SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

It is widely recognized that education, adequate in quality and

scale, is today the most powerful instrument for national development,
welfare and security. The instrument must of course be wisely used.
Education is such a potent instrument that bad education is not only
bad in itself but it can do great harm, lasting harm.
Perhaps the single most important characteristic of our times is
that for the first time in man’s history the world has become
knowledge-based, largely science and technology based. This gives
education a role and significance as never before in history. The
growth rate of science and technology, globally speaking, is
extraordinarily fast – almost unbelievably fast. The doubling period, as
it is called, is about ten to fifteen years. This means that the growth in
science and technology, that is, the new discoveries and developments
in the next ten years or so would be about equal in volume to the
knowledge that mankind has gathered over the preceding several
centuries. All these developments are possible through education in
which the teacher is an important personality to achieve the
educational tasks. The achievement of these objectives, depend on
the behaviour of the Teacher in the society. Further, a good teacher
motivates the pupils with better ideals to mould themselves to become
better citizens. This is the right time to focus the significance of
Teacher Value Behaviour and its relation with Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Efficacy. So, what are Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher
Motivation and his Self-Efficacy. How far the Effective Teacher
motivates the students with his feelings of self-efficacy? How far these
aspects in different dimensions of classroom teaching are related to

1
each other? The impact of Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher
Motivation and Teacher Self-Efficacy, which will be reflected in the
achievement of educational objectives.
Need for the Study:
Very few investigations are made on the Teacher Value Behaviour
and very few of them attempted the aspects of Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Self-Efficacy. Rao, R.B. (1989) states that the quality or
effectiveness of teacher is considered to be associated with his
attitude towards his profession, his attainment of values and
adjustment in the job and professional interest.
Similarly the Education Commission of 1964-66 observed that
‘the weakening of social and moral values in the younger generation is
creating many serious social and ethical conflicts. It has become
necessary and urgent to adopt active measures to give a proper value
orientation to education.
The National Policy on Education (1986) stressed the need of
‘readjustment in the curriculum in order to make education a forceful
tool for the cultivation of social and moral values’.
From the above observations it is clear that the significance of
inculcation of value education among the younger generation of the
nation is undoubtedly possible only through education. Thus,
education will be enriched with the efforts of better-motivated teacher
and his efficacy in the Teaching learning process. The present day
teacher should have a value based behaviour and professional
competency. The Delor’s Commission (1996), asserted ‘it is the
teacher whose role and help immensely in the inculcation of value’.
The Education Commission (1964-66) has also emphasized that
‘nothing is more important than providing teachers best professional

2
preparations and creating satisfactory condition of work in which there
can fully be effective’. Problem solving abilities can be improved by
teaching problem, creative problem solving ability (Trifinger, ‘The
Power of Creative Behaviour’, 1973-74, pp.8,20-29 USA). But no
significant efforts are found to ascertain the relationship between
Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Efficacy.
Whereas, Stern (1967) defined the acquisition of problem solving
strategies in young children and its relation to verbalization’ (Journal of
Educational Psychology, 58, 245 – 252, USA).
An ideal teacher possesses love and warmth towards students,
inclination and love towards the subject, flexibility of mind to imitate,
imbibe and invite new strategies. Such a teacher can make classroom
atmosphere lively by motivating the child towards the educating the
process and thus pave way for effective school ethos, classroom
climate and zeal in the minds of the individuals. Motivation in the
world, which is quite often used in the executive process, as it is apt to
say that motivation, is right royal road for learning. Further, motivation
reflects upon the educational standards. To establish motivation in the
minds of individuals towards the teaching content, the teacher should
cultivate idea readiness, which assists him in the teaching process.
Thus, only a motivated teacher, who is devoted, committed and one
who acts as a mission will be need of the day. As and when the
educational standards fall, the teacher should not be the butt of
ridicule, which may be one among many factors for the deterioration of
standards.
To mound tiny kinds and budding youngsters into ideal
democratic citizens the teacher should be exemplary, ideal and
devoted to the profession with effectiveness. An intellectual expertise,

3
real aptitude to teaching, positive inclination towards the profession
and relentless effort to make a mark in the profession will really make
the teacher effective.
Can teacher Self-efficacy be reared and nurtured to reach its
peak? Do all teachers possess the same level and extent of teaching
self-efficacy? How does teacher self-efficacy act as a source to
enhance school effectiveness? The theory of Bandura (1977, ‘Self-
efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change, that an
individual’s motivation includes being assertive (Psychological Review,
84, 191-215).
The need of the present investigation is to probe into the
relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Self-Efficacy. The conceptual framework on the above three
aspects is being attempted and presented in the following chapter.

4
 CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS

Education is a natural harmonious development of child’s talent

powers and innate talents Teacher’s role is pivotal in providing
education and making the nation literate. To make the nation totally
literate, and to attain the slogan ‘Education For All’ to march, ahead
into 21st Century and to successfully implement universal education,
enrolment of children into schools in vital, to improve educational
standards, and to increase the level of achievement, teacher should be
not only committed and devoted but also competent and creative.
Teacher should be trained effectively, turned out experts in the field.
According to Education Commission (1964-66) that ‘the weakening of
social and moral values in the younger generation is creating many
serious social and ethical conflicts in western societies and there is
already a desire among great western thinkers to balance the
knowledge and skills which science and technology bring with the
values and insights associated with ethics and religion at its best, viz.,
a search for the knowledge of the self, of the meaning of life, of the
relationship of man to other human beings and to the ultimate reality.
In situation that is developing, it is equally important to give a proper
value orientation to our educational system. Thereby the need to pay
attention to the inculcation of right values in the students at all stages

5
of education’. They should be competent, devoted committed and
exemplary, with expertise and shrewd intelligence.
Can Teacher Value Behaviour be arrived without Teacher
Motivation and Self-Efficacy? Is the Teacher Value Behaviour having
any significant impact of Teacher Motivation and Self-Efficacy? Do
Teacher Motivation and Self-Efficacy act as significant source of
Teacher Value Behaviour? To make a probe into these queries, the
investigator has opted to study the Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher
Motivation and Teacher Self-Efficacy. In this study three major
components viz., Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Self-Efficacy are the research problems. Regarding the
conceptual framework of the above major components with definitions
is discussed herewith.
TEACHER VALUE BEHAVIOUR:
The famous observation made by a great educationist that ‘man
has learnt how to fly like a bird in the sky, man has learnt how to swim
like a fish in the waters; but unfortunately man has forgotten how to
live like the man in the society’ is the real inspiration for the present
study. Human life is closely associated with meaningful and useful life
structure but not mere living and eating, which an animal will usually
do the things. This unique structure of meaningful life is possible only
with education. The education imbibes mainly the value structure and
value based behavioural patterns. The present day educational
scenario is time and time emphasizing the works like values value
education value based education, educational values etc. By the
above, it can be said that education should focus the values among the
teachers, the learners, by interaction of the society.
Meaning and Definition of Values:

6
 Value is a modified belief and a specific mode of conduct. Values
are concepts and not mere feelings in fact values exist in the mind
independently. Rokeach (1973 - Dissertation) defined value as ‘an
enduring belief, a specific mode of conduct’. Klukohn (1975 -
Dissertation) ‘a value is a preference as well as the conception of the
preferable’. Shaver (1976 views that ‘values are standards and
principles for judging worth from the above views, we can that values
are inherent, conduct behaviour’.
So the education is the main instrument of inculcating the value
behaviour among the younger generation, the new policy on
education, 1986 is also emphasized the five values that are
cleanliness, truthfulness, hard work, equality and cooperation. The
preamble Indian Constitution focused four universal values. They are
justice, liberty, equality and fraternity likewise. The Indians sculptures
like Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas are also focused the value
behaviour among the generation.
Teacher is the main source of inculcating the value system among
the learners through his effective teaching-learning process education
is a weapon f any social structure in it teacher is the main architect.
The eminent Scholar Dr.S.Radha Krishnan (1949, Report of University
Education Commission,1948-49, Government of India) rightly pointed
out that ‘the teacher is architect of any nation’. The Indian Education
Commission (1964-66) observed that ‘of all the different factors, which
influence the quality of education and its contribution to National
Development, the quality, competency and character of teachers are
undoubtedly the most significant’. Nothing is more important than a
teacher with good character and competency in his profession. The
Upanishads also devoted the teacher with Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

7
The successive recommendations found their place in the provisions of
the National Policy on Education (1986), which clearly recommended:
‘Readjustment in the curriculum in order to make education a forceful
tool for the cultivation of social and moral values’. The Ramamurty
Committee (1990 – Report of Ramamurthy Committee on Review of the
NPE-1986, MHRD, New Delhi) stressed ‘Education must provide a
climate for the nurture of values both as a personalized set of values
forming one’s character and including necessarily social, cultural and
national values so as to have a context a meaning for actions and
decisions and in order to enable the persons to act with conviction and
commitment’. It was perhaps the deep concern for development of
values in the learners that made the Committee to title its report as
‘towards an enlightened and humane society’ and argue that ‘true
education must humanize the person’. In fact, values bring quality to
human life. Richards (2001 – Richards, G. ‘Gandhi’s Philosophy of
Education’, Oxford University Press) observed, ‘if we look at the views
of Gandhi in this regard, we find that he was also convinced that
education without ‘lofty conduct and morality’ is dangerous and that
‘society will only benefit from it, provided people, along with it,
acquired truthful conduct and moral life’. He suggested that while
education has to be vocationally oriented, at the same time, it should
also promote an understanding of the meaning of life. So, in Gandhi’s
view, the primary objective of education goes beyond the view of those
who insist that education should be pursued for its own sake, that it is
in itself inherently valuable or that its main aim should be to prepare
students for an occupation in life’.
Amita Pandey Bhardwaj (2004) in her investigation on Interactive
Classroom Behaviour Patterns of Secondary School Science Teachers.

