada pada tahap yang tertinggi ketika masih menjadi guru pelatih kemudian menurun ketika tahun pertama mengajar (Brousseau et al. 1988; Soodak & Podell 1996). Kajian-kajian berkaitan efikasi guru banyak tertumpu kepada implikasinya, di samping mengaitkannya dengan guru-guru pelatih dan novis. Namun, kajiankajian yang mempelajari perbezaan pola efikasi guru berdasarkan faktor-faktor
15

personal masih banyak yang perlu dijalankan (Giallo & Little 2003; Goddard 2002). Meskipun beberapa kajian yang mengaitkan efikasi guru dengan pengalaman mengajar namun perbezaan dapatan yang diperoleh menuntut lebih banyak kajian serupa dijalankan. Di samping itu, kajian-kajian yang mengaitkan jenis latihan dengan efikasi guru masih kurang diberi tumpuan, khususnya dalam konteks pendidikan di Malaysia, selain kajian yang dijalankan oleh Rahmah, Mohd. Majid, Habibah & Foo (2006). Secara teorinya, setiap institusi pengajian Pengaruh Jenis Latihan Guru dan Pengalaman Mengajar 7 tinggi awam yang mengendalikan program pendidikan guru di Malaysia adalah di bawah kawal selia Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia (KPTM) bagi menjamin kualiti program, namun keberkesanan guru dalam menjalankan pengajaran masih banyak dipersoalkan (Ingersoll 2007). TUJUAN DAN HIPOTESIS KAJIAN

16