https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v24n2.96187
Self-Efficacy of English Language Teachers With Low and High
Curriculum Literacy in Indonesian Schools
La autoeficacia de docentes de inglés con niveles de conocimiento curricular altos
y bajos en escuelas de Indonesia
Burhanuddin Yasin
Usman Kasim
Faisal Mustafa
Saiful Marhaban
1
Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
Endang Komariah
Universitas Lampung, Lampung, Indonesia
This study explores the difference in self-efficacy between high school English language teachers with
two levels of curriculum literacy. The data were collected using a curriculum literacy test and a selfefficacy scale that were delivered online to 251 English teachers in Indonesia. The respondents were split
into two groups based on their curriculum literacy scores. The findings show that teachers with higher
curriculum literacy levels were more self-efficacious than those with a lower level of curriculum literacy.
This implies that curriculum related courses in preservice teacher programs need to be improved, and
in-service teacher training should focus on curriculum knowledge.
Keywords: curriculum implementation, curriculum literacy, English language teachers, self-efficacy
Este estudio explora las diferencias de autoeficacia entre docentes de inglés con dos niveles de conocimiento
curricular. Los datos se recolectaron a partir de una prueba de conocimiento curricular y una escala
de autoeficacia que fueron distribuidas en línea a 251 docentes de inglés de secundaria en Indonesia.
Los participantes se dividieron en dos grupos de acuerdo con sus puntajes de conocimiento curricular.
Se encontró que los docentes con mayores niveles de conocimiento curricular son asimismo los más
eficaces. Esto implica que se deben mejorar los cursos sobre el currículo en los programas de preparación
inicial docente, así como dar mayor énfasis al conocimiento curricular durante la formación continua
de docentes en ejercicio.
Palabras clave: autoeficacia, conocimiento curricular, docentes de inglés, implementación curricular
Burhanuddin Yasin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6476-5051 · Email: burhanyasin@unsyiah.ac.id
Usman Kasim https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4265-948X · Email: usman@unsyiah.ac.id
Faisal Mustafa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8619-5117 · Email: faisal.mustafa@unsyiah.ac.id
Saiful Marhaban https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1157-6630 · Email: saiful22@unsyiah.ac.id
Endang Komariah https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3581-2554 · Email: endang.komariah@fkip.unila.ac.id
How to cite this article (APA, 7th ed.): Yasin, B., Kasim, U., Mustafa, F., Marhaban, S., & Komariah, E. (2022). Self-efficacy of English
language teachers with low and high curriculum literacy in Indonesian schools. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development,
24(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v24n2.96187
This article was received on May 27, 2021 and accepted on April 27, 2022.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Consultation is possible at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 2, Jul-Dec, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 81-97
81
Yasin, Kasim, Mustafa, Marhaban, & Komariah
Introduction
Self-efficacy is the belief held by a person that
they can achieve a certain task. It influences a person’s
thoughts and emotions, which can affect motivation.
The concept of self-efficacy was first popularized by
Albert Bandura in the second half of the 20th century.
It was developed based on the concept of behavioral
change (Bandura, 1977). Following the establishment of
a self-efficacy scale, much research involving self-efficacy
was conducted in many fields (Berg & Smith, 2016).
In the field of teaching, it is one of the most important
factors which determines the success of teachers in
motivating their students and improving their academic
achievement. Research in the field of teacher education
shows that teachers with high self-efficacy tend to be
more committed to teaching (Wolters & Daugherty,
2007), more excited about teaching (Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2010), and more satisfied about their profession as
teachers (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). Research has also
confirmed that self-efficacy is developed and improved
during preservice training and is resistant to change in
spite of negative experiences during teaching practice
(Bandura, 1997). In addition, professional development
has been found to also improve teachers’ self-efficacy
(Zonoubi et al., 2017).
Previous research has extensively explored teacher
self-efficacy in relation to job satisfaction and student
performance (Oliveira-Fernandez et al., 2016), teacher
burnout (Fathi et al., 2021; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010),
and teaching motivation (Barni et al., 2019). These
studies found that self-efficacy is associated with those
variables. In addition, the sources of self-efficacy have
been popular subjects for research, such as mastery
experience, physiological and emotional states, vicarious
experience, and social persuasion (Bandura, 1997).
Previous research dealt mostly with meta sources
influencing self-efficacy. Among those meta sources
are tutoring provided during preservice training (Clift
& Brady, 2009), academic qualification and experience
(Shazadi et al., 2011), personal values (Barni et al., 2019),
82
the quality of preservice teacher training, colleague and
principal’s support, mentor support, and characteristics
of teaching assignments (Çapa, 2005). However, little
information is available on how self-efficacy and
curriculum literacy interact to help teachers perform
their tasks effectively. Therefore, in this study, data on
English teachers from one Indonesian province was
utilized to identify whether teachers with different levels
of curriculum literacy have different measurements of
self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was measured in terms of
teaching accomplishment, skill development in teaching,
social interaction with students, parents and colleagues,
and coping with stress in teaching. The results of this
research could be used by teacher training institutions
to develop curriculum and training for both preservice
and in-service teachers. The results may also fill a gap
in the literature regarding the relationship between
self-efficacy and curriculum literacy.
Literature Review
Self-Efficacy and Its Dimensions
The belief of how well or poorly a person will perform a task is believed to determine whether the task
is performed at all. This belief is based on the fact that
“people who are aware of being able to make a difference
feel good and therefore take initiatives” (Flammer, 2001,
p. 13812), which is the basis for self-efficacy under the
concept of social cognitive theory developed by Bandura.
Self-efficacy has been used to predict personality (Kong
et al., 2021), learning interest (Oppermann & Lazarides,
2021), whether a person leads a healthy lifestyle (Bektas
et al., 2021), and even daily smoking intention (Wang et
al., 2021). The productive use of self-efficacy to predict
behavior has led to the development and validation of
the self-efficacy scale (Chen et al., 2001; Nel & Boshoff,
2016). Although studies in self-efficacy and its relation
to behavior and performance are abundant, gaps in the
research are still present, and many studies are being
conducted to fill these gaps.
