چکیده
هدف از اجرای این تحقیق مقایسه میزان خود کارآمدی میان مدرسین زبان انگلیسی با توجه به تیپ های مختلف شخصیتی است. بدین منطور تعداد 90 مدرس زبان انگلیسی از شعبات مختلف موسسه آموزش زبان کیش در تهران که تمایل به همکاری در این زمینه داشتند به صورت اتفاقی انتخاب و طی آموزشی کوتاه با اهداف تحقیق، پرسشنامه ها و نهایتا نحوه پاسخگویی آشنا شدند. پرسشنامه های به کار گرفته شده در این تحقیق شامل فرمهای شاخص تیپهای شخصیتی مایرز- بریگز( فرم M)[1] و فرم تعیین میزان خودکارآمدی مدرسین[2] (24 سوال) میباشد. بدلیل تعداد اندک مدرسین در بیشتر تیپ های شخصیتی چهارگانه مایرز – بریگز، تیپ های دو گانه شخصیتی از لحاظ آماری با یکد یگر مقایسه شدند. جهت انجام کاهش میزان خطای ناشی از انجام چندین آزمون تی، میزان آلفا با تنظیم بنفرونی به مقدار 125/0 کاهش داده شد. نتایج نشان داد تنها تیپ شخصیتی برونگرا تفاوت معناداری با تیپ شخصیتی درونگرا از نظر خود کارآمدی دارد وتفاوتهای خودکارآمدی مشاهده شده بین سایر تیپ های شخصیتی معنادار نبود. امید است نتایج یادشده در این تحقیق بتواند جهت مسئولین آموزشی و همچنین مدرسین زبان انگلیسی با توجه به در نظر گرفتن تیپهای مختلف شخصیتی و میزان خودکارآمدی مفید واقع گردد.
[1] Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form M
[2] Megan Tschannen-Moran, College of William and Mary
Anita Wool folk Hoy, the Ohio State University.
ABSTRACT
This study attempted to investigate whether EFL teachers with different personality types significantly differed in their self-efficacy beliefs. To fulfill the purpose of the study a total of 90 EFL teachers from different branches of Kish Language School were selected. Subsequent to a briefing session, they took Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale known as Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (long form). The data was coded and descriptive statistics were computed. Due to the insufficient number of participants in many of the MBTI personality categories, the researcher was limited to comparing the self-efficacy of the teachers in the binary categories of Extrovert/Introvert, Sensing/iNtuitive, Feeling/Thinking, Perceiving/Judging personality types. Significant differences were only found between the self-efficacy of Extrovert and Introvert EFL teachers, with Extroverts manifesting higher self-efficacy beliefs. The observed differences between other binary categories were not significant. The findings of the study have implications for EFL teachers and teacher educators.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| Abstract |
iii |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS |
iv |
| List of Tables |
vii |
| List of Figures |
viii |
| CHAPTER I Background and Purpose |
| 1.1 |
Introduction |
1 |
| 1.2 |
Statement of the Problem |
9 |
| 1.3 |
Statement of the Research Question |
13 |
| 1.4 |
Statement of the Research Hypotheses |
13 |
| 1.5 |
Definition of Key Terms |
13 |
| 1.5.1 |
Teacher’s Self-Efficacy . |
13 |
| 1.5.2 |
Personality Types |
14 |
| 1.5.3 |
Individuation |
14 |
| 1.6 |
Significance of the Study |
15 |
| 1.7 |
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study |
16 |
| 1.7.1 |
Limitations |
16 |
| 1.7.2 |
Delimitation |
18 |
| CHAPTER II Review of the Related Literature |
| 2.1 |
Introduction |
19 |
| 2.2 |
Personality Types |
19 |
| 2.2.1 |
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) .. |
23 |
| 2.2.2 |
Related Researches on Teachers’ Personality |
28 |
| 2.2.3 |
Conceptual Framework . |
33 |
| 2.3 |
Self-Efficacy |
34 |
| CHAPTER III |
CHA II Methodology |
|
| 3.1 |
Introduction |
45 |
| 3.2 |
Participants …….. |
45 |
| 3.3 |
Instrumentation … |
46 |
| 3.3.1 |
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) |
46 |
| 3.3.2 |
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale … |
49 |
| 3.4 |
Procedure ………………….. |
50 |
| 3.5 |
Research Design .. |
51 |
| 3.6 |
Statistical Analysis |
51 |
| CHAPTER IV Data Analysis and Discussion |
| 4.1 |
Introduction |
53 |
| 4.2 |
Restatement of the Hypotheses |
53 |
| 4.3 |
Data Analyses ………………… |
54 |
| 4.3.1 |
Descriptive Statistics |
54 |
| 4.3.1.1 |
Descriptive Statistics of the MBTI Questionnaire |
55 |
| 4.3.1.2 |
Descriptive Statistics of the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire |
56 |
| 4.3.2 |
Inferential Statistics |
59 |
| 4.4 |
Discussion |
64 |
| CHAPTER V Conclusions and Pedagogical Implications |
| 5.1 |
Introduction . |
70 |
| 5.2 |
Restatement of the Hypotheses .. |
71 |
| 5.3 |
Summary of the Research Findings |
72 |
| 5.4 |
Conclusion . |
74 |
| 5.5 |
Pedagogical Implications |
76 |
| 5.6 |
Suggestion for Further Research |
78 |
| 5.7 |
Concluding Remarks |
79 |
| REFERENCES |
REFERE |
80 |
| APPENDICES |
Appendices |
|
| |
Appendix A |
90 |
| |
Appendix B |
103 |
