Taiwan Elementary Teachers’ Views of Science Teaching Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations

  • Chia-Ju LiuEmail author
  • Brady Michael Jack
  • Houn-Lin Chiu


This paper presents the results of a case study involving 282 Taiwanese elementary science teachers at the elementary level. These teachers provided responses to the science efficacy instrument (STEBI-A) and also provided personal data regarding how their years of general (YTE) and science (YTS) teaching experience may have influenced student achievement in science. Researchers used two multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to investigate the interaction and influence of YTE and YTS upon the personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and science teaching outcome expectations (STOE) of these teachers. The results advocate the position that the years of general teaching experience of elementary science teachers in Taiwan have a significantly greater impact upon their personal science teaching efficacy and science teaching outcome expectations than years of teaching science. This evidence calls into question whether Bandura and Tschannen-Moran’s view of teacher efficacy as both context and subject matter specific at the elementary level can be applied to Taiwan elementary teachers who teach science. The results of this study should benefit educators and policy-makers with respect to future elementary teacher education throughout Taiwan and other developing nations.

Key words

elementary teacher outcome expectations science efficacy self-efficacy teaching efficacy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersen, A.M., Dragsted S., Evans, R.H. & Sorensen, H. (2004). The relationship between changes in teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and the science teaching environment of Danish first-year elementary teachers. Journal of science teacher education, 15(1), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton, P.T. & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference; Teachers sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  6. Bruning, R.H., Shraw, G.J. & Ronning, R.R. (1995). Beliefs and cognition. In Cognitive psychology and instruction (2nd ed., pp. 129–153). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Bursal, M. & Paznokas, L. (2006). Mathematics anxiety and preservice elementary Teachers’ confidence to teach Mathematics and Science. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cakioglu, A.S.J. (2003). Differences between elementary and secondary preserve teachers’ perceived efficacy beliefs and their classroom management beliefs. Tojet, 2(4), 1–7.Google Scholar
  9. Cantrell, P., Young, S. & Moore, A. (2003). Factors Affecting Science Teaching Efficacy of Preservice Elementary Teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(3), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Laat, J. & Watters, J.J. (1995). Science Teaching Self-efficacy in a Primary School: A Case Study. Research in Science Education, 25(4), 453–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denzine, G.M., Cooney, J.B. & McKenzie, R. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Teacher Efficacy Scale for prospective teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 689–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Desouza, J.M.S., Boone, W.J. & Yilmaz, O. (2004). A study of science teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs of teachers in India. Wiley InterScience, 10(I002), 837–853.Google Scholar
  13. Gibson, S. & Dembo, M.H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henson, R.K. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas. College Station, TX: Keynote address presented at the meeting of the Educational Research ExchangeGoogle Scholar
  15. Henson, R.K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, Y.T. (2002). Educational Reform and Prospects. Retrieved December 5, 2005, from
  17. Lin, H. & Gorrell, J. (2001). Exploratory analysis of pre-service teacher efficacy in Taiwan. Teaching and teacher education, 17, 623–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lu, M.L. (2002). 21st Century University Education-its challenges and countermeasures. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  19. Malcolm, C. (1989). Trends in school science curriculum and their implications for teacher education. Discipline review of Teacher Education in Mathematics and Science, 3, 163–169.Google Scholar
  20. MOE. (2003). 2003 Education in the Republic of China. Taipei: Department of Statistics, Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  21. Mulholland, J., Dorman, J.P. & Odgers, B.M. (2004). Assessment of Science teaching efficacy of preservice Teachers in an Australian University. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. NSB. (1999). Preparing Our Children: Math and Science education in the National interest (No. NSB 99–31). Arlington: The National Science FoundationGoogle Scholar
  23. NSF. (1999). Preparing our children. Arlington: The National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. Riggs, I.M. & Enochs, L.G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roberts, J.K., Henson, R.K., Tharp, B.Z. & Moreno, N.P. (2001). An examination of change in teacher self-efficacy beliefs in science education based on the duration of the inservice activities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized Expectancies for internal verse external control or reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609).Google Scholar
  27. Schunk, D.H. (2004). Learning theories: an educational perspective (4 ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Smolleck, L.D., Zembal-Saul, C. & Yoder, E.P. (2006). Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for social science (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Sun, C.L. (2003). Teacher efficacy: Its concepts and measurement. Taipei: National Taipei Teachers College.Google Scholar
  31. Tobin, K., Tippins, D.J. & Gallard, A.J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In handbook of research on science teaching and learning ( pp. 45–93). New York: MacMillian Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A.W. & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 2(68), 202–248.Google Scholar
  33. Wenner, G. (2001). Science and Mathematics Efficiency Beliefs Held by Practicing and Prospective Teachers: A 5-Year Perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(2), 181–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Woolfolk, A. & Hoy, W.K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yung, K. (2000). Reforming education management systems. Paper presented at the 2nd APEC Education Ministerial Meeting.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chia-Ju Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brady Michael Jack
    • 1
  • Houn-Lin Chiu
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Kaohsiung Normal UniversityKaohsiung CountyRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations