Self-Efficacy Levels and Gender Differentials among Teacher Trainees in Colleges of Education in Botswana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers with a high sense of efficacy have been found to be more passionate about teaching, ready to accept new ideas and make attempts to use new teaching methods to help students learn. Such teachers have positive teaching behaviors such as patience, commitment, enthusiasm, which in turn lead to positive student outcomes. However, research on teacher efficacy and classroom management is lacking in Botswana. The main aim of this study is to determine the extent of self-efficacy beliefs among final year students in all the teacher training colleges in Botswana, and to determine as to whether there are differences associated with gender, age and college. A total of 598 pre-service teacher trainees completed the quantitative survey. Self-efficacy was measured using the Long Form version of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale which comprises of 24 items divided 3-subscales of 8 items each. The self-efficacy score for each student on each subscale was measured using the average score on the 8-items that make up the scale. Analysis of variance was used to investigate if self-efficacy depended on gender, age and college. The findings revealed that the level of self-efficacy was moderated among the trainees, averaging around 3.8 on a scale of 1 to 5. Self-efficacy increased with age for each subscale. Females outperformed males with respect to student engagement, but there were no significant gender differences with respect to instructional strategies and classroom management. There were significant differences between the five colleges with respect to each sub-scale, with one particular college having the lowest mean on all subscales, and another having the highest mean on all subscales. Interestingly the colleges that train primary had higher mean scores than those that train and secondary school teachers. However, further investigations revealed some partial confounding between age and school. The findings suggest that more efforts should be put into empowering pre-service teachers to develop self-confidence in class room management, instructional strategies and student engagement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".