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Jungian Personality Factors Measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator 26
Table 2.2 Teacher Type Descriptions (Adapted from Myers et al., 1998) 27
Table 4.1 The Number of Teachers in Each Personality Type 55
Table 4.2 The Number of Teachers in Each Binary Personality Type 56
Table 4.3 Reliability of the MBTI Questionnaire 56
Table 4.4 Reliability Estimate of the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 56
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics for Extrovert and Introvert Teachers 57
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics for iNtuitive and Sensing Teachers 57
Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics for Feeling and Thinking Teachers 58
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics for Perceiving and Judging Teachers 58
Table 4.9 Independent Samples t-test for Extrovert and Introvert EFL Teachers’ Self- Efficacy 60
Table 4.10 Independent Samples t-test for Sensing and iNtuitive EFL Teachers’ Self-Efficacy 61
Table 4.11 Independent Samples t-test for Thinking and Feeling EFL Teachers’ Self-Efficacy 62
Table 4.12 Independent Samples t-test for Judging and Perceiving EFL Teachers’ Self- Efficacy 64
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Jung’s classification of psychological types (adopted from Jung, 1971) .22
Figure 2.2 Conceptual Framework ……………34
Figure 2.3 Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy …………..44
CHAPTER I
Background and Purpose
1.1Introduction
There is a general concern about the quality of education all over the world and all the countries are looking for qualified educators and effective teachers. Undoubtedly, the impact of education is derived primarily from the quality it owns. Many indicators, namely the quality of the materials, students’ and teachers’ motivation , the educational environment, students’ aptitudes, teaching methods and teachers’ personality types among many other determinants pave the way to better education (Henson & Chambers, 2003 ; Kalayci, 2009; Sadker & Sadker, 2000). This concern is perhaps more central for teachers; “Most teachers do not want to be just good teachers, they want to be great teachers” (Nwrel, 2001; as cited in Strong, 2007, p. 1).
In essence, effective teachers have a constant impact on students’ lives. Teacher effectiveness is a concept which has been defined in terms of high performance based on elements rating from supervisors, comments from students or administrators, students’ achievements, and teachers’ image of themselves. Moreover, teachers are the representative of their subject matters, schools and more importantly the way they view themselves. The way they teach and present themselves make an impression on administrators, parents, and students as well (Strong. 2007). Effective teaching is best accompanied when effective learning occurs (Muijs & Reynolds, 2005).
As Adkins (2006) quotes himself effective teaching has a crucial role in academic achievement. It is difficult to specify exactly what outcomes indicate teacher effectiveness; hence, there are varieties of variables that teachers cannot control (Strong, 2007). Nunn and Jants (2009) noted that successful teachers are those who are proficient and are able to deal with educational and behavioral problems that occur in their classrooms. Moreover, it is the teachers’ job to manage and run the learning environment presented in schools. In fact, a teacher should be knowledgeable, skillful, and competent enough to be able to teach effectively, and at the same time believe in his/her abilities (Fox, 2005).
The most effective teachers, on the other hand, are defined as those who engage students academically while connecting with them emotionally in ways that create remarkable differences in both experience and results for their students (Waddell, 2009). Sadker and Sadker (2000) believe that there is little evidence regarding specific skills that result in good teaching. Hence, there have been some insights into it. They categorize those factors as allocated time on academic content, good classroom management and planning, and the pedagogical cycle that describes the interaction between the teacher and students’ cooperative learning.
Teachers’ achievements, success, and satisfaction in their teaching experiences can result from a variety of factors. Brown (2007) believes that personality factors such as affective indicators (self-esteem, self-efficacy, inhibition, anxiety, empathy, and extroversion), motivation, and personality types play key roles in the process of language learning and teaching.
