The Effects of Counseling Techniques on Perceptions of Teaching Efficacy

Abstract

Previous research (Armor, Conroy-Osquera, Cox, King, McDonnell, Pacal, Pauly & Zellman, 1976; Berman & McLaughlin, 1977) has shown that teacher efficacy is important in education and classroom effectiveness. This study examined two different counseling interventions to determine the impact on teaching efficacy of degree seeking students who were teaching courses in their respective disciplines. Two counseling interventions were presented in the study. One intervention focused on didactic information and the other on processing of events and emotions (more common with traditional talk counseling). The subject population consisted of “pre-service” teachers and graduate teaching assistants. Using Bandura’s Efficacy theory, it was examined whether either of the two counseling interventions would positively impact teacher’s efficacy.

The following null hypotheses were assessed: a) the didactic group would have no effect on the subjects’ teaching efficacy as measured by the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson, 1983), and b) the processing group would have no effect on the subjects’ teaching efficacy as measured by the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson, 1983). It was anticipated that both groups receiving either intervention, didactic or process, would show a positive increase in their overall score on an instrument measuring teaching efficacy, the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson, 1983). It was further hypothesized that a control group would show no difference in their overall teaching efficacy score. Also, it was hypothesized that the didactic intervention would have a greater positive impact on the subjects’ teaching efficacy measure than the process intervention.

The Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson, 1983) was administered to thirty degree seeking students who were teaching at a large, Southern University. This study utilized a pretest-posttest control group design. Two groups received treatment while the third group received no treatment and thus served as a control group. A repeated measures analysis of variance statistics was used with the pretest and posttest interval data in order to determine differences in all the subjects’ efficacy scores after either intervention and differences between treatment groups (interaction). The results of the repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between experimental group and the pretest/ posttest scores. Pair wise t-tests using the Bonferroni method revealed that the didactic treatment was significant at the .05 level.