8
The teaching of Science in the Indian context, particularly at the school
level, has received the attention of the national level institutions like
the NCERT and the UGC on the one hand, and the faculties of
education of the universities and institutes of Advanced Study, on the
other. There is now a growing concern for improving the classroom
international settings by making a systematic study of the ebb and
flow of classroom events while the teacher is face-to-face with his/her
class.
Several systems of systematic observation have been reported
over the past three decades. The most popular ones used for studying
verbal behaviour of Teachers comprise Flanders’ Interaction Analysis
Categories (FIAC); Richard Ober’s Reciprocal Category System, Amidon
and Hunter’s Verbal interaction Category System (VICS) and Bentley
and Miller’s Equivalent Talk Categories (ETC). All these systems of
observation have been employed to specifically delineate the patterns
of verbal interactions and the nature of direct and indirect influence-
oriented behaviours, strategies and tactics used both by teachers and
students. Needless to mention that these systematic observation
procedures do not provide only a scientific information about the
prevalent interaction setting in the classroom but also contribute to the
improved sensitivities and behaviour patterns of teachers at the pre-
service and in-service levels (Amita Pandy Bhardwaj, ‘Interactive
Classroom Behaviour Patterns of Secondary School Science Teachers’,
Anweshika Indian Jouranl of Teacher Education’, NCTE, New Delhi,
Vol.1, Nov.2, Dec.2004).
Teachers are classed the ‘torch bearers’ of any society. The
success of any education depends on the quality of the teacher which
in turn, depends on the effective teaching in its true sense is not mere

9
instruction, but an attempt to influence the behaviour of pupil (Jayanthi
& Reena Agarwal, 2006).
Behaviour of the Teacher in general and in the classroom in
particular has a great bearing on the development and shaping of the
behaviour of the students and in their participation in the teaching-
learning process. Teacher behaviour has two components: verbal as
well as non-verbal. Verbal classroom behaviour of the teacher
formulates the socio-emotional and intellectual climate of the
classroom. According to Ober (1971) ‘a positive socio-emotional
classroom climate is one in which the student feels’ comfortable and is
motivate to learn’. The instructional agent (teacher) manipulates and
controls the learning stimuli in way that results in maximum student
learning. The socio-emotional climate of the classroom should be
positive since the role of the classroom climate is crucial for effective
teaching-learning process. The teaching behaviour of the teachers is
guided by their values. Values generate strong behavioural
tendencies. They are the fundamental dimensions of human life and
indicate how one adheres, attaches and reacts in life situations.
Nazder (1975) speaks of value as being the strongest or ultimate
motivational factor in person’s behaviour. Values are like ingredients
and behaviour is like cake. As the ingredients govern the quality of the
cake, so one’s cherished values decide one’s behavioural pattern.
Most of the studies conducted in India on teacher’s values have
focused on how different types of teachers’ personal values are related
to Teacher Motivation (Rescher, 1969; Koul, 1972; Singh, 1978; Mutha,
1980; Kumar, 1985; Singh, 1987; Shah, 1995 and Gupta, 2001). Some
of these studies have reported conflicting results with respect to social,
economic and political values (Jayanthi & Reena Agarwal, ‘Relationship

10
between Teachers’ Values and Socio-emotional Climate of the
Classroom’, Journal of Indian Education, NCERT, Volume XXXII, Number
–2, August, 2006).
Dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour:
In the present study the Dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour
identified as an important measuring sources. They are – (1) Work
aspect, (2) Learner aspect, (3) Professional aspect, (4) Adjustment
aspect – and (5) Emotional aspect.
(1) Work aspect:
The work aspect includes his concern, commitment his sincerity,
his regularity, his obedience, sympathy etc., are included.
(2) Learner aspect:
This aspect discloses that appreciate the learner, identifying the
right thinking, development of honesty and cooperation, patience
towards learner are included.
(3) Professional aspect:
This aspect envisages that respect towards elders and officers;
Professional discipline, transparency and responsibility are discussed.
(4) Adjustment aspect:
The aspect Adjustment refers to relations with colleagues,
environment, sharing the feelings, equality issues are incorporated and
studied.
(5) Emotional aspect:
The Emotional aspect is designed with optimism, satisfactory,
happiness, respect, patriotism etc., are studied.
The above discussions and areas are identified as the important
sources of Teacher Value Behaviour and presentation is a pictorial form
in Figure –1.

11
Figure – 1:
TEACHER VALUE BEHAVIOUR

Values on Work(A) Values on Professional (C)

Values on Learner (B) Values on Adjustment (D)

Values on Emotional (F)

Hence, the investigator of this present study is make a probe into

Teacher Value Behaviour in relation with Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Self-Efficacy.
MOTIVATION:
Motivation is one of the most frequently researched topics in
Organizational Behaviour. One reason for its popularity is revealed in a
recent Gallup Poll, which found that a majority of U.S., employees – 55
percent to be exact – has no enthusiasm for their work. (Cited in
D.Jones, ‘Firms Spend Billions to Fire Up Workers – with Little Luck’, USA
Today, May 10, 2001, p.1A.) Clearly, this suggests a problem, at least
in the United States. The good news is that all this research provides
us with considerable insights into how to improve motivation.
What is motivation? May be the place to begin is to say what
motivation isn’t. Many people incorrectly view motivation as a
personal trait – that is, some have it and others don’t. In practice,
inexperienced managers often label employees who seem to lack
motivation as lazy. Such a label assumes that an individual is always
lazy or is lacking in motivation. Our knowledge of motivation tells us
that this just isn’t true. Think about Kim Jong II. The man is highly

12
motivated, just not motivated in the same direction as you and me.
The question, then, is not usually whether someone is motivated, but
what are they motivated by?
What we know is that motivation is the result of the interaction of
the individual and situation. Certainly, individuals differ in their basic
motivational drive. But the same student who finds it difficult to read a
textbook for more than 20 minutes may devour a Harry Potter book in
one day. For this student, the change in motivation is driven by the
situation. So as we analyze the concept of motivation, keep in mind
that the level of motivation varies both between individuals and within
individuals at different times.
Motivation defined as the processes that account for an
individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward
attaining a goal. (T.R.Mitchell, ‘Matching Motivational Strategies with
Organizational Contexts’, in L.L.Cummings and B.M. Straw (eds.),
Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol.19, Greenwich, CT:JAI Press,
1997, pp.60-62.) While general motivation is concerned with effort
toward any goal, the narrow focus to organizational goals in order to
reflect our singular interest in work-related behaviour.
The three key elements in our definition are intensity, direction,
and persistence. Intensity is concerned with how hard a person tries.
This is the element most of us focus on when we talk about motivation.
However, high intensity is unlikely to lead to favourable job-
performance outcomes unless the effort is channeled in a direction
that benefits the organization. Therefore, it is to be considered that
the quality of effort as well as its intensity. Effort that is directed
toward, and consistent with, the organization’s goal is the kind of effort
that should be seeking. Finally, motivation has a persistence