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Self-Efficacy of English Language Teachers With Low and High Curriculum Literacy in Indonesian Schools
The variability of self-efficacy falls on three dimensions: magnitude, strength, and generality, as originally
proposed by Bandura (1977). Therefore, the measurement of self-efficacy should be based on these three
dimensions (van der Bijl & Shortridge-Baggett, 2001).
Magnitude, or level, represents the difficulty of the task.
When a task can be done easily without it being too
challenging or having too many risks, most individuals
show an ability to perform the task successfully. Thus,
a self-efficacy scale should be constructed to “identify
the level of challenge or impediment to successful performance of the required activities” (Bandura, 1997, p.
43). The second dimension—strength—refers to the
confidence of an individual to successfully perform
a task. According to Bong (1997), people with a lack
of confidence due to low-perceived competence are
more likely to withdraw from a task. Finally, generality
refers to “the extent to which magnitude and strength
beliefs generalize across tasks and situations” (Chen
et al., 2001, p. 63). A developed sense of self-efficacy
to perform a certain task results in strong self-efficacy
toward other related tasks due to a feeling of mastery
over the original task. This experience may also affect
self-efficacy towards less related tasks (Bandura, 1977).
Teacher Self-Efficacy
Teacher self-efficacy relates to how much teachers
believe in their competence as teachers (Perera & John,
2020). This belief influences a teacher’s behavior in how
well they perform their teaching duties (Van Gasse et
al., 2020). The significance of teacher self-efficacy is also
reflected in their attitudes toward approaching problems
that the students may have. Teachers with negative
self-efficacy have a higher level of motivation depletion,
burnout, and stress (Fathi et al., 2021). They also tend to
report more student problems (Caprara et al., 2003) and
are skeptical about their students’ success in learning
(Bandura, 1997). Meanwhile, teachers with positive selfefficacy tend to use more teaching methods to address
students’ learning problems (Riggs & Enochs, 1990) and
are more tolerant of students’ negative behavior (Zee
& Koomen, 2016), and consider that they, as teachers,
contribute to a student’s failure in learning (Woodcock et
al., 2019). Thus, students taught by teachers with positive
self-efficacy tend to have more motivation to learn (Burić
& Kim, 2020) and better academic achievement (Caprara
et al., 2006). The use of innovative teaching methods in
the classroom by self-efficacious teachers has been found
to positively influence student self-efficacy, which also
increases their motivation and learning achievements
(Boroumand et al., 2021).
Previous research has explored the factors which
positively influence self-efficacy among teachers, and the
findings seem to be uniform. Preservice teacher training,
such as university education, was found to be the most
influential factor, and self-efficacy was shown to improve
significantly during these programs (Gurvitch & Metzler,
2009; Malmberg & Hagger, 2009). However, short-term
professional development training also improves the
self-efficacy of elementary and secondary school English
teachers (Lee & Davis, 2020). Research also reported that
the self-efficacy of practicing teachers is higher than that
of preservice teachers. The improvement of self-efficacy
at this stage is caused by the development of knowledge
related to teaching and teaching experience. In fact, an
analysis conducted by Lauermann and König (2016)
showed that in-service teachers’ pedagogical knowledge
is significantly correlated to their self-efficacy. In the field
of language teaching, a teacher’s English proficiency level
is positively correlated to their self-efficacy both when
English proficiency is self-reported (Ghasemboland &
Hashim, 2013; Hoang & Wyatt, 2021; Yilmaz, 2011) and
when tested using a standardized test (Sabokrouh, 2013).
Self-efficacy is measured using a self-efficacy scale
based on the theory of social cognition (Bandura, 1977).
The construction of this scale is based on the construct
of efficacy expectations, which are “performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and
emotional arousal” (Bandura, 1977, 1997). The general
self-efficacy scale, as used by Schwarzer and Jerusalem
Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 2, Jul-Dec, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 81-97
83
Yasin, Kasim, Mustafa, Marhaban, & Komariah
(1995), is flexible and can be adjusted to a specific situation. A more general teacher self-efficacy scale has
been constructed through adaptation and consists of 10
items (Schwarzer et al., 1999). A more detailed scale is
the 24-item Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale designed
and validated by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001). A
more recent scale is the Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy
Scale, which consists of 24-items and was developed and
pilot-tested by Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007). All of these
scales use the Likert scale with points between 4 and 6.
In this study, a 10-item scale was used to compare the
teachers’ curriculum literacy.
Curriculum Literacy
The term curriculum literacy or curriculum knowledge refers to the understanding of the concepts of a
particular curriculum (Steiner et al., 2018). It is independent of pedagogical content knowledge (Hashweh,
2005) but is a part of overall pedagogical knowledge.
This subcomponent of pedagogical knowledge is a very
significant factor which contributes to the success of
curriculum implementation (Sural & Dedebali, 2018).
Previous studies have revealed that the implementations of curriculum in India, Pakistan, and Argentina
were limited because of teachers’ lack of knowledge
of the implemented curriculum concept (Ali & Baig,
2012; Carrera et al., 2003). Teachers who have low
curriculum literacy have also been found to be more
conservative with regards to new curriculum and
chose to continue using the old curriculum instead
(Carrera et al., 2003).
Knowledge significant to implementation of the
curriculum includes: (a) general knowledge regarding
the implemented curriculum (Mandukwini, 2016), (b)
standard of content, (c) standard of process, and (d)
standard of assessment specified by the curriculum (Gani
& Mahjaty, 2017). General knowledge of the curriculum
includes the general concept of curriculum and the
concept which underlies the establishment of the target
curriculum (Su, 2012). Standard of content is the scope
84
of the materials to be taught and the level of knowledge
of the materials to be achieved by the students (Shulman, 1986b). The standard of process is the approach
used to deliver the materials. An example of this would
be the scientific approach, which comprises the stages
of observation, questioning, data collection, associating, and communicating (Gani & Mahjaty, 2017). This
standard also includes the knowledge of how to design
lesson plans that cover the content area, as well as how
to format the lesson plans. The standard of assessment
determines how the standard of content is assessed, such
as through authentic assessment (Lund & Tannehill,
2014). The general concept of a curriculum is learned
during the preservice teacher training program, and it
is during this training that teachers are also equipped
with comprehensive knowledge of the latest curriculum (Osamwonyi, 2016). Other knowledge is received
through curriculum socialization and training prior
to and during the implementation of the curriculum
(Mandukwini, 2016).
