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 beliefs. One hundred and twenty participants were chosen randomly from teachers pursuing secondary teacher certification. Three questionnaires, including MBTI, were presented to be filled out. The results indicated limited relationship between personality, efficacy, and classroom management beliefs. The results were also indicative of the fact that Extravert individuals had higher teacher efficacy
By the same token, affective behaviors were considered to be amongst the most important behavior types. As a result, sense of efficacy and more importantly teachers’ sense of efficacy were the focus of attention in this context, as well. Teachers’ sense of efficacy, in actual fact, refers to the judgments of ones beliefs regarding their ability to achieve critical instructional tasks (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). In this regard, one’s personal characteristics were supposed to be directly related to their sense of efficacy. Not to mention, most of the research carried out in the United States and other western nations dealing with teachers efficacy have been criticized for their western bias (Correll & Hwang, 1995; Rich et al., 1996; Lin & Correll, 2001).
To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, no similar research has ever been conducted in an EFL context to look for the relations between teacher’s personality types and their self-efficacy. So, the lack of research in this area provides sufficient justification to conduct this investigation.
As stated in the theory of personality types, people do not change their personality types; nevertheless, they can adopt certain characteristics that the circumstances require them through careful training (Myers, Mccaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998). Based on this theory, the researcher attempted to address the problem and investigate whether EFL teachers with different personality types significantly differ in their self-efficacy beliefs.
1.3 Statement of the Research Questions
In order to meet the purpose of the study, the following research question is posed:
Q: Do EFL teachers with different personality types significantly differ in their self-efficacy beliefs?
1.4 Statement of the Research Hypothesis:
H(0): EFL teachers with different personality types do not significantly differ in their self-efficacy beliefs.
1.5 Definition of Key Terms
The followings are theoretical and operational definition of the key terms used in this study:
1.5.1 Teacher’s Self-Efficacy
According to Bandura (1997) Teacher’s self-efficacy is defined as “the teacher’s belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998, p. 233)
In this study, self-efficacy is operationally defined as the score the participants obtained on the Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy Instrument-long form (Tschannen-Moran & Wolfolk Hoy, 2001) which included 24 items on a nine-point Likert scale.
1.5.2 Personality Types
According to Jung (1971): “Individuals have mental or psychological preferences for performing certain tasks, just as they have physical preferences such as a dominant hand” (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2004, p. 38).
He (1971) also maintained: “Under sensation I include all perceptions by means of the sense organs, by Thinking I mean the function of intellectual cognition and the forming of logical conclusion; Feeling is a function of subjective evaluation; Intuition I take as perception by way of the unconscious, or Perception of unconscious events” (p. 518).
In this study, personality type is operationally defined as the score the participants obtained on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Iverson, 1986) which included 72 items based on yes/no question format.
According to Jung (1971): “individuation is a process by which human beings are formed and differentiated; in particular, it is the development of the psychological individual as a being distinct from general, collective psychology. Individuation, therefore, is a process of differentiation, having for its goal the development of the individual personality” (p. 448).
1.6 Significance of the Study
This research is undertaken to gain understanding whether EFL teachers with different personality types significantly differ in their self-efficacy beliefs.
It is expected that if this research establishes the proposed association, language schools can benefit from the findings and develop more effective training programs since in-service training programs usually provide the same kind of training to all teachers.
Teachers can be trained and get the understanding that they will be most effective if they develop their own natural styles and then learn to use psychologically non-preferred areas as appropriate.
Teachers can probe into their inner selves, develop their self-efficacy beliefs, modify their techniques and strategies, and adjust their habitual teaching styles to improve their performance. Blackburn and Sherman (1975) noted that an instructor’s skill in organizing and managing his course requirements was a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving effectiveness in the classroom.
It is the personal qualities, which the instructor as an individual brings to the educational setting that spell the difference between success and failure as a teacher (as cited in Iverson, 1988, p.16).