13
dimension. This is a measure of how long a person can maintain effort.
Motivated individuals stay with a task long enough to achieve their
goal.
Hierarchy of Needs Theory:
It’s probably safe to say that the most well known theory of
motivation is Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. He hypothesized
that within every human being there exists a hierarchy of five needs.
These needs are:
1.Physiological: Includes hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, and other
bodily needs.
2.Safety: Includes security and protection from physical and
emotional harm.
3.Social: Includes affection, belongingness, acceptance and
friendship
4.Esteem: Includes internal esteem factors such as self-respect,
autonomy, and achievement; and external esteem factors such as
status, recognition, and attention – and
5.Self-actualization: The drive to become what one is capable of
becoming; includes growth, achieving one’s potential, and self-
fulfillment.
(A.Maslow, ‘Motivation and Personality’, New York, Harper & Row,
1954).
As each of these needs becomes substantially satisfied, the next
need becomes dominant. In terms of Exhibit 6-1, the individual moves
up the steps of the hierarchy. From the standpoint of motivation, the
theory would say that although no need is ever fully gratified, a
substantially satisfied need no longer motivates. So, if you want to
motivate someone, according to Maslow, you need to understand what

14
level of the hierarchy that person is currently on and focus on
satisfying the needs at or above that level.
Maslow separated the five needs into higher and lower orders.
Physiological and safety needs were described as Lower-order needs
and social, esteem, and self-actualization as higher-order needs. The
differentiation between the two orders was made on the premise that
higher-order needs are satisfied internally (within person), whereas
lower-order needs are predominantly satisfied externally (by things
such as pay, union contracts, and tenure).
Douglas McGregor has proposed two distinct views of human
beings as ‘XY’ theories. Theory ‘X’ discloses the assumption that
employees dislike work, are lazy, dislike responsibility, and must be
coerced to perform. Whereas Theory ‘Y’ shows the assumption that
employees like work, are creative, seek responsibility, and can exercise
self-direction (D.McGregor, ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’, 1960).
Frederick Herzberg has proposed the ‘Two Factor Theory’ or
‘Motivation-hygiene Theory’. In the belief that an individual’s relation
to work is basic and that one’s attitude toward work can very well
determine success or failure, Herzberg investigated the question,
‘What do people want from their jobs?’ He asked people to describe, in
detail, situations in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about
their jobs. These responses were then tabulated and categorized.
From the categorized responses, Herberg concluded that the replies
people gave when they felt good about their jobs were significantly
different from the replies given when they felt bad (F.Herzberg,
B.Mausner and B.Snyderman, ‘The Motivation to Work’, New York:
Wiley, 1959).
David McClelland and his associates have proposed on three

15
needs of achievements, power and affiliation. The need for
achievement drive is to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of
standards, to strive to succeed. The need for power is to make others
behave in a way that they would not have behaved otherwise. And the
need for affiliation is for friendly and close interpersonal relationships.
(McClelland, D.C., ‘The Achieving Society’, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
1961).
The desire for interesting work seems important to almost all
workers, regardless of their national culture. In a study of seven
countries, employees in Belgium, Britain, Israel, and the United States
ranked “interesting work” number one among 11 work goals. This
factor was ranked either second or third in Japan, the Netherlands, and
Germany (I.Harpaz, ‘The importance of Work Goals: An International
Perspective’, Journal of International Business Studies, First Quarter,
1990, pp.75-93).
According to Benedict, C. (2004) that though many individuals
recall bullies from their elementary school days, some are realizing
that bullies can exist in the workplace as well. And these bullies do not
just pick on the weakest in the group; rather, any subordinate in their
path may fall prey to their torment, according to Dr.Gary Namie,
Director of the Workplace Bullying and Trauma Institute. Dr.Namie
further says workplace bullies are not limited to men – women are at
least as likely to be bullies. However, gender discrepancies are found
in victims of bullying, as women are more likely to be targets.
Teacher Motivation:
The background of pupils coming from different socio-economic
groups will have different academic or intellectual situations.
Therefore, the pupils will not be able to grasp or have difficult in

16
comprehending due to their different backgrounds. The teacher will
also have to face two sets of parents one the enlightened and
educated the other uneducated. To attain the objectives set forth for a
common school – that of social integration – the teacher shall have to
be aware of that objective all the while that he is carrying out the
school – study program.
While dealing with the problem of the disparities in society, the
teacher shall have to put the problem in an objective and academic
manner without passion or prejudice. The teacher and the school shall
have to provide certain facilities, which are otherwise available only to
the rich in form of library – teaching facilities, study equipment etc.
Some children, though intelligent because of their background,
may not keep pace equally with other well-placed children. For them,
the teacher or the school should be able to provide special help. The
teacher or the school shall have to be vigil and with regard to the
children not developing either superiority or inferiority complex due to
their social position in life or society. Therefore, the school or the
teacher shall have to meet the common needs of all pupils equally with
regard to the studies, playing facilities, tours etc.
Are these common schools going to have different streams? It is
very necessary to have diversified courses provided in schools for
students with varying interests, aptitudes and ability. Common schools
without diversified courses will have a great discipline problem.
Therefore, guidance facilities will be a must for a common school. The
teacher in the common school shall have to develop efficient
techniques of providing horizontal and vertical academic courses or
studies for the different levels of students. The teacher’s role
therefore, will be not only to understand the different pupils having

17
different socio-economic and cultural background but also to provide
them with methods, approaches and studies or educational programs
to motivate them.
The teachers, to maintain a required academic and efficient
educational standard, will have to be more alert and efficient.
Otherwise, the common school idea is bound to lower the already low
standards of attainments. Teacher’s associations with the government
should establish refresher courses and facilities for upgrading the
teacher’s efficiency as well providing them with means to make their
profession efficient.
A school classroom is normally a part of the larger organization of
the formal school system. The participants in the school system
recognize it as the place where the formal education takes place. The
teacher in the classroom is normally an adult who is expected to
teacher and influences the young pupils.
The teacher in the classroom is an adult and superior to the
pupils in knowledge. His task is to create and maintain among the
pupils a will to learn and to maintain discipline in the classroom. In
democratic and open societies where knowledge is regarded as ever
expanding and open to who so ever shows ability, the classroom
authority of the teacher over the pupils may take on more persuasive
forms.
The teacher has to use his authority in the classroom in two
situations. They are – (1) When the pupils behave in a way that
disturbs the peace and discipline of the class – and (2) When they fail
to show good work, commit mistakes or fail to submit a given
homework. In both these situations a very large majority of the
respondents in all the groups expect the teacher to adopt only

18
persuasive methods. They want them to try to understand
sympathetically the factors behind such behaviour of the pupils and to
quickly explain them their fault. A few of them expected to use such
different punishments as ‘making them stand in the class’, prohibit
them from attending class for a few days’, ‘going them some
imposition’ or ‘scolding them in the class’ and a very few other expect
them to use physical punishments such as a ‘slapping or canning’,
‘compelling them to keel down and hold toes of the feet’ etc. However,
these few respondents are do not mention these stricter forms of
punishments exclusively but only as additional ones to the persuasive
method.
Dimensions of Teacher Motivation:
The Teacher Motivation consists of nine areas viz., (1) Classroom
Teaching; (2) School Administration; (3) Professional Pleasure; (4)
Climate Factors; (5) Inter-personal relations; (6) Student Behaviour; (7)
Working Conditions; (8) Professional Development and (9) Personal
(1) Classroom Teaching: In this aspect the teaching performance of
the faculty members as well as their teacher activities and teaching
ability in the Classroom teaching are included.
(2) School Administration: This aspect disclosed the management of
the institution, implementation of policies of the administrators,
participation in the administrative activities of the institution are
included.
(3) Professional Pleasure: This aspect envisages the pleasure of
the teacher while teaching in the classroom, love of profession,
receiving appreciations from the students, guiding the students in the
right way, creation of inspiration among students etc., are discussed
with reference to the existing conditions as prevailed in the

19
institutions.
(4) Climate Factors: This aspect envisages regarding the facilities
that influence the Teachers and Students to perform more effective
and the basis how to achieve the goals successfully.
(5) Inter-Personal Relations: In aspect institutional relations with
the Parents, Students, Administrators and other aspects in relation to
academic aspects are included.
(6) Student Behaviour: This aspect disclosed the behavioural
attitude in relation to their shrewdness, discipline, participation in the
school activities, expression of their opinions are discussed.
(7) Working Conditions: In this aspect the teacher satisfaction in
relation to remuneration, acceptances of the teacher to reside in the
work area, planning of professional development are included.
(8) Professional Development: This is one of the most important
aspects of the present study of Teacher Motivation. In this aspect In-
service Training, possessing higher qualifications, implementation of
innovative practices in teaching and implementation of new
experiment methods of teaching are included.
(9) Personal: This aspect is confined to teacher’s personal
experiences in relation to his family, Classroom teaching, assessment
of student abilities, power of mind set adjustment while entering into
the classroom are discussed.
The above discussion on Teacher Motivation is presented in
Figure-2 which clearly shown to understand the inter-relations between
the dimensions of the study.
Figure –2
THE PROFILE OF TEACHER MOTIVATION