Teachers, on the whole, attempt to understand and apply a wide range of techniques when teaching their students. Their preferred teaching styles and personality types may influence the techniques they make use of. When teachers challenge to examine and interpret their teaching styles and the dynamism behind it, they explore their inner selves. Their preferences for a given “function” are their characteristics, and so they might be “typed” by these preferences (Jung, 1971, p. 23).
Some scholars such as Cooper (2001), Tschannen-Moran (1998), Zhang (2007), Yilmaz and Çavaş (2008), Rahimi and Nabilou (2010), Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001), and Kennedy (1991) are in the belief that Teachers’ teaching styles are respectively associated with teachers’ personality, their content knowledge, their behavior in the class, how they manage their classes, the context of teaching, self-efficacy and locus of control. Teachers’ confidence in their ability to perform the actions that lead to student learning (i.e., teachers’ self-efficacy) is one of the few individual characteristics that reliably predicts teacher practice and student outcomes (Ross, 1994; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).
To assess the personality types, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is known to be amongst the most popular measures. It is the most widely used personality type assessment in organizations (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998). The aforesaid indicator is utilized to analyze and interpret a wide range of activities incorporating career, counseling, communication and situation in which cooperation and teamwork are taken into consideration. It is to note that the indicator is used in education as well, so as to analyze and compare the education system, teachers, and students.
MBTI was inspired by and devised based on Jung’s theory of personality type, which, in actual fact, introduced four basic psychic functions. The mentioned functions are capable of becoming conscious: Intuition, Sensation, Feeling and Thinking. He maintained that differences found in behaviors were because of inborn tendencies to make use of minds in diverse ways, leading to patterns of behavior (Myers, 1998). The indicator was developed over a 20-year period of research by Isabel Myers and her mother, Katherine Briggs. It is a self-report, paper and pencil assessment of style preferences. It does not measure personality characteristics or pathology, but rather characterizes people by their natural preferences (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998).
Wheeler (2001) is in the belief that: “MBTI classifies each person into one of the 16 personality types by first identifying each individuals four preferences; i.e., whether the person prefers E or I, S or N, T or F, and J or P”. He then continues: “the four preferences are then combined into the personality type via a four-way interaction. Thus, the test is primarily a sorting indicator that categorizes each participant into a personality type based on the results obtained from four bipolar scales” (p. 7).
Another subject of concern is what Jung (1971) raised as individuation. In actual fact it is the process which differentiates individuals from the general, collective society or group. Accordingly, people come to see their similarities and differences.
Meier (1986) states that, “Jung’s most important contribution to psychology was the discovery and practice of the process of individuation”. He then continues “individuation begins and ends with typology” (p. 242). Jung (1971) held that “It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic process that can be shown to be typical” (p. 15). In fact, he aimed at describing individual types of the personality, explaining individual differences of cognition and different ways to express personality through utilization of the psychic functions of intuition, sensation, and thinking, along with the attitudinal types of introversion and extraversion. As Jung (1971) quoted himself, “since every man, as a relatively stable being possesses all the basic psychological functions, it could be a psychological necessity with a view to perfect adaption that he should also employ them in equal measure” (p. 19).
Apparently, through individuation he made an endeavor to differentiate and explain the four functions and the attitudinal types of introversion and extraversion. However, he did not attempt to present a model of how the mentioned functions would appear in the beginning psyche of an individual. Accordingly, such a model would contribute to psychology’s understanding of the individuation process, particularly the beginning of human life.
It has always been of great interest to focus on the ways people behave or think. These items have had direct consequences on those people around them. As a result, there is a general social interest to understand different behaviors, beliefs, and personality types, and to predict them accordingly.
According to Myers (1993), people are born with tendencies that make their behaviors different from one another; subsequently, they use their minds in different ways. At the same time as people act on these tendencies to use their minds, they develop patterns of behavior called personality types. The issue of personality assessment has a long history in different fields.
Thornton, Peltier and Hill (2005) maintain that in case there is an appropriate selection procedure for pre-service teachers, the quality of new teachers could be improved. Bearing personality in mind, more restrictive requirements could be set in the decision made. However, it is difficult to define personality itself. As Allport (as cited in Lanyan & Goodstein, 1999) puts in, “personality is an abstraction for those enduring characteristics of the person that are significant for his or her interpersonal behavior” (p. 45).
According to Thornton, Peltier, and Hill (2005), those people who have a certain personality type seem to have common characteristics similar to the members of their own type and group than another group. People in one group think and act in a similar way while their behavior and way of thinking is different from those in other groups.
What is more, as individuals grow and develop, they also improve certain patterns of behavior and attitudes that indicate their personality type. As noted by Akbari, “while all educators have become conscious of the role personality and affect play in students’ learning outcomes and performance, teachers’ personality is a missing variable in most of the discussions on professional development” (2007, p. 201). He further maintains that, “Like students, teachers can be slaves to their personalities, responding in emotional terms to events that might appear of a cognitive nature” (p.201).
