Validation of the Physical Education Teacher's Efficacy for Standards-Based Instruction (ESBI) Scale Page: CLIV
This article is part of the collection entitled: UNT Scholarly Works and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT College of Education.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
M. T. Buns, K. T. Thomas
sion) can be considered reasonably valid and reliable. Positive correlations with others measures of personal
teaching efficacy (r = .64, p < .01) provide evidence for construct validity (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
The Gibson & Dembo (1984) instrument focuses on coping with student difficulties and disruptions as well as
overcoming the impediments posed by an unsupportive environment. Lacking were assessments of teaching
support of student thinking, effectiveness with capable students, creativity in teaching, and the flexible applica-
tion of alternative assessment and teaching strategies. The TSES addresses some of these limitations by includ-
ing items that assess a broader range of teaching tasks, as advocated by Bandura (2001).
In 1999, Chase and Lirgg received the AAHPERD Research Grant Program Award for their development of
the Teacher Efficacy Scale in Physical Education (TESPE). The scale is based on what the researchers identify
as the four dimensions of physical education teacher efficacy: motivation, analysis of skills, preparation, and
communication. Although documented use of the TESPE is severely limited, these outcomes are important va-
riables in preparing physically educated students. Chase and Lirgg theorized that teacher efficacy would affect a
teacher's commitment to teach, persistence in teaching, use of time in providing instruction, and the quality and
type of feedback provided to students. To test this model, sixteen preservice teachers completed the Teacher Ef-
ficacy Scale for Physical Education (TESPE) and were videotaped teaching one lesson in physical education
(Chase, Lirgg, & Sakelos, 2003). Results of a one-way analysis of variance of instructional time and quality of
feedback indicated that there were differences between the teachers with high teacher efficacy and those teach-
ers with low teacher efficacy. Teachers with high efficacy provided more Academic Learning Time (82%) than
the teachers with low efficacy (76%). Teachers with high teacher efficacy also provided more specific rein-
forcement (M= 15.20), general encouragement (M= 3.20), specific informational feedback (M= 15.20), general
organization (M= 22.40), and less general punishment (M= .40) feedback than teachers with low teacher effi-
cacy (specific reinforcement (M= 7.00), general encouragement (M= 1.80), specific informational feedback (M
= 7.60), general organization (M= 19.80), and less general punishment (M= 2.00)). Overall, teachers with high
efficacy were more positive in their feedback to students than teachers with low teacher efficacy.
Teachers are critical in determining the activities children engage in during physical education classes. They
can decide to implement curriculums and teach lessons that focus on social skills, sport skills, or health-related
fitness. The choices teachers make about day-to-day lesson content have an impact on the children during class
(Martin & Kulinna, 2003). Self-efficacy is an important teaching variable but is difficult to assess (Bandura,
1997). Appropriate assessment of self-efficacy must be context-specific and includes various levels of task de-
mands (Bandura, 2001). The Efficacy for Standards-Based Instruction (ESBI) Scale developed for this study is
an important contribution to physical education research because it is based on Bandura's guidelines. The ESBI
could offer a much needed, theoretically sound and methodologically valid and reliable test score for assessing
physical education teachers' self-efficacy for teaching quality lessons that are based on the national standards.
Therefore, the objective in this research was to test the validity of the ESBI self-efficacy instrument for physical
education teachers. A secondary objective was to analyze the validity of the TESE and TESPE scales.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants consisted of 60 physical education teachers who were recruited from elementary (n = 19), middle (n =
22), and high schools (n = 19) at 16 independent school districts in Iowa. Participants were 19 early career teachers
(5 years' experience or less), 10 mid-career teachers (6 - 10 years' experience), and 31 late career teachers (11
years experience or more). Overall teaching experience ranged from 1 to 37 years (M= 13.6, SD = 10.6).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Teacher Efficacy Scale in Physical Education (TESPE)
Three measures of self-efficacy were taken. The Teacher Efficacy Scale in Physical Education (TESPE) was
used to assess how confident each teacher feels that he or she can positively affect the learning of students
(Chase, Lirgg, & Carson, 2001). The TESPE consists of 16 items on four dimensions of teacher efficacy; moti-
vation, analysis of skills, preparation, and communication. Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1
(no confidence) to 7 (extremely confident) and follows the stem "How sure are you in your ability to..." The
TESPE was administered to physical education teachers at two time points; baseline (Time 1), and conclusion of
six-week intervention in virtual space (Time 2). Previous research presumed validity and reliability of this
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Buns, Matthew T. & Thomas, Katherine. Validation of the Physical Education Teacher's Efficacy for Standards-Based Instruction (ESBI) Scale, article, July 21, 2015; Irvine, CA. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc862676/m1/3/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT College of Education.