20
 Classroom Teaching Inter-personal relations

School Administration Student Behaviour

Professional Pleasure Working conditions

Climate Factors Professional Development

Personal

Self-Efficacy:
The cognitive approach has been accused of being mentalistic,
and the behavioristic approach has been accused of being
deterministic. Cognitive theorists argue that the stimulus response (S-
R) model, and to a lesser degree the response-stimulus (R-S) model, is
much too mechanistic an explanation of human behaviour. A strict S-R
interpretation of behaviour seems justifiably open to the criticism of
being too mechanistic, but because of the scientific approach that to
the criticism of being too mechanistic, but because of the scientific
approach that has been meticulously employed by behaviourists, the
operant model in particular has been made a tremendous contribution
to the study and meaning of human behaviour. (Richard, J.DeGrandpre,
2000).
Bandura explains that ‘it is largely through their actions that
people produce the environmental conditions that affect their
behaviour in a reciprocal fashion. The experiences generated by
behaviour also partly determine what a person becomes and can do,

21
which, in turn, affects subsequent behaviour. (Albert Bandura, 1976).
Bandura has taken his social learning and developed it into the more
comprehensive Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) have translated this into
the theoretical foundation for organizational behaviour. SCT is much
more comprehensive than the cognitive or behavioristic approaches by
themselves and its predecessor, social learning theory. Specifically,
SCT recognizes the importance of bheaviorism’s contingent
environmental consequences, but also includes cognitive processes of
self-regulation. ‘The social part acknowledges the social origins of
much of human thought and action (what individuals learn by being
part of a society), whereas the cognitive portion recognizes the
influential contribution of thought processes to human motivation,
attitudes and action’. (Ibid., p.63).
Self-Efficacy - Theoretical Background and Meaning:
According to Albert Bandura (1976), the Social Cognitive Theory
(STC) incorporates both social/environmental and cognitive elements
and the behaviours themselves. SCT explains psychological
functioning in terms of environmental events; internal personal factors
in the form of cognitive, affective, and biological variables; and
behavioural patterns. These three (environment, personal cognitions
and behaviour) operate as interacting determinants that influence one
another bi-directional. Embedded within SCT, along with the human’s
capabilities of symbolizing, forethought, and observational learning, is
a self-theory including both self-regulation and self-reflection. It is the
capability for self-reflection – people reflect back on their
actions/experience with a specific event/task to then cognitively
process how strongly they believe they can successfully accomplish
this event/task in the future – that serves as the theoretical basis for

22
self-efficacy. (Albert Bandura, ‘Self-Efficacy : The Exercise of Control,
1999 – Ref.110 of Ch.9).
Bandura (2000) strongly emphasizes that this self-efficacy is the
most pervading and important of the psychological mechanisms of self-
influence. He declares ‘unless people believe that they can produce
desired effects and forestall undesired ones by their actions, they have
little incentive to act. Whatever other factors may operate as
motivators, they are rooted in the core belief that one has the power to
produce desired results. (Albert Bandura, ‘Cultivate Self-Efficacy for
Personal and Organizational Effectiveness’, 2000 – Ref.111 of Ch.9).
The formal definition of self-efficacy that is usually used is
Bandura’s (1982) early statement of personal judgment or belief of
‘how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with
prospective situations. (Albert Bandura, ‘Self-Efficacy Mechanism in
Human Agency’, Ref.112, Chp.9).
A somewhat broader, more workable definition for organizational
behaviour is provided by Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) : ‘Self-Efficacy
refers to an individual’s conviction for (or confidence) about his or her
abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of
action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given
context. (Alexander D.Stajkovic and Fred Luthans ‘Social Cognitive
Theory and Self-Efficacy’ 1998, Ref.113 :Chp.9). Notice that this
definition deals with efficacy on a specific task and context. To further
clarify the exact meaning of self-efficacy as it is translated here for use
in the organizational behaviour field, specific versus general efficacy
needs to be clarified. Earlier the differentiation between the various
positive psychology constructs was briefly discussed, but the
difference between self-efficacy and closely related established

23
organizational behaviour constructs such as self-esteem, expectancy
motivation, and attribution/locus of control also needs to be addressed.
Specific versus General Self-Efficacy:
Specific self-efficacy follows Bandura’s conceptualization and is
widely recognized by almost all efficacy scholars and the psychology
field as a whole. (Alexander D.Stajkovic and Fred Luthans, ‘Self-Efficacy
and Work-Related Performance’, 1998,Ref.114, Chap.9).
In recent years, however, general self-efficacy has been used as
another dimension of self-efficacy by a few efficacy researchers. They
suggest that in addition to specific self-efficacy, there is a generalized
self-efficacy that reflects people’s belief in successfully accomplishing
tasks across a wide variety of achievement situations. It should be
recognized that this generalized efficacy is quite different from
Bandura’s portrayal of self-efficacy. In particular, the accepted task
specific version of self-efficacy is a state like; it is highly variable
depending on the specific task and is cognitively processed by the
individual before any effort is expended. (D.Eden and Y.Zuk (1995),
‘Raising Self-Efficacy to Boost Performance at Sea’ in Seasickness as a
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, 1995, Ref.115, Chap.9).
Bandura (1991) argues that self-efficacy represents a task and
situation specific cognition. On the other hand, general self-efficacy is
conceptually the opposite; it is trait-like. That is, general efficacy is
stable over time and across situations; in this regard it is like a
personality trait. Bandura contends with his years of theory building
and basic research that ‘an efficacy belief is not a decontextualized
trait. (Bandura, Self-Efficacy : The Exercise of Control, 1991, Ref.116;
117, 118 of Chap.9).
However, Bandura and others point out that even though self-

24
efficacy is not trait-like, this does not mean that specific self-efficacy
evaluations never generalize. Instead, although not necessarily stable
across situations, efficacy judgments on one task may generalize to
others depending on the situation, the task, and the person.
(D.Cervone, ‘Social Cognitive Mechanism and Personality Coherence’,
1997, Ref:119 of Chap.9).
Sources of Self-Efficacy:
At first glance self-efficacy appears very similar and is often
confused with widely recognized organization behaviour concepts, in
particular Self-esteem, Expectancy Motivation and Attribution/locus of
control. Although the differences outlined above may seem quite
technical, they must be pointed out to make sure self-efficacy is indeed
a valid, independent construct and help clarify its exact meaning. In
other words, from the preceding it can be seen that self-efficacy can
directly affect – Choice behaviours (decisions will be made based on
how efficacious the person feels towards the options in, say, work
assignments or even a career field), Motivational efforts (people will try
harder and give more effort on tasks where they have high self-efficacy
than those where the efficacy judgment is low), Perseverance (those
with high self-efficacy will bounce back, be resilient when meeting
problems or even failure, whereas those with low self-efficacy tend to
give up when obstacles appear), Facilitative thought patterns (efficacy
judgments influence self-tasks such as those with high self-efficacy
might say to themselves, ‘I know I can figure out how to solve this
problem’, whereas those with low self-efficacy might say to
themselves, ‘I knew I couldn’t do this, I don’t have this kind of ability’),
and Vulnerability to Stress (those with low self-efficacy tend to
experience stress and burnout because they expect failure, whereas

25
those with high self-efficacy enter into potential stressful situations
with confidence and assurance and thus are able to resist-stressful
reactions).
These examples of the direct impact of self-efficacy on human
functioning are right in line with high-performing individuals. Perhaps
the best profile of a high performer on a given task would be the highly
efficacious individual who really gets into the task gives whatever
effort it takes to successfully accomplish the task; perseveres when
meeting obstacles, frustrations, or setbacks; has positive self-thoughts
and talks; and is resistant to stress and burnout.
As it this high-performance profile is not enough, Bandura (1998)
emphasizes that self-efficacy also plays a vital role in other important
human performance determinants such as goal aspirations, the
incentives in outcome expectations, and the perceived opportunities of
a given project. (Bandura, ‘Cultivate Self-Efficacy for Personal and
Organizational Effectiveness, op.cit., 120-121, chap.9/125). What level
of goal is selected, how much effort is expended to reach the selected
goal, and how one reacts/perseveres when problems are encountered
in progressing toward the goal, all seem to be greatly affected by self-
efficacy.
Dimensions of Self-Efficacy:
1.Mastery experiences: This is potentially the most powerful for
forming efficacy beliefs because it is direct information about success.
The performance accomplishments do not directly equate with self-
efficacy. Both situational (e.g., the complexity of the task) and
cognitive processing (e.g., the perception of one’s ability) concerning
the performance will affect the self-efficacy judgment and belief.
2.Vicarious experiences or Modeling: Just as individuals do not