The Present Study
This research aims to find scientific evidence to prove
whether teacher self-efficacy is significantly different
between teachers with differing levels of curriculum
literacy. Four major areas of expected job skills within
the teaching profession, as appeared in Schwarzer and
Hallum (2008), were used as the framework for this
research. This study focused on the self-efficacy dimension of strength, which is defined as the belief that a
task with a certain difficulty level can be performed
successfully (Chen et al., 2001), as suggested in Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995). Those areas include (a) job
accomplishment, (b) skill development on the job, (c)
social interaction with students, parents, and colleagues,
and (d) coping with job stress (Schmitz, 1998).
Job accomplishment is associated with dealing with
difficult students because it poses the greatest challenge in
a teaching profession. In addition, teachers are expected
to be innovative in their teaching approach, and such
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Self-Efficacy of English Language Teachers With Low and High Curriculum Literacy in Indonesian Schools
innovations are sometimes met with disapproval by
skeptical colleagues. Teachers need to be able to motivate
themselves in order to develop their skills regardless of
constraints. The third skill, social interactions, is the
fundamental basis of teaching. Social interactions in
the educational context do not only involve students,
but they also include colleagues and students’ parents.
Finally, the profession also expects that teachers deal
with work difficulties in a stress-free manner to create
a learning-conducive experience for the students.
consisted of 55 questions in the form of a four-option
multiple choice test with one correct answer. The test was
piloted to 25 teachers. The test was revised considering
the item difficulty index, the discrimination index, and
the distractor analysis. The revised version of the test
achieved an internal consistency of 0.71, which was
calculated using Cronbach Alpha at a significance level
of 0.05. The teacher self-efficacy scale—taken from
Schwarzer et al. (1999)—consists of 10 items. It uses the
four-point Likert scale, which ranges between exactly
true (4) and not true at all (1). The scale covers four
major areas: job accomplishment, skill development,
social interaction, and coping with job stress.
Method
We used a quantitative method to answer the
research question, and data were analyzed using
inferential statistics for hypothesis testing. The data
were displayed to show descriptive statistics in order
to provide a general overview of data characteristics
prior to further statistical analysis.
Participants
The target participants for this research were 1,000
high school English teachers (about 50% of all high
school English teachers) from Aceh, the westernmost
province of Indonesia. The participants who completed
the test were 288 (29% of the target participants), and
380 (38%) target participants completed the self-efficacy
scale. Twenty-five percent of the target population (251
participants) completed both assessments: 216 women
(86%) and 35 men (14%). The detailed figures for each
region of the province are presented in Table 1, and the
CONSORT participant flowchart in Figure 1.
Instruments
This research utilized two instruments: a test of
the teachers’ knowledge of the currently implemented
curriculum in Indonesia and a teacher self-efficacy scale.
The test was designed to include a general concept of the
curriculum, a standard of content, standards of process,
and a standard of assessment in the curriculum. The test
Table 1. Distribution of the Participants Who Completed Both Assessments (N = 251)
Level
Men
Women
Eastern region
Senior high school
3 (7%)
40 (93%)
Junior high school
5 (11%)
47 (89%)
Central region
Senior high school
9 (25%)
27 (75%)
Junior high school
0
9 (100%)
Western region
Senior high school
9 (11%)
73 (89%)
Junior high school
9 (31%)
20 (69%)
Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 2, Jul-Dec, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 81-97
85
Yasin, Kasim, Mustafa, Marhaban, & Komariah
Figure 1. CONSORT Participant Flowchart
Enrollment
Target participants (n = 1,000)
Excluded (n = 583), because
• they lived in rural areas
• their phone was unreachable
• they had other reasons
Available participants
(n = 417)
Allocation
Completing curriculum literacy
test (n = 288)
Completing self-efficacy scale
(n = 380)
Follow-up
Lost to follow-up (n = 129)
Lost to follow-up (n = 37)
Analysis
Analysed (n = 251)
Data Collection
The self-efficacy scale was delivered via Google
Forms to the target participants through the head of
a teacher forum, which is similar to a district-level
teacher association, in each district and municipality.
The teachers were informed that the test and selfefficacy scale would both be used for the research
purpose. Only those teachers who agreed to participate
(N = 251) were allowed to complete each instrument.
The self-efficacy scale was delivered prior to the test
because it is easier and does not take much time to
complete. This was done because it was expected
that more teachers would complete the self-efficacy
scale than the test. The teachers were given three
weeks to complete the self-efficacy scale. In the next
86
Analysed (n = 251)
step, the same procedure was followed to distribute
the curriculum literacy test. Teachers were able to
view their scores upon completing the test. The
questionnaire was distributed online because the
research was conducted during the COVID-19
outbreak when travel restrictions and social distancing
policies were being enforced in the province. This also
made it less likely that teachers consulted one another
on completing either the self-efficacy scale or the
curriculum literacy test due to the work-from-home
rule set by the Education Department in Indonesia.
Data Analysis
To test the hypothesis, we utilized inferential statistical
analysis. The analysis was divided into two steps. First,
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Self-Efficacy of English Language Teachers With Low and High Curriculum Literacy in Indonesian Schools
the data were split into two categories: the first category
was based on the median, where the participants were
split into a lower group consisting of participants whose
curriculum literacy was lower than the median, and a
higher group for participants with curriculum literacy
higher than the median. Thus, 106 participants were
allotted to the higher curriculum literacy group and
120 to the lower curriculum literacy group. Participants
with a score similar to the median were removed (25
participants, approximately 1% of the total participants),
and they serve as a gap between the higher and lower
group. The second category was based on the quartiles
Q1 and Q3, to give a wider gap between the lower and
higher groups. The lower group consisted of participants
with a score lower than the first quartile (Min. to Q1)
and the higher group comprised of participants with a
score higher than the third quartile (Q3 to Max.). The gap
between the higher and lower curriculum literacy groups
was wider in this category, with 45% of the participants
curriculum literacy scores being higher than the lower
group but lower than the higher counterpart. Using
both group categories allowed for a more confident
interpretation and conclusion. Further group splitting
was not possible due to small sample sizes in both groups,
which would prevent inferential statistical analysis.