It is hypothesized in this research that EFL teachers with different personality types significantly differ in self-efficacy beliefs. Hence, this research attempted to find the possible differences between the mentioned areas.
In case the point is established, further research can determine what certain personality types tend to do in the classroom. Only then, language schools can classify their teachers based on their personalities and design initial and on the Job trainings that suit each personality type
1.7 Limitations and Delimitation of the Study:
The results of the present study cannot be definitive since, like other researches, it has its own limitations and a delimitation.
The first limitation of the study concerns the fact that the sample of the study comprised participants of a specific geographically and culturally distributed group. It involved the teachers who taught at different levels of different branches of Kish Language School in Tehran. Geographic factors might affect the personality types of the participants and the population may not represent EFL teachers as a whole. However, Tehran is a big city with a great deal of mobility in its population and some of the participants in this study had the experience of living and working in other geographical areas. This might have also influenced the findings of the study meaning that the participants were not entirely uniform in terms of their experiences with their living areas.
People are differentiated from one another owing to their personality types. Interestingly, personality embraces a configuration of habits, emotions, and cognition, which could be activated in case stimulated by specific situation. In essence, the individual’s specific adjustment to the outside world is determined by the mentioned traits. Conducting a research, Grimm (1999) probed into the self-absorbed personality traits, moods, and values among the students in the U.S (individualist culture) and the students in the Philippines (collectivist culture). The results were indicative of the bare fact that the Filipino samples rated themselves lower than those of the U.S’s touching individual traits (assertiveness, pleasure-seeking, and independence) and higher on collectivist traits (humility, cooperativeness, respectfulness, and attentiveness). Heine (1999) maintains that people in individualist cultures have more positive self-esteem and are more optimistic than those in collectivist cultures. Therefore, the literature also supports the fact that culture and geographical area may influence the findings of studies on personality types.
در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود
شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید
ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل
The second limitation of the study was due to the fact that the sample for this study contained fewer female teachers. The reason was that since the branches were separated in terms of gender due to regulation enacted by the Ministry of Education, obtaining permission to distribute the questionnaires among female teachers needed going through some strict formalities, which resulted in a limited access to female branches and thus fewer female participants. As the result, gender might have acted as an intervening variable.
Finally, the third limitation was due to the fact that the in the sample the researcher was able to collect for the study all personality types were not available and the number of extraverted participants (65) outnumbered the number of introverted ones (25), which is of course natural because the percentage of personality types are not equal around the world.
Although this study was a descriptive study and the researcher could distribute questionnaires in different language schools and thus have a larger sample, he deliberately decided to conduct the study at Kish Language Schoold and its teachers due to the researcher’s long teaching experience and acquaintance with its regulations, teachers, their honesty, and environment thereof. This would maintain higher internal validity for the study as the answers were more reliable and valid due to the better cooperation the researcher could gain among the participants.
Review of the Related Literature
This chapter is concerned with exploring the concepts of personality types and teachers’ self-efficacy in general, and more specifically with the interaction of these two concepts. Consequently, the chapter provides an overview of the mentioned areas and the relevant literature on utilizing MBTI and Self-Efficacy Scale in determining the relationship between teachers’ personality types and their self-efficacy.
2.2 Personality Types
Historically, temperament theory preceded personality theory. The ancient Greek, such as Hippocrates, suggested that there were four temperaments: sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic, and choleric. The early Greeks felt that individuals were fundamentally different from one another, with very little in common, beyond their particular group (Jung, 1971). Jung believed that human behavior is predictable and classifiable. Based on the belief, Jung introduced the “function types” or “psychological types” (Keirscy & Bates, 1978, pp. 2-3). He also stated that what is significant is individuals’ preferences for how they “function”. Their preferences for a given “function” are characteristics, and so they might be “typed” by these preferences (Jung, 1971).