26
need to directly experience reinforced personal behaviours in order to
learn (they can vicariously learn by observing and modeling relevant
others who are reinforced), the same is true of acquiring efficacy
(Bandura, 2000).
3.Social Persuasion: Not as powerful a source of information as the
previous two and sometimes oversimplified as a ‘can-do’ approach,
people’s belief in their efficacy can be strengthened by respected,
competent others persuading them that they have what it tasks on this
particular task.
4.Physiological and Psychological arousal: People often rely on
how they feel, physically and emotionally, in order to assess their
capabilities. More than the other sources of information, if these are
negative this will generally greatly detract from efficacy. If these
physical and mental states are well off, they don’t necessarily process
as contributing much to the individual’s efficacy.
Because Bandura has provided such a comprehensive, rich
theoretical understanding backed by years of research, there is
common agreement on the principle sources of self-efficacy.
Figure: 3 Dimensions of Self-efficacy

Master Experiences or
Performance Attainments

Vicarious Experiences
or Modeling
SELF-EFFICACY

Social Persuasion

Physiological and

27
 Psychological Arousal

(Source: Bandura, ‘Cultivate Self-Efficacy for Personal and

Organizational Effectiveness, op.cit., 120-121, chap.9/125, 2000).
The above figure discloses that it must be remembered from
social cognitive theory that these four sources of efficacy only provide
the raw data. The individual must select out, cognitively process, and
self-reflect in order to integrate and use this information to make self-
efficacy perceptual judgments and form beliefs. Bandura notes, ‘may
vary depending on their interpretive biases, the difficulty of the task,
how had they worked at it, how much help they received, the
conditions under which they performed, their emotional and physical
state at the time, their rate of improvement over time, and selective
biases in how they monitor and recall their attainments. (Ibid. p.181 –
Chap.9 / 130). The detailed Implications of Self-Efficacy for Effective
Training is designed as follows.

28
S.No. Sources of Self- Key for Successful Training Recommendations
Efficacy Training and
Transfer to the Job
(1) Plenty of practice so
mastery (as defined by the
training objectives) is
reached.
Mastery Trainees must learn
1 experience and they are the cause (2) Break learning into
performance of their performance series of obtainable end
attainment points to help self-
confirmation of skills.

(3) Provide feedback on

progress (not shortfalls)
and contributions.

(1)Carefully select models

used in the training to
Model(s) used have similar characteristics
should have similar as the trainees.
Vicarious demo-graphic
2 experience and attributes, and the (2)Set up training so that
modeling training being done trainees perceive
should be similar to performance is due to the
what the trainees capability of the model and
will be doing back not other factors.
on the job.
(3)Models should Take a
task-
Diagnostic perspective
(i.e., focus on task and if
mistake is made, interpret
as way to learn rather than
personal in-adequacy).

29
S.No. Sources of Self- Key for Successful Training Recommendations
Efficacy Training and
Transfer to the Job
(1)Set trainees up for
success
All comments have so feedback comments can
impact, so feedback be very positive.
3 Social must be phrased
persuasion positively to build (2)Trainers must be careful
trainee confidence and sensitive to keep
positive things
that are said and done in the
presence of the trainee.

(1)Trainees must understand

Make sure trainees that the need to exert
experiencing considerable physical (or
physical or Psy-chological) effort does
Physical and psychological not mean a lack of personal
4 Psychological symptoms interpret capability.
arousal them as the nature
of the training task (2)Getting trainees
and not some physically and
personal inadequacy psychologically fit may help
(i.e., lack of ability) arouse motivation to learn
and be successful.

Implications for Self-Efficacy

in the Workplace:

Self-efficacy theory was first used over 25 years ago as a clinical

framework ‘for analyzing changes achieved in fearful and avoidant
behaviour’ (Bandura, ‘Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of
Behavioural Change, 1977; 9th Chap./134).
Psychotherapeutic treatments such as desensitization, symbolic
modeling, and first hand mastery experiences were clearly found to
change behaviour of clients through the common pathway of perceived
self-efficacy. However, the scope of self-efficacy quickly broadened

30
beyond this domain of clinical behaviour change to be successfully
applied in areas such as (1) the promotion of health and recovery from
physical setbacks, (2) the control of eating, (3) resistance to addictive
substances, (4) educational achievement, (5) athletic performance,
and, importantly (6) for the study and application of organizational
behaviour and performance in working settings. (Daniel Cervone,
‘Thinking About Self-Efficacy’, 2000 – Chap.9/ 135).
As noted earlier, whereas the other positive psychology
constructs have to date relatively few research studies in the
workplace, self-efficacy has a very well established body of knowledge
as to its applicability and positive impact on work-related performance.
Specifically, our (Stajkovie and Luthans) meta-analysis included 114
studies and 21,616 subjects. (Ibid, p.252 – Chap.9/136).
The results indicated a highly significant. 38 weighted average
correlation between self-efficacy and work-related performance. When
converted to the commonly used affect size estimate used in meta-
analysis, the transformed value represents a 28 percent increase in
performance due to self-efficacy. By comparison, these results for self-
efficacy in the workplace represent a greater average gain in
performance than the results from the meta-analysis of other popular
organizational behaviour interventions such as goal setting (10.39%),
feedback (13.6%), or organizational behaviour modification (17%), and
also seems to be a better predictor of work-related performance than
the personality traits (e.g., the ‘Big Five’) or relevant attitudes (e.g., job
satisfaction or organizational commitment) commonly used in
organizational behaviour research. (Chap.9/138, 139, 140, 141).
Although the workplace is given considerable attention in
Bandura’s 1997 book, Self-Efficacy, more recently he provided a

31
focused review of the growing research literature of the direct and
indirect impact that self-efficacy has on work-related personal and
organizational effectiveness. This research review of the impact of
self-efficacy includes a wide range of organizational behaviour topics
such as career choice and development, new employee training, work
design/job enrichment, supportive communication, teams (i.e.,
collective efficacy), innovation, entrepreneurship, leadership and
stress. He then devotes considerable attention to the strategies and
principles for developing and strengthening beliefs of personal efficacy
in the work place. (Bandura, op.cit.)
From this considerable body of theory and research on self-
efficacy, the following offer some practical implications and specific
guidelines for the more effective practice of managing human
performance in today and tomorrow’s organizations.
Selection of Human Resources:
In hiring for a particular job, making an assignment to a specific
project, or promoting someone into an identifiable area of
responsibility, assessing the person’s present magnitude and strength
of self-efficacy could be valuable input into the selection decision.
Magnitude measures the level of task difficulty that a person believes
he or she is capable of executing and strength indicates whether the
magnitude is strong and likely to produce perseverance when
difficulties are encountered.
Although most applicable to specific tasks within a job
assignment or promotion, self-efficacy scales could be set up for each
of the major tasks or for the overall domain of a given job. This scale
would include, in ascending order, items that represent the increasing
levels of difficulty. The respondent would check for each item yes or no

32
(magnitude) and then next to it 0 – 100% probability of attainment
(i.e., strength). Getting a total of the probability strengths for each
item with a yes derives the efficacy scores. This so called Composite I
method of scoring has been shown to be a valid measure of self-
efficacy and more reliable than other measures. (C.Lee and P.Bobko,
‘Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Comparison of Five Measures’, 1994,
Chap.9/145).
If regular questionnaire item scales are developed, they should
be tailor-made for each specific selection purpose. Bandura advises
that the content of such scales ‘must represent beliefs about personal
abilities to produce specified levels of performance and must not
include other characteristics (Bandura, op.cit.45, Chap.9.146). Of
course, people should not be selected based only on their present self-
efficacy assessment, but because it has been found to be such a good
predictor of performance, self-efficacy could make a significant
contribution to the selection process. This assessment could also be
used as training and development needs analysis.
Training and Development:
Bandura recently categorized his approach to training and
development into three areas. First is what he calls guided mastery,
which includes instructive modeling to acquire a skill or competency,
guided skill perfection, and then transferring the training back to the
job to insure self-directed success. Second, is for the more complex,
but increasingly common for all levels in the modern workplace, ways
to enhance efficacy for decision making and problem solving. He calls
this cognitive mastery modeling to learn thinking skills and how to
apply them by observing the decision rules and reasoning strategies
successful models use as they arrive at solutions to problems and