In the second step, the self-efficacy of teachers in
the lower group was compared to that of the higher
group. The analyses were repeated for each group
category. Because the data were categorical, the Mann
Whitney U test was used. The hypothesis was set to
be rejected at the significance level of 0.05. Therefore,
the alternative hypothesis that self-efficacy of teachers
with lower curriculum literacy is significantly different
from self-efficacy of teachers with higher curriculum
literacy is accepted if the p-value is lower than 0.05.
However, a p-value of higher than 0.05 was considered
and interpreted with caution.
In addition to calculating the p-value for each
category, effect size was also calculated by computing
the value of the correlation coefficient r. Effect size is
commonly defined as “the size of an effect in a population”
(Privitera, 2018, p. 523), which provides information on
how meaningful the difference provided by the p-value
is. Unlike p-value, effect size is much less influenced by
sample size (Fan & Konold, 2010). We used the following
formula to calculate the effect size for the Mann Whitney
U test, as suggested by Tomczak and Tomczak (2014).
r=
Z
√n
In the formula, Z refers to the Z-score obtained from
the Mann Whitney calculation, and n is the sample size.
Findings
The objective of this research was to find out whether
self-efficacy levels were different between teachers with
higher and lower curriculum literacy. The data analyses
were divided into two steps, namely, descriptive analysis
and inferential analysis.
Curriculum Literacy Scores
The test was completed by 288 teachers, but scores
from 37 teachers were removed because they did not
complete the teacher self-efficacy scale. The scores
obtained by the 251 teachers are visualized in Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows that the data were evenly distributed,
where the number of participants who obtained a lower
score were approximately similar to those who obtained
higher scores. The density line (curved line) is plotted
to show the distribution of the data. The median of the
data was 52.72 out of 100. For the purpose of the first
analysis, the participants were split using the median
as the cutoff point, which resulted in 120 participants
with lower curriculum literacy and 106 participants with
higher curriculum literacy. In the second analysis, the
participants were divided into two groups where the first
group consisted of teachers whose scores were lower
than 70% of all teachers (54 teachers) and the second
group consisted of teachers whose scores were higher
than 75% of all teachers (58 teachers).
Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 2, Jul-Dec, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 81-97
87
Yasin, Kasim, Mustafa, Marhaban, & Komariah
Figure 2. Scores of the Curriculum Literacy Test
52.72
Percentage of participants
0.06
60.00
45.45
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
Curriculum literacy (%)
Figure 3. Self-Efficacy of Teachers in Four Curriculum Literacy Groups
Lower group based on MEDIAN
Higher group based on MEDIAN
20
Numer of participants
Numer of participants
20
15
10
5
0
15
10
5
0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
1.0
4.0
1.5
2.0
Self-efficacy
Lower group based on QUARTILE 1
3.5
4.0
20
Numer of participants
Numer of participants
3.0
Higher group based on QUARTILE 3
20
15
10
5
0
15
10
5
0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Self-efficacy
88
2.5
Self-efficacy
3.0
3.5
4.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Self-efficacy
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Self-Efficacy of English Language Teachers With Low and High Curriculum Literacy in Indonesian Schools
Teacher Self-Efficacy
There were 380 teachers who completed the selfefficacy scale, more than those who completed the
curriculum literacy test. Therefore, the scores from 129
participants (34%) were eliminated due to their absence
from the curriculum literacy test. The participants
were then split based on the median and quartiles of
their curriculum literacy scores. The self-efficacy of all
groups is illustrated in Figure 3.
The bar charts and density lines in Figure 3 show
that the self-efficacy of teachers with higher curriculum
literacy is more populated to the right compared to
that of teachers with lower curriculum literacy. The
detailed description of self-efficacy of both teacher
groups based on both categories is presented in Table
2. The description covers five-number summary and
standard deviation.
Table 2 shows that the means of self-efficacy between
the lower group and the higher group based on both
median and quartile were different. Table 3 presents
the same information for each job skill related to the
teaching profession.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Self-Efficacy of Teachers in Two Curriculum Literacy Groups
Test
n
Lower group
Higher group
120
106
Lower group
Higher group
54
58
Min.
Q1
Med.
Based on median
1.00
2.48
2.90
1.00
2.73
3.00
Based on quartile
1.00
2.17
2.80
1.00
2.73
3.00
Q3
Max.
Mean
sd
3.10
3.20
4.00
3.90
2.68
2.89
0.74
0.53
3.00
3.20
4.00
3.90
2.57
2.92
0.81
0.48
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Each Part of Teacher Self-Efficacy in Two Curriculum Literacy Groups
Test
n
Lower group JA
Higher group JA
Lower group SD
Higher group SD
Lower group SI
Higher group SI
Lower group CJS
Higher group CJS
120
106
120
106
120
106
120
106
Lower group JA
Higher group JA
Lower group SD
Higher group SD
Lower group SI
Higher group SI
Lower group CJS
Higher group CJS
54
58
54
58
54
58
54
58
Min.
Q1
Med.
Based on median
1.27
2.31
2.76
1.00
2.32
2.76
1.91
2.98
3.41
1.91
2.98
3.41
1.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.37
2.80
3.01
1.37
2.89
3.01
Based on quartile
1.27
2.00
2.32
1.00
2.33
2.76
1.91
2.98
3.41
1.91
2.98
3.41
1.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.37
2.42
2.96
1.37
2.96
3.01
Q3
Max.
Mean
sd
2.76
2.80
3.41
3.41
3.00
3.00
3.01
3.01
4.00
4.00
3.89
3.89
4.00
4.00
3.85
3.85
2.44
2.57
3.08
3.22
2.74
2.91
2.80
2.94
0.57
0.50
0.59
0.46
0.91
0.63
0.65
0.50
2.76
2.81
3.41
3.41
3.00
3.00
3.01
3.01
3.27
4.00
3.89
3.89
4.00
4.00
3.85
3.85
2.35
2.58
3.01
3.26
2.63
2.88
2.72
2.99
0.61
0.51
0.67
0.39
0.96
0.62
0.66
0.48
Note: JA = Job accomplishment, SD = Skill development, SI = Social interaction, CJS = Coping with job stress
Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 2, Jul-Dec, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 81-97
89
Yasin, Kasim, Mustafa, Marhaban, & Komariah
Table 3 shows that the means of self-efficacy for
each scale section between the lower group and the
higher group, based on both median and quartile, were
different with some similarities except for mean and
standard deviation. The next subsection presents the
results of inferential statistical analysis to show whether
these differences are significant.