Another subject of great concern, which has always been of obvious interest to researchers, is self-efficacy, specifically teachers’ self-efficacy. It is, in essence, a criterion through which a teacher can measure his or her ability to provide the students with learning (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Bandura (1997) is in the belief that self-efficacy is a set of beliefs about one`s ability to “organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainment” (p.3). Tschannen- Moran and Woolfolk (2001) asserted that teaching efficacy was a broad spectrum, which could be divided into efficacy in classroom management, student engagement, and instructional strategies. The aforementioned theory of perceived self-efficacy is grounded in one’s belief of his/her capabilities. That is to mention that it can affect every aspect of one’s life.
As Bandura (1977) quoted himself, “We find that people’s beliefs about their efficacy affect the sorts of choices they make in very significant ways. In particular, it affects their levels of motivation and perseverance in the face of obstacles”. He then continued “Most success requires persistent effort, so low self-efficacy becomes a self-limiting process. In order to succeed, people need a sense of self-efficacy, strung together with resilience to meet the inevitable obstacles and inequities of life” (pp. 191-215).
Those with overall high perceived self-efficacy often think of high goals to achieve and maintain endurance despite challenges. Then, in case of failure recuperate more quickly and attribute failure to lack of skills or knowledge, rather than deficits in personal capabilities. The noted individuals are more successful in life, and at the same time experience lower levels of depression and stress (Bandura, 1994), While Individuals with overall low self-efficacy concentrate more on lack of skills, their personal deficiencies, and self-doubts as well. These individuals are hampered by obstacles, which often lead to higher rates of failure and usually exert less effort, set lower goals and as a result experience less success. Accordingly, they are less likely to recover from setbacks and experience high rates of depression and stress (Bandura, 1994, 1982). Self-efficacy is task specific and as a result differs from one activity to another. According to Pajares (1996), self-efficacy is domain specific. Individuals could have high self-efficacy in some areas and at the same time low one in others. For instance, someone may have high levels of self-efficacy at work and low levels of it in the area of weight management. Self-efficacy has to be measured in individual domains that examine perceived self-efficacy of specific tasks.
To sum up, “Self-efficacy judgments, whether accurate or faulty, influence choice of activities and environmental settings. People avoid activities that they believe exceed their coping capabilities, but they undertake and perform assuredly those that they judge themselves capable of managing” (Bandura, 1997, pp.191-215). The question arises, then, whether personality of teachers is an indicator of their self-efficacy.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
People differ from one another depending on their personalities. According to Lawrence (1993), personality, in essence, refers to the patterns of behaviors, presented by individuals. The subject of personality has been the concern of many researchers (Farely, 1970). Schmeck (1988) points out the importance and usefulness of identification of educationally relevant personal attribute.
Not to mention, personality traits have deep effects on one’s qualification. In the case of teachers, it has assuredly great effects on teaching profession, as well. A rich body of research is indicative of the fact that teachers have the most significant influence on students’ attainments and success (Saha & Dworkin, 2009; Akbari et al., 2008). Accordingly, the qualifications of students are closely related to the qualification of teachers, to the extent that they can directly influence the academic success of students. Meanwhile, teachers’ characteristics can affect their own professional qualification as well. Since teachers play a pivotal role in pedagogical success, knowing their personality factors are known to be of cardinal significance.
It has been revealed by a large body of research that the relationship between personality types and some dependent constructs (learning style, career preference, and academic success) has been of great interest in North America while very limited studies have been done in this regard in educational settings of other parts of the world (Bremer, 2007). The paucity of information in this area was noticeable to the researcher.
It seems that the effective and successful teachers share some common characteristics and those with low efficiency might have certain characteristics in common (Rushton, Morgan, & Richard, 2007).
Camp, Broyles, and Skelton (2002) investigated and discovered that in 2001, 20 percent of the newly qualified agricultural science teachers were not interested in taking a teaching job. Another 20 percent of the aforementioned teachers were interested in teaching, but did not take the job. Finally, 40 percent of the teachers chose not to take teaching positions.
According to Knobloch and Whittington (2003), teaching efficacy is closely related to career commitment. As a result, the need for qualified teachers with a desire to teach is critical and undeniable.
A study carried out by Yeh (2006) indicates that teaching efficacy is a reliable predictor of the improvement of the personality characteristics of teachers. Using multivariate regression analysis, Flores and Clark (2004) claimed that interests, interpersonal style, personality and occupational activity showed effects on teacher efficacy.
In a study conducted by Henson and Chambers (2003), the personality types of emergency certificate teachers were investigated as the predictors of classroom management and self-efficacy