33
make effective decisions. (Bandura, ‘Cultivate Self-Efficacy for Personal
and Organizational Effectiveness’, op.cit. pp126, 133).
Bandura finally suggests the development of self-regulatory
competencies. The development of this increasingly important self-
management involves a variety of interlinked self-referent processes
such as self-monitoring, self-efficacy appraisal, personal goal setting,
and use of self-motivating incentives. Whether using the more
pragmatic training aimed at enhancing the four sources discussed
earlier or these more sophisticated approaches suggested by Bandura,
there is proven effectiveness of this training and development of self-
efficacy, and the potential for the future seems unlimited. (Bandura,
‘Cultivating Self-Efficacy for Personal and Organizational Effectiveness’,
op.cit.p.132 – Chap.9/149).
That the principle here be stated that ‘the higher employees’ self-
efficacy on a specific task, the better they will perform’. The earlier
studies disclosed (114 studies; 21,616 participants d = .82) that on
average, there is a 72 percent probability that employees with high
self-efficacy on a specific task will have better performance than those
with low self-efficacy. The moderators found in the meta-analysis were
task complexity and the setting for the study. Specifically, it was found
that the more complex the task, the less, but still highly significant,
impact self-efficacy will have on performance. Also, self-efficacy had a
bigger impact in the studies conducted in laboratory settings than
those in the field.
Thus, the Self-efficacy has become one of the very best
predictors of human performance. In today’s work environment
characterized by uncertainty change, and complex undertakings,
organizations will be challenged to do their part in increasing

34
employees’ beliefs in their personal competence so that organizational
performance can be realized.
Teacher Self-Efficacy in the Global Scenario:
Teachers' sense of efficacy can potentially influence both the kind
of environment that they create as well as the various instructional
practices introduced in the classroom (Bandura, 1997). Furthermore,
teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy are confident that even the
most difficult students can be reached if they exert extra effort;
teachers with lower self-efficacy, on the other hand, feel a sense of
helplessness when it comes to dealing with difficult and unmotivated
students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). The literature widely documents the
pervasive influence of self-efficacy beliefs and corroborates social
cognitive theory that places these beliefs at the roots of human agency
(Bandura, 2001).
There are two major dimensions of teachers' perceived efficacy
discussed in literature on teacher's sense of efficacy: Personal Teaching
Efficacy (PTE) and General Teaching Efficacy (GTE) (Coladarci, 1992;
Soodak & Podell, 1997; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990; Tschannen-Moran &
Wookfolk Hoy, 2001). Personal Teaching Efficacy refers to teachers'
beliefs about their own ability to make a difference in their students'
learning, whereas General Teaching Efficacy comprises teachers'
beliefs about the power of factors outside of the school and teacher's
control in affecting student performance. Both GTE and PTE were the
two items measured in the earliest teachers' efficacy studies headed
by Rand Corporation (Armor et al., 1976; Berman et al., 1977), which
asked teachers to rate their responses to two statements based on a
five-point Likert scale:
(a) "When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can't do much

35
because most of a student's motivation and performance depends on
his or her home environment," (GTE)
(b) "If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or
unmotivated students" (PTE).
On the other hand, other researchers have treated teacher
efficacy as a one-dimensional construct (Evans & Tribble, 1986;
Guskey, 1988). Yet another group of researchers have argued that
teacher efficacy is multidimensional and should be examined
differently according to specific situations and tasks (Tschannen-Moran
& Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Tschannen-Moran, Wookfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998).
Relation between Teachers’ Efficacy and Other Factors:
Teacher efficacy has been linked to several personal and
contextual variables, important teacher behaviors, and student
outcomes. Guskey (1988) and Ghaith and Yaghi's (1997a) studies
examined, among other things, how teachers' sense of efficacy affects
their attitudes toward implementing instructional innovation. Guskey's
(1988) study involved 120 elementary and secondary school teachers
who attended a staff development program which focused on mastery
learning of instructional strategies and instructional innovations for the
study's participants. The questionnaire used in the study consisted of
four sections that combined a variety of scales. The results of the study
showed that teachers who regarded instructional innovation practices
(mastery of learning strategies) as congruent with their present
teaching practices rated them as easier to implement. Similarly, those
who deemed instructional innovations as very different from their
current teaching methods rated them as more difficult to implement
and therefore less important.
The relation among teachers' teaching experience, efficacy, and

36
attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovations was
also explored by Ghaith and Yaghi (1997a). The 25 teachers in their
study responded to three questionnaires after a staff development
program using the program, Student Teams Achievement Divisions
(STAD), as a cooperative learning instructional innovation. In addition
to answering a demographic background questionnaire and the same
measure used by Guskey (1988) to assess teachers' attitudes toward
instructional innovation, the study used a shortened version of Gibson
and Dembo's (1984) teacher efficacy scale, which contained 16 items.
Ghaith and Yaghi (1997a) found that with more years of teaching
experience, teachers tended to view STAD as being more difficult and
less important to implement. Further, more experienced teachers also
felt that their ability to bring about positive changes in students'
learning is limited by factors beyond school control. Another finding of
this study was that teachers with a higher sense of personal teaching
efficacy saw STAD as more congruent with their present teaching
practices, less difficult and more important to implement.
Using the 16-item version of the Gibson and Dembo (1984)
teacher efficacy scale, Soodak and Poodell (1997) looked at how
teaching experience influenced teacher efficacy among 626
elementary and secondary pre-service and practicing teachers in the
greater New York metropolitan area. The main finding from this study
was that for the elementary teachers, personal teaching efficacy was
initially high during the pre-service teaching years but in the first year
of teaching, this sense of personal efficacy fell dramatically. However,
with more years of teaching experience, their personal efficacy
gradually increased but their sense of their own effectiveness never
reached the same levels achieved by secondary-level teachers. On the

37
other hand, the secondary teachers in this study were more
homogeneous and stable in their personal efficacy beliefs.
The earlier global studies confined categorically with regard to
Teacher General efficacy and Personal efficacy. These two dimensions
of teachers’ perceived efficacy discussed on teachers’ sense of efficacy
viz., Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) and General Teaching Efficacy
(GTE) – (Coladarci, 1992, Soodak & Podell, 1997; Woolfolk & Joy, 1990;
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk & Hoy, 2001).
The above studies are accepting that Personal Teaching Self-
efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs abut their own ability to make a
difference in their students’ learning, whereas General Teaching self-
efficacy comprises teacher’s beliefs about the power of factors outside
of the school and teacher’s control in affecting student performance.
Keeping the above research observations, the present
investigator is in view that teacher self-efficacy is associated with
teacher ideas, beliefs, thoughts and its contributions on teachers’
actions, product and performance.
Further, it is inconcurrence with the teacher’s thought and action
theory of Clerk and Peterson (1986). Hence, the researcher presenting
the Clerk and Peterson’s Theory on Teacher Thought and Action with a
pictorial representation to substantiates the present theoretical
framework.
To substantiate how research on teacher thought processes
complements the larger body of research on teacher efficacy, Clark
and Peterson (1986) have developed, a model of teacher thought and
action, which is presented in the following figure. Of course they make
no claims for the empirical validity of this model but rather offer it as a
heuristic device.

38
 The model depicts two domains that are importantly involved in
the process of teaching. A circle represents each domain. These
domains are (a) Teachers’ ‘thought Processes’, (b) Teachers’ actions
and their observable effects. These two domains differ in at least two
important ways. First, the domains differ in the extent to which the
processes involved are observable. Teachers’ thought processes occur
‘in-side teachers’ heads’ and thus are unobservable. In contrast,
teacher behaviour, student behaviour, and student achievement scores
constitute observable phenomena. Thus, the phenomena involved in
the teacher action domain are more easily measured and more easily
subjected to empirical research methods than are the phenomena
involved in the teachers’ thought domain. The domain of teachers’
thought processes presents challenging methodological problems for
the empirical researchers.