Hypothesis Testing
The hypothesis to be tested was: “The self-efficacy
of teachers with lower curriculum literacy is not significantly different from the self-efficacy of teachers
with higher curriculum literacy.” Because self-efficacy
is a categorical variable, the Mann Whitney U test was
used to test the hypothesis. The result of the hypothesis
testing is presented in Table 4.
The results of hypothesis testing show that the
hypothesis was rejected for both group categories
because the p-values are lower than the significance
level of 0.05. The effect size, however, is greater in the
groups determined using quartiles (Min. to Q1, and
Q3 to Max.). Therefore, there is statistical evidence
that the self-efficacy of teachers with lower curriculum
literacy is significantly different from the self-efficacy
of teachers with higher curriculum literacy, and the
higher the gap between levels of curriculum literacy,
the larger the difference in self-efficacy.
Further analyses were conducted for each different
job skill within the teaching profession: job accomplishment, skill development, social interaction, and coping
with job stress. The results of the hypothesis testing for
each area are presented in Table 5.
Table 4. Hypothesis Testing for Self-Efficacy and Curriculum Literacy
Groups
Mean
Median
Based on median
Lower group
2.68
2.90
Higher group
2.89
3.90
Based on quartile
Lower group
2.57
2.80
Higher group
2.92
3.00
Statistic
p-value
Effect size
5234
0.02121
0.154
1096.5
0.00610
0.260
Table 5. Hypothesis Testing for Self-Efficacy and Curriculum Literacy in Each Self-Efficacy Construct
Groups
Job accomplishment
Lower group
Higher group
Skill development
Lower group
Higher group
Social interaction
Lower group
Higher group
Coping with job stress
Lower group
Higher group
90
Mean
2.44
2.57
3.08
3.22
2.74
2.91
2.80
2.94
Median
Statistic
Based on median
5564.5
2.76
2.76
5643.5
3.41
3.41
5968
3.00
3.00
5391
3.01
3.01
p-value
Effect size
0.09825
0.11
0.1058
0.108
0.3432
0.0631
0.03711
0.139
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Self-Efficacy of English Language Teachers With Low and High Curriculum Literacy in Indonesian Schools
Based on quartile
Job accomplishment
Lower group
Higher group
Skill development
Lower group
Higher group
Social interaction
Lower group
Higher group
Coping with job stress
Lower group
Higher group
2.35
2.58
2.32
2.76
3.01
3.26
3.41
3.41
2.63
2.88
3.00
3.00
2.72
2.99
2.96
3.01
The results of Mann Whitney U test for each part of
the teacher self-efficacy scale show that the hypotheses
were rejected for teacher self-efficacy of coping with
job stress at the significance level of 0.05 for both group
classification (median and quartile), and mastery experience, or job accomplishment, at the significance level
of 0.1. Since the significance level used in this research
was 0.05, the significance level for mastery experience
was treated with caution. The effect sizes were greater
for the group determined using the quartile than those
using the median.
Discussion
This research can be treated as confirmation or as
empirical evidence that there is a relationship between
curriculum literacy and self-efficacy, which had been
qualitatively predicted in previous studies (see Gurvitch
& Metzler, 2009; Lee & Davis, 2020; Malmberg & Hagger,
2009). It also adds to what is previously known regarding
the correlation between a teacher’s pedagogical content
knowledge and self-efficacy. Grossman (1990) divided
pedagogical content knowledge into knowledge of
subject matter, knowledge of curriculum, knowledge
of instruction, and knowledge of purpose of teaching.
Previous research studies have found that a teacher’s
knowledge of the subject matter and knowledge of
instruction influences their self-efficacy (Eslami &
1246
0.05841
0.180
1294
0.07721
0.167
1396
0.2367
0.112
1125.5
0.007164
0.254
Fatahi, 2008; Lauermann & König, 2016). In this study,
it has been revealed that knowledge of curriculum is
also correlated to a teacher’s self-efficacy. This result
was expected because knowledge of curriculum or curriculum literacy comprises knowledge of how materials
are “organized and packaged for instruction” (Shulman,
1986a, p. 26), and it is part of a teacher’s duty to know
how to translate this organized material into a lesson
plan. In addition, curriculum literacy is also a reflection
of knowledge of a subject matter (Gess-Newsome &
Lederman, 2002), which has been found to be correlated
with self-efficacy.
The results of this study also provide an explanation
for a prediction made by Mahler et al. (2017) in that
teachers develop their self-efficacy during preservice
university education. Preservice teachers learn and
obtain pedagogical content knowledge, including
curriculum knowledge, at university. The development of that knowledge results in the development
and improvement of self-efficacy. Thus, teachers with
higher levels of curriculum literacy are expected to
show higher levels of self-efficacy. This explanation is
also highlighted by Schipper et al. (2018) who found that
teachers who participated in professional development
training showed improvements in their self-efficacy.
Based on further analyses, teachers with high curriculum literacy believe that they are more likely to succeed
Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 2, Jul-Dec, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 81-97
91
Yasin, Kasim, Mustafa, Marhaban, & Komariah
in accomplishing a difficult teaching-related task than
those with lower curriculum literacy. Bandura (1997)
claims that the reason for this perceived higher sense of
self-efficacy was due to a belief that they had adequate
knowledge to guarantee their success in teaching. Another
important component of teacher self-efficacy, which
is different among teachers with different curriculum
literacy, is the ability to cope with job stress. Studies have
found that job stress is associated with teacher burnout
(Kyriacou, 2015; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008). Thus, the
ability to cope with job stress is very important to prevent
job dissatisfaction among teachers. The current study has
revealed that teachers with better curriculum literacy
are likely to cope with job stress better than their lower
curriculum literacy counterparts.