According to Jung (1971), “The concept of individuation plays an integral role in our psychology. In general, it is a process by which human beings are formed and differentiated; in particular, it is the development of the psychological individual as a being distinct from general, collective psychology”; He then continues: ”Individuation, therefore, is a process of differentiation, having for its goal the development of the individual personality” (Jung, p. 448).
Jung (1971) defined two groups of “types”, starting with the types he called Attitude-types (Introverted and Extraverted) followed by “those more special types whose peculiarities are due to the fact that the individual adapts and orients himself chiefly by means of his most differentiated function” (p. 330), which he called Function-types. He recognized specific dichotomies of personality typology.
Using typology, he noticed that Perception and Judging are subjective functions. Additionally, whether the person is an Extravert or an Introvert influences the individual’s perception and evaluation of knowledge. The Extravert prefers the outer world; the Introvert prefers the inner world. As part of the subjective function of perception, the Sensing perceiver discovers knowledge through the senses; the iNtuitive perceiver discovers knowledge through holistic mental process.
As part of the subjective function of Judging, an individual may make decisions based on logical thinking or subjective feelings. Each individual also has a preference for his/her Perceiving or Judging based on innate characteristics. Increased self-awareness of the preferred personal characteristics and their opposites is individuation – education. Since each person is a unique individual, truth for each person is unique and different.
Besides, for each truth of the psyche, also a reversed truth must be considered. For instance, if an individual sees himself or herself as gregarious and as an extravert who enjoys socializing with other people rather than staying at home alone, the individual must also look within himself or herself to consider that he or she may have characteristics of an introvert who lends to deal more with inner space. For every seemingly apparent truth, there is an opposite truth for that individual (Jung, 1971).
The following figure presents eight personality types that Jung, explained as personality types (1971):
Figure 2.1 Jung’s classification of psychological types (adopted from Jung, 1971)
Jung’s theories of psychology are complex, as are life and the process of individuation. While most of his philosophy is appropriate for psychology, it can also be applied to education. Jung believed that the mature, educated, and empathetic teacher is essential to learning. The main task of education is to awaken the consciousness of the person. He saw education as being a lifelong personal endeavor, instead of a service that a society provides for the young (Iverson, 1986).
2.2.1 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
The most useful and practical interpretation of Jung’s theory of psychological types can be found in Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI (Iverson, 1986). The original developers of the indicator were Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers. They initially created the indicator during World War II, believing that a knowledge of personality preferences would help women, who were entering the industrial workforce for the first lime, identify the sort of war-time jobs where they would be most comfortable and effective (Myers, 1980).
Throughout the I950’s and I960’s Myers administered her preference inventory to thousands of students, nurses, and others as well. In 1962, Educational Testing Service published a manual for the MBTI. Professors and universities undertook significant research using the instrument. In 1975, publication of MBTI was transferred to Consulting Psychologists Press and the Center Applications of Personality Type, which was organized to carry on research using the instrument (Myers et al., 1998).
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is used in education to analyze and compare students, teachers, and the education system. Utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has application for a broad range of human activities, which include career, guidance, education, counseling, communication, and situations that require cooperation and teamwork. The significance of which is directly associated with counseling, career guidance, and education in evaluating indicator for success (Myers, 1980).
As it will be discussed later, many research projects and dissertation studies have used the MBTI, as a measure of the non-psychiatric personality. The principle behind MBTI is that individuals either are born with, or develop certain ways of thinking and acting, which is very much similar to being left- or right-handed. The MBTI tries to sort some of these psychological differences into four opposite pairs, or dichotomies, with a resulting 16 possible psychological types. The four scales are Extraversion versus Introversion, Sensing versus Intuition, Thinking versus Feeling, and Judging versus Perceiving (Myers et al., 1998):
• Extraversion (E) and Introversion (I): In Extraverted attitude, individuals have a desire to “talk things out” and their energy is drawn out to the people in the environment. In this case, there is eagerness to interact with the outer world, to think aloud, and be active. Introversion types prefer to rely on enduring concepts more than on external events or ideas. They like to focus on the internal, subjective state and they think before speak.