Figure : 4 : A Model of Teacher Thought and Action

(Clerk & Peterson)

CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES

39
 Teacher Thought Teachers’ Actions and
Processes their observable effects

Teacher Planning Teachers’ Classroom

(Pre-active and Behaviour
Post-active
thoughts)

Teachers’ Interactive Students’ Classroom

Thoughts and decisions Behaviour
And decisions

Teachers’ Theories Students’ Behaviour

and Beliefs

Second, the two domains represent two paradigmatic approaches

to research on teaching prior to 1975; the dominant research paradigm
is the process-product approach to the study of teacher effectiveness.
Process-product researchers have been concerned primarily with the
relationship between teachers’ classroom behaviour, students’
classroom behaviour and student achievement. In contrast, the
domain of research on teachers’ thought processes constitutes a
paradigmatic approach to research on teaching, which has only
recently emerged.
In this model it is assumed that the relationship between teacher
behaviour, student behaviour and achievement, components in the
domain of teachers’ actions and their observable effects, are
reciprocal.
Three major categories of teachers’ thought processes are,
teacher planning, teachers’ inter-active thoughts and decisions, and
teachers’ theories and beliefs. The double-headed arrow between the
domains of teacher thought and action in this model indicates that

40
there is a reciprocal relationship between these two domains.
Teachers’ actions are in a large part caused by teachers’ thought
processes, which in turn affect teachers’ actions. It is viewed that the
process of teaching will be fully understood only when the two domains
are brought together and examined in relation to one another. In this
present study teacher planning in the domain of teachers’ thought
processes and in the domain of teachers’ actions and their observable
effects have been taken into consideration.
Teacher Self-efficacy in relation to Indian scenario:
The quality of education depends much on the efficacy of the
teacher. Teacher in India is considered to be the hub of the teaching
learning process. So effective teaching learning process largely
depends on effective teachers. But it is not easy to ascertain
effectiveness and ineffectiveness of a teacher. The teacher in Indian
scenario is the point of contact between educational system and the
pupil. The impact of any educational programme or innovation on the
pupil operates only through the teacher. It is, therefore, quite accurate
to say that the institutional effectiveness depends directly on the
efficacy of the teachers i.e., teachers with good ideas and actions.
Thus, maximizing teacher-self efficacy will be the major goal in the
system of education.
Thus, this entire discussion is devoted to the theory, research and
application of Teacher Self-Efficacy. General Teaching and Personal
Teaching Efficacy combined as Teacher Self-efficacy basing on Indian
contexture. It is not out of place to state that the belief one has in his
or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources and
courses of action necessary to successfully execute a specific task
within a given contexture. However, Teacher Self-efficacy is a state not

41
a trait. Further, this state of experience of the Teacher is designed in
several parts viz., Mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social
experiences and physiological and psychological experiences. These
experiences are designed and discussed based on the environmental,
motivational behavioural and personal cognitive aspects in relation to
teacher and institution performance with reference to existing social
environments. These aspects are also discussed in order of
importance of Mastery, Vicarious, Social, Physiological and
Psychological experiences of the teacher. Each of these are used with
reference to the conditions of Teacher Thought and Institutional
environments, which are the major causes to enhance the quality in
Teacher Self-Efficacy. So as to obtain the effective practical
applications of self-efficacy, the present researcher discussed the
major variables of Teacher Self-Efficacy. In this study the researcher
considered only four major dimensions of Teacher Self-Efficacy and
discussed hereunder.
Dimensions of Teacher Self-Efficacy:
The Teacher Self-Efficacy is designed with four dimensions viz.,
Teacher Self-Efficacy – Mastery Experience, Teacher Self-Efficacy –
Model or Vicarious Experience, Teacher Self-Efficacy – Social
Experience.
Mastery Experience:
This envisaged that the Mastery Experience is a powerful and
pivotal role in forming efficacy beliefs because it is direct information
about success. However, it is emphasized that performance
accomplishments of a teacher do not directly equate with his self-
efficacy. Both situational (i.e., the complexity of the task) and
cognitive process (i.e., the perception of one’s ability) concerning to

42
performance will affect the self-efficacy judgment and belief. Thus, the
mastery experience gained through perseverant effort and ability to
learn from a strong and resilient sense of efficacy, but efficacy
character building of a teacher and thought, which in turn will be
formed by virtue of his/her practical acquaintance with the facts.
Model or Vicarious Experiences:
This disclosed that just as teachers do not need to directly
experience reinforced personal behaviour in order to learn. They can
vicariously learn by observing and modeling relevant others who are
reinforced already; the same is true of acquiring efficacy. Hence, it is
important to emphasize that the model teacher (i.e., in demographics
such as age, sex, physical characteristics and education as well as
status and professional experience etc.) with the more effectiveness
will depend on the observer’s efficacy processing. This vicarious
source of information is an important for those with little direct
experience (i.e., a new assignment) or experienced with less attitudes
and as a practical strategy is trying to enhance to some extent in the
formation of Self-efficacy of an in-service teacher.
Social Experience:
Teachers in their efficacy can be strengthened by respected,
competent others persuading them that they ‘have what it takes’ on
the particular task. On the other side of the coin, there is no question
of the powerful impact that unkind words and negative feed back have
in disabling the teacher and his confidence. Too often a small negative
comment or even non-verbal gesture made on teacher, which affect
the impact on his emotions and efficacy. Unfortunately, encouraging
the Teacher in positive feedback and pointing out their ability and
strength for successfully accomplishing a task does not seem to be

43
processed, some of his colleague teachers with as much impact as the
negative. However, by being genuine, providing objective information,
and then taking follow up actions to actually set up the Teacher for
success and not failure and this social experience is selected and
processed for building efficacy in the teacher. Moreover, such social
experience become more useful to fill the gaps in the profession when
the Teacher begin to struggle or doubts in him, while in classroom
teaching or in his profession than it is in trying to build his efficacy for
a new task.
Physiological and Psychological Experiences:
Of all the above dimensions discussed, teacher’s physiological
and psychological experiences are occupied prominent place to
measure the Teacher self-efficacy. Generally, teachers are often rely
how they feel, physically and emotionally, in order to assess their
capabilities. More than the other sources of information, if these are
negative (i.e., the Teacher is very tired person or not physically well or
particularly anxious/distressed or facing a lot of pressure), which will
generally detract from efficacy. On the other hand, if these physical
and mental states are well off, they need not process as contributing
much to the individual’s efficacy. On balance, however, if the teacher
is in excellent physical and mental state, this might be served as a
good point of departure to build efficacy other ways and might be even
in and of itself aroused a teacher’s efficacy on physical or
psychologically demanding tasks.
Importantly for organizational behaviour and human resources
management, each of these resources is highly malleable and
changeable. As discussed earlier clearly disclosed that the specific
self-efficacy is a state but not a trait. In other words, the state of

44
Teacher Self-Efficacy might be definitely enhanced by providing in-
service training to the teachers to achieve the targets more effectively
in teaching learning process. However, the teacher needs a strong
sense of efficacy before they will try to apply what they have in their
professional experiences. They will also trying to learn new things.
The belief of the Teacher in his ability to perform in his profession
makes them vulnerable to on-the-job conditions, which are not
supportive in his job career. It helps the teachers to survive rejection
and helps them to preserve in face of obstacles and setbacks.
Though the conceptual framework is systematic and sound in its
presentation, in reality, how far the Teacher Value Behaviour,
Motivation and Self-efficacy are correlated and inter-dependent, if so,
to what extent, and how far inter and intra relations between the
dimensions of these aspects are the immediate queries to solve the
problem. The following figure disclosed the relationship between the
three aspects.

45
Figure:5
Diagram showing the relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-Efficacy

Dimensions of Dimensions of Dimensions of

Teacher Value Teacher Motivation Teacher Self-Efficacy
Behaviour

Work Classroom Mastery

Centered Teaching Experience

Learner School Model or Vicarious

Centered Administration Experience

Professional (or) Professional Social

Job Centered Pleasure Experience

Adjustment Climatic Physiological &

Centered Factors Psychological
Experience
Emotional Inter-Personal
Centered Relations
Student
Behaviour

Working
Conditions

Professional
Development

Personal

46
 Thus the investigator is probing into the problem in detail. To
substantiate the present problem, the researcher reviewed and
presented the available literature relating to Teacher Value Behaviour,
Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-Efficacy in the following chapter.