The results also show that two groups with a large
difference in curriculum literacy also exhibited a larger
effect size than those with a smaller difference. Effect
size refers to “the magnitude and importance of the
result obtained” (Tomczak & Tomczak, 2014, p. 19), and
it allows for the conclusion of the extent to which the
difference provided by the p-value is meaningful. The
results suggest that teachers with very high curriculum
literacy levels have different levels of self-efficacy than
their low curriculum literacy counterparts, and this
difference is more meaningful than the difference in
self-efficacy among teachers with almost the same
levels of curriculum literacy. These results emphasize
the importance knowledge regarding the curriculum
has with regards to possessing better self-efficacy, which
also leads to better student achievement and perception
as proposed by Oliveira-Fernandez et al. (2016).
Pedagogical Implications
The results of this study provide significant
pedagogical implications for preservice and in-service
teacher training. Studies have found that teachers develop
their self-efficacy during preservice training. However,
based on the results of the current study, the teachers’
knowledge regarding curriculum was low and moderate.
92
This alarming result should be treated as a suggestion
to improve courses on curriculum at teacher training
departments in universities. The National Qualification
Framework-based curriculum is uniform across all
universities in Indonesia. Thus, the results of this study
have revealed that the curriculum courses offered at
Indonesian universities are not adequate in terms of
quality and quantity. Only 12 credits (out of 140 credits)
were associated with knowledge of curriculum spread
across five courses, and only two credits (one course) were
intended for general concepts of curriculum, while three
credits were offered for other curriculum related courses.
Therefore, universities should offer more credits for
curriculum courses, and credits for the general concept of
curriculum and teaching practices need to also be added.
These courses are fundamental in helping preservice
teachers translate the content of the curriculum into their
instruction, which in turn helps to improve their selfefficacy (Syamdianita & Cahyono, 2021). Noorollahi (2021)
has found that an improvement in self-efficacy is followed
by an immediate improvement in academic achievement.
In addition to preservice teachers, in-service teachers
also need to be provided with training about knowledge
of curriculum. The current professional development
programs in Indonesia only emphasize lesson planning
(knowledge of instruction) and assessment, while training
on curricular knowledge was rarely offered. This same
case was also found in Malaysian schools. This is also
evident from a study conducted by Albakri et al. (2021),
which found that in-service teachers who were assigned
to supervise other in-service teachers could not perform
their jobs properly due to a lack of pedagogical knowledge.
With improvements in preservice and in-service teacher
training, teachers will have more positive self-efficacy,
which has been found to contribute to better academic
achievement from their students.
Limitations of the Study
A quantitative study is intended to make generalizations out of the results, which can then be applied
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Self-Efficacy of English Language Teachers With Low and High Curriculum Literacy in Indonesian Schools
to a larger context. However, the generalizability of
the results in the present study are subject to some
limitations. First, the sample size used for this research
was rather large and included participants from many
different areas and levels of high schools around
Indonesia. However, most participants had low and
moderate levels of curriculum literacy. The results
might have been different if more teachers with better
curriculum literacy were involved. During the time
this study was conducted, access to such participants
was not available. Therefore, it is recommended that a
large-scale research study be conducted in the future
that involves participants with more heterogenous
curriculum literacy.
Second, both the curriculum literacy test and selfefficacy scale were delivered online. There is a small
possibility that teachers cheated in completing the test,
and it is suspected that some teachers were not serious
in their attitudes toward the test and rushed to complete
it. Had the test been conducted in classrooms where
the researchers could supervise the participants, then
they might have taken the test more seriously, and the
results would have been more accurate. If a future study
was able to deliver the questionnaire in-person, then
the accuracy of the research results would be assured.
Finally, there is also a possibility, although small,
that the teachers misunderstood the self-efficacy scale
questionnaire because each item on the questionnaire
was not explained to them. In addition, many of the
teachers, especially those teaching in rural schools,
were not accustomed to participating in a self-efficacy
survey, so there is a possibility that they over-reported
their self-efficacy. Therefore, further studies can
confirm our results by using larger sample sizes or
involving more urban school teachers who have better
access to curriculum training. It is also suggested that
future studies deliver both the self-efficacy scale and
curriculum literacy test in a classroom, where teachers
can ask questions to the researchers when necessary
and cheating is less likely to occur.
Conclusion
This research attempted to determine whether the
self-efficacy of teachers with higher curriculum literacy
levels was different from that of teachers with lower levels
of curriculum literacy. The objective was to determine
if self-efficacy was associated with curriculum literacy
among teachers. A curriculum literacy test, which
included general concepts of curriculum, standards of
process, standards of assessment, and standards of content
was administered to 251 English as a foreign language
teachers in all regions of Aceh, Indonesia, along with a
self-efficacy scale. The results show that the self-efficacy
of teachers with a higher level of curriculum literacy
was significantly stronger than that of teachers with a
lower level of curriculum literacy, which suggests that
teachers with higher curriculum literacy tend to be more
self-efficacious. Therefore, it is recommended that future
professional development training programs for in-service
teachers focus on all constructs of curriculum literacy in
order to improve teachers’ self-efficacy. Further research
can help to inform whether such professional development
programs can improve teachers’ self-efficacy by using
empirical data from an experimental research study.
References
Albakri, I. S. M. A., Ismail, N., Hartono, R., Tahir, M. H. M.,
Abdullah, M. S. H. B., Sarudin, A., & Zulkepli, N. (2021).
Mentoring practise during practicum: The perspectives of
Malaysian pre-service English language teachers. Studies
in English Language and Education, 8(2), 642–655. https://
doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i2.19282
Ali, S. K., & Baig, L. A. (2012). Problems and issues in
implementing innovative curriculum in the developing
countries: The Pakistani experience. BMC Medical
Education, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-31
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.
H. Freeman and Company.
Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 2, Jul-Dec, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 81-97
93
Yasin, Kasim, Mustafa, Marhaban, & Komariah
Barni, D., Danioni, F., & Benevene, P. (2019). Teachers’ self-
Carrera, L. I., Tellez, T. E., & D’Ottavio, A. E. (2003). Imple-
efficacy: The role of personal values and motivations
menting a problem-based learning curriculum in an
for teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–7. https://doi.
Argentinean medical school: Implications for developing
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01645
countries. Academic Medicine, 78(8), 798–801. https://
Bektas, İ., Kudubeş, A. A., Ayar, D., & Bektas, M. (2021).
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new
adolescents based on their health literacy and self-
general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods,
efficacy levels. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 59. https://
4(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004
doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2021.01.016
Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2009). Research on methods courses
Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, L. F. (2016). Preservice teacher
and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M.
self-efficacy beliefs: An opportunity to generate “good
Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report
research” in the Asia-Pacific region. In S. Garvis & D.
of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education
Pendergast (Eds.), Asia-Pacific perspectives on teacher
self-efficacy (pp. 1–17). Sense Publishers. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-6300-521-0_1
(pp. 309–424). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eslami, Z. R., & Fatahi, A. (2008). Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy,
English proficiency, and instructional strategies: A study
Bong, M. (1997). Generality of academic self-efficacy judg-
of nonnative EFL teachers in Iran. TESL-EJ, 11(4), 1–19.
ments: Evidence of hierarchical relations. Journal of
Fan, X., & Konold, T. R. (2010). Statistical significance
Educational Psychology, 89(4), 696–709. https://doi.
versus effect size. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw
org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.696
(Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd
Boroumand, M., Mardani, M., & Khakzad-Esfahlan, F.
(2021). The influence of explicit teaching and utilization
ed., pp. 444–450). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-08-044894-7.01368-3
of concept-mapping on EFL students’ listening and
Fathi, J., Greenier, V., & Derakhshan, A. (2021). Self-efficacy,
self-efficacy. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 21,
reflection, and burnout among Iranian EFL teachers: The
16–34. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.21.02
mediating role of emotion regulation. Iranian Journal of
Burić, I., & Kim, L. E. (2020). Teacher self-efficacy, instruc-
Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 13–37.
tional quality, and student motivational beliefs: An
Flammer, A. (2001). Self-efficacy. In N. J. Smelser & P. B.
analysis using multilevel structural equation modeling.
Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social &
Learning and Instruction, 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
behavioral sciences (pp. 13812–13815). Elsevier. https://
learninstruc.2019.101302
doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01726-5
Çapa, Y. (2005). Factors influencing first-year teachers’ sense of
Gani, S. A., & Mahjaty, R. (2017). English teachers’ knowledge
efficacy [Doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University.
for implementing the 2013 curriculum. English Education
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P.
94
doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200308000-00010
Predicting the healthy lifestyle behaviors of Turkish
Journal, 8(2), 199–212.
(2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job
Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Examining
satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4),
pedagogical content knowledge. Kluwer Academic Pub-
821–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.821
lishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S.
Ghasemboland, F., & Hashim, F. B. (2013). Teachers’ self-
(2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of
efficacy beliefs and their English language proficiency:
job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A
A study of nonnative EFL teachers in selected language
study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology,
centers. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103,
44(6), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001
890–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.411
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Self-Efficacy of English Language Teachers With Low and High Curriculum Literacy in Indonesian Schools
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher
knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press.
Education Research International, 2017, 1–17. https://
doi.org/10.1155/2017/4698371
Gurvitch, R., & Metzler, M. W. (2009). The effects of laboratory-
Malmberg, L.-E., & Hagger, H. (2009). Changes in student
based and field-based practicum experience on pre-service
teachers’ agency beliefs during a teacher education
teachers’ self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education,
year, and relationships with observed classroom
25(3), 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.08.006
quality, and day-to-day experiences. British Journal
Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions:
of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 677–694. https://doi.
A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 273–292.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13450600500105502
org/10.1348/000709909X454814
Mandukwini, N. (2016). Challenges towards curriculum
implementation in high schools in Mount Fletcher District,
Hoang, T., & Wyatt, M. (2021). Exploring the self-efficacy
Eastern Cape [Master’s thesis]. University of South Africa.
beliefs of Vietnamese pre-service teachers of English
Nel, P., & Boshoff, A. (2016). Evaluating the factor struc-
as a foreign language. System, 96, 102422. https://doi.
ture of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. South African
org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102422
Journal of Psychology, 46(1), 37–49. https://doi.
Kong, L.-N., Yang, L., Pan, Y.-N., & Chen, S.-Z. (2021).
org/10.1177/0081246315593070
Proactive personality, professional self-efficacy and
Noorollahi, N. (2021). On the relationship between Iranian
academic burnout in undergraduate nursing students in
English language teaching students’ self-efficacy, self-
China. Journal of Professional Nursing, 37(4), 690–695.
esteem, and their academic achievement. Language
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2021.04.003
Teaching Research Quarterly, 21, 84–96. https://doi.
Kyriacou, C. (2015). Teacher stress and burnout: Method-
org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.21.06
ological perspectives. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), Interna-
Oliveira-Fernandez, A. P., Ramos, M. F. H., Silva, S. S. C.,
tional encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences
Nina, K. C. F., & Pontes, F. A. R. (2016). Overview of
(2 ed., pp. 72–74). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/
research on teacher self-efficacy in social cognitive
B978-0-08-097086-8.92087-7
perspective. Anales de Psicología, 32(3), 793–802. https://
nd
Lauermann, F., & König, J. (2016). Teachers’ professional
doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.220171
competence and wellbeing: Understanding the links
Oppermann, E., & Lazarides, R. (2021). Elementary school
between general pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy
teachers’ self-efficacy, student-perceived support and stu-
and burnout. Learning and Instruction, 45, 9–19. https://
dents’ mathematics interest. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.06.006
tion, 103, 103351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103351
Lee, Y. J., & Davis, R. (2020). The effect of a short-term profes-
Osamwonyi, E. F. (2016). In-service education of teachers:
sional development on K–12 Korean English teachers’
Overview, problems and the way forward. Journal of
self-efficacy to implement communicative language
Education and Practice, 7(26), 83–87.
teaching: A mixed-methods study. MEXTESOL Journal,
44(1), 1–10.
Perera, H. N., & John, J. E. (2020). Teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs for teaching math: Relations with teacher and
Lund, J., & Tannehill, D. (2014). Introduction to standard-based
student outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
curriculum development. In J. Lund & D. Tannehill (Eds.),
61, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101842
Standards-based physical education curriculum development
Privitera, G. J. (2018). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (3rd
(3 ed., pp. 216–227). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
rd
ed.). Sage Publications.
Mahler, D., Großschedl, J., & Harms, U. (2017). Opportunities
Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development
to learn for teachers’ self-efficacy and enthusiasm.
of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief
Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 2, Jul-Dec, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 81-97
95
Yasin, Kasim, Mustafa, Marhaban, & Komariah
instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637. https://
of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. https://doi.
doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740605
org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611
Sabokrouh, F. (2013). The effect of EFL teachers’ attitude toward
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy
English language and English language proficiency on
and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching
their sense of efficacy. English Language Teaching, 7(1),
and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069. https://doi.
66–74. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n1p66
org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
Schipper, T., Goei, S. L., de Vries, S., & van Veen, K. (2018).
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and
Developing teachers’ self-efficacy and adaptive teaching
perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement,
behaviour through lesson study. International Journal
job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological
of Educational Research, 88, 109–120. https://doi.
Reports, 114(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.
org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.011
PR0.114k14w0
Schmitz, G. (1998). Entwicklung der Selbstwirksam
Steiner, D., Magee, J., Jensen, B., & Button, J. (2018). Curriculum
keitserwartungen von Lehrern [Development of teachers’
literacy in schools of education? The hole at the center of
self-efficacy beliefs]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 26(2),
American teacher preparation. John Hopkins Institute
140–157.
for Education Policy; Learning First.
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-
Su, S.-W. (2012). The various concepts of curriculum and
efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation
the factors involved in curricula-making. Journal of
analyses. Applied Psychology, 57(s1), 152–171. https://doi.
Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 153–158. https://
org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x
doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.1.153-158
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalised self-efficacy
Sural, S., & Dedebali, N. C. (2018). A study of curriculum lit-
scale. In M. Johnston, S. C. Wright, & J. Weinman (Eds.),
eracy and information literacy levels of teacher candidates
Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio (pp.
in Department of Social Sciences Education. European
35–37). GL Assessment Limited.
Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 303–315. https://
Schwarzer, R., Mueller, J., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Assessment
of perceived general self-efficacy on the internet: Data
Syamdianita, & Cahyono, B. Y. (2021). The EFL pre-service
collection in cyberspace. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 12(2),
teachers’ experiences and challenges in designing teaching
145–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615809908248327
materials using TPACK framework. Studies in English
Shazadi, T., Khatoon, S., Aziz, S., & Hassan, H. (2011). Strength
for today and bright hope for tomorrow. Language in
India, 11, 385–395.
Language and Education, 8(2), 561–577. https://doi.
org/10.24815/siele.v8i2.19202
Tomczak, M., & Tomczak, E. (2014). The need to report effect
Shulman, L. S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in
size estimates revisited: An overview of some recom-
the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In
mended measures of effect size. Trends in Sport Sciences,
M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
(3rd ed., pp. 3–36). Macmillan.
1(21), 19–25.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy:
Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge
Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher
growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
96
doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.2.303
S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher
van der Bijl, J. J., & Shortridge-Baggett, L. M. (2001). The
self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived
theory and measurement of the self-efficacy construct.
collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal
Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice, 15(3), 189–207.
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Self-Efficacy of English Language Teachers With Low and High Curriculum Literacy in Indonesian Schools
Van Gasse, R., Vanlommel, K., Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem,
students with specific learning difficulties. International
P. (2020). Teacher interactions in taking action upon
Journal of Educational Research, 97, 107–118. https://doi.
pupil learning outcome data: A matter of attitude and
org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.07.007
self-efficacy? Teaching and Teacher Education, 89, 102989.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102989
Wang, S. D., Loftus, P., Pang, R. D., & Kirkpatrick, M. G.
(2021). Impact of self-efficacy on daily intention to not
smoke. Addictive Behaviors, 118, 106877. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106877
Yilmaz, C. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy,
English proficiency, and instructional strategies. Social
Behavior and Personality, 39(1), 91–100. https://doi.
org/10.2224/sbp.2011.39.1.91
Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy
and its effects on classroom processes, student aca-
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures
demic adjustment, and teacher well-being. Review
and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and
of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015. https://doi.
association to teaching experience and academic level.
org/10.3102/0034654315626801
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 181–193. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.181
Woodcock, S., Hitches, E., & Jones, G. (2019). It’s not you, it’s
me: Teachers’ self-efficacy and attributional beliefs towards
Zonoubi, R., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Tavakoli, M. (2017).
EFL teacher self-efficacy development in professional
learning communities. System, 66, 1–12. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.003
About the Authors
Burhanuddin Yasin holds a PhD in Education Management and is a senior lecturer at the English
Language Education Department, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, University of Syiah Kuala,
Indonesia. He is currently the head of the Study Program of English Language Education at the same university.
Usman Kasim is a professor at the Department of English Education, Syiah Kuala University, Indonesia. He
graduated from Leeds University in 1991, majoring Masters in TESOL, and PhD in English Education at State University of Malang (Indonesia) in 2003. His research interest covers teaching methodology and language acquisition.
Faisal Mustafa is a lecturer at the English Education Department, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Indonesia.
His research interests include linguistics, language pedagogy, language testing and assessment, statistics in
language teaching and testing, translation, and vocabulary.
Saiful Marhaban is a lecturer at English Education Department, Syiah Kuala University, Indonesia. He completed
his master’s degree from La Trobe University (Australia) and obtained his doctoral degree from the State University
of Malang, Indonesia. His research interest covers language teaching, language assessment and academic writing.
Endang Komariah is a lecturer at the Department of English Education, Universitas Lampung, Indonesia.
She obtained her undergraduate degree from Universitas Lampung and her master’s degree from Malang
State University (Indonesia). Her research interests are in language testing and assessment, English teaching
methods, and second language acquisition.
Acknowledgments
The researchers express their gratitude to Universitas Syiah Kuala, which funded this research under a
professor candidate research scheme. In addition, great appreciation also goes to Emily Peterson for feedback
on the writing style of this manuscript.
Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 2, Jul-Dec, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 81-97
97