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

From the time teaching started to gain recognition as a
profession, experts as well as common men began to wonder abut the
effectiveness of the teacher. The examples of Socrates, Drona, Plato,
Christ and Buddha are of common knowledge. Whether mythological
or historical, both the eastern and the western records strongly
suggest that the famous teachers were known to attract a large
number of pupils around them and their glory used to be reflected in
terms of the achievements of their pupils.
It has been documented in our ancient literature that after a
training period, testing competitions of Kshatriya princes were held to
ascertain the learning outcomes attained by them. Put differently, it
was a sort of public trial (test) of both the teacher and the taught. If a
pupil failed to show mastery of knowledge and skills it indeed,
indicated a failure of the both, may be more of the teacher. The
episode of Arjuna-Ekalavya rivalry is a classic example of the pupil-
outcome criterion of judging teacher effectiveness. Thus, there is
sufficient evidence to believe that teacher (teaching) effectiveness has
been viewed more in terms of what happens to a learner than what a
teacher does. In other words, what it crucial is not the teacher’s act or
behaviour, but the pupil’s act or behaviour. Hence, the investigator
has viewed the previous investigations on the aspect of Teacher Value
Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy both in India

47
and Abroad in the following pages.
Kerlinger (1973, III Survey of Educational Research) give two main
reasons for discussing the general and research literature related to
the research problem. The first of this is to clarify the theoretical
rationale of the problem. The second reason is to locate the present
research in the existing body of research on the subject and to point
out what it contributes to the subject.
The major purpose of this review of the available literature is to
determine the significant facts, which are essentially related to the
problem under investigation. For the knowledge emerging from the
investigation would enable the investigator to avoid unintentional
duplication, as well as to provide to understand and insight for the
development of logical framework for the present problem under
investigation. Moreover, studies that have been done would help in
formulating research hypothesis and indicating ‘what needs to be done
will form the basis for the justification of the study under investigation’.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive and clear
picture of the related studies and to show how the present study
contributes in extending the knowledge in the attempted area under
study.
VALUE BEHAVIOUR:
Studies in India:
Anbarasu, M. (1992) studied 'Value orientation in English
Language Textbooks of Upper Primary Schools' (M.Phi., Edn., Alagappa
University, - V Survey of Educational Research).
The Indian adaptation of the Allport Vernon and Lindzey Study of
Values and an Indian tool called PVQ, by Sherry and Verma, were used
to find the value patterns of students. Misra, K.S. (1978), Kumar, S.K.

48
(1978), and Pandey, M.M. (1980) found that high-creative students
possessed values related to social service, independence, variety,
knowledge and aesthetics. Singh, A.(1977), and Singh, C (1978)
reported that economic values were more prominent in high creative,
whereas Paramesh, C.R. (1970), and Misra, K.S. (1978) reported that
economic value was more prominent in the average and the low
creatives. The theoretical values were more prominent in high
creatives as reported by Kumar, S.K. (1978), but Singh, C. (1978)
counter-reported that economic value was more prominent in the
average and the low creatives. The theoretical values were more
prominent in high creatives as reported by Kumar, S.K. (1978), but
Singh, C. (1978) counter-reported that these are found to be more
prominent among low creatives. Among the low creatives, the power
value was more dominant (Misra, K.S., 1978). On the other hand,
Singh, L. and Gupta, G. (1977) found no relationship between the
traditional values and creativity. While Pandey M.M. (1980) reported
that creative and non-creative pupil teachers did not differ significantly
with respect to value patterns. (V Survey of Educational Research)
Balasubramanian (1995 - VI Survey of Educational Research)
analyzed teaching behaviour of Class XI English teachers and its effect
on pupils' achievement in English.
Dayakara Reddy, V. (2006) probed into ‘Value-Oriented
Education’ (Edited by V. Dayakara Reddy and Digumarti Bhaskara Rao.
New Delhi, Discovery, 2006, xii, 416 p., tables, $55. ISBN 81-8356-051-
2).
The related studies that can be compared the earlier studies of 1.
Value-oriented education/Nimma Venkata Rao. 2. Value education/T.M.
Geetha. 3. The psychological edifice for value education/Kalpana

49
Venugopal, and Priya Kumari. 4. Fostering values: a challenge for the
society/N. Sobhana. 5. Value based teaching: need of the hour/K.V.
Raghupathi. 6. Value-oriented education: need to the day for
sustainable development/G. Vijayasree. 7. A need for value based
education in modern and complex society/Sudha, H.R. 8. Value crisis in
contemporary education/S. Indira. 9. Value crisis in contemporary
Indian education/V. Govinda Reddy and D. Chenna Reddy. 10. Value
crisis in education/Venkata Subbaiah. 11. Challenges in science
education: relevant to value crisis in contemporary Indian education/T.
Rajayalakshmi. 12. Value education and social reconstruction/P.N.
Nataraj. 13. Value education for social reconstruction/R.R. Madankar.
14. The role of value education in social reconstruction/M. Pramod
Kumar. 15. Empowerment of women and value education/Shahataj
Begum. 16. Value education and empowerment of women/K.
Jayaraman and K. Vanitha. 17. Role of parents, teachers and students
in strengthening value education/K. Chandrasekhar. 18. How parents,
teachers, students and administrators can strengthen value
education/M. Padma Kumari and V. Dayakara Reddy. 19. Importance of
parents, teachers, students and administrators in strengthening value
education/G. Narayana Rao. 20. Can teachers, parents, students and
administrators strengthen values?/C.V.V. Prasad and M. Chandra
Sekhar. 21. Necessity of the roles of parents, teachers, students and
administrators in strengthening value education/A. Muniraja Reddy and
B. Ramachandra Reddy. 22. Parents, teachers, students and
administrators and strengthening value education/T.I. Nagarjuna and V.
Dayakara Reddy. 23. Place of teachers in promoting value education/G.
Visvanathan and M. Govindan. 24. Teachers and strengthening of value
education/K. Sudha Rani and P. Manohar Reddy. 25. Value education:

50
role of teachers/A. Gayatri and V. Dayakara Reddy. 26. Sensitising
teachers towards value-based teaching/K. Chellamani and S. Mohan.
27. Prioritisation of school children's values by the teachers/G.
Vijayalakshmi. 28. Dynamic parenting: role in strengthening value
education/A. Indira Prasuna and Sri K. Pencholaiah. 29. Value
education: role of the school/Mahender Reddy Sarasani and L. Venkat
Ram Reddy. 30. Values and teacher education system/B. Ramachandra
Reddy. 31. Promoting values in professional teacher education/R.H.
Naik. 32. Educational values fostered through distance education/S.
Thavamani. 33. Value education: contribution of home science in the
promotion of values/R.K. Anuradha. 34. Value oriented education:
methods and strategies/M. Vanaja and M.V. Ram Kumar Ratnam. 35.
Promoting values in professional and higher education: teaching
strategies/B. Yella Reddy and V. Dayakara Reddy. 36. The development
values of environmental education/Gara Latchanna. 37. Women
empowerment as a tool for enhancement of value in education: an
hypothetical analysis/D. Pulla Rao. 38. A study of moral judgment of
pre-university students in relation to gender, socio-economic status,
course of study, religion and moral judgment of their teachers/M.S.
Talawar and G. Sheela. 39. Value orientation among school
teacher/Rajendra Prasad, D. 40. Attitudes towards value-oriented
education in primary school children/T. Rajasekhar Reddy. 41.
Promoting values in teacher trainees/M. Rajini. 42. Sri Sathya Sai
System of education: a model to follow/C. Ravindranatha Reddy. 43.
Value education: the saviour of human society/Digumarti Bhaskara
Rao. 44. Memories of UGC National Seminar on Value-Oriented
Education. (e-Journal publication dt.5.7.2008)
"Value education is a planned educational programme aimed at the

51
development of values in students. It encounters with the total
personality of the individual student keeping in view all aspects of
human personality development--the intellectual, emotional and social.
It makes an individual a good child, parent, adult and citizen, and
keeps the people and society intact.
Dubey, Ramjee (1992) examined 'A critical study of the concept
and implementation of value education in India at school level since
1947 to 1986 (Ph.D., Edu., Patna Univ. - V Survey of Educational
Research)
Hasan and Paragariha (1995 - VI Survey of Educational
Research) examined whether Extreme Response style serves as an
indicator of (Jenkins) type 'A' behaviour pattern of male primary school
teachers.
Kapani, Madhu (1990) 'Education in human values : Concept
and practical implications' (Ph.D., Edu., Sri Satya Sai Institute of Higher
Learning - V Survey of Educational Research).
Murugudu Srihari (2007) investigated into ‘Values of
Prospective Teachers’ (Murugudu Srihari. New Delhi, Discovery
Publishing House, 2007, x, 124 p., tables, $18. ISBN 81-8356-328-7.)
This study disclosed that Values are seen in the external
behaviour of human beings. They are the internal dispositions
expressed externally upon need and demand. They make the human
beings live comfortably or uncomfortably as they are the
characteristics that decide their behaviour. Hence thy are required for
every human individual.
Teachers are the persons who exert great influence on their
students and hence they should possess human values. They need to
be imbibed in the teachers in making in teacher education colleges.

52
That is why this study has been undertaken to identify the level of
values possessed by the prospective teachers so that they can be
developed through proper education and guidance if found less in
them.
Prospective teachers studying in secondary teacher education in
colleges are having a high level of values. There is no significant
difference in the level of values possessed by the men and women
prospective teachers, rural and urban prospective teachers, science
and arts prospective teachers and graduate and post-graduate
prospective teachers.
The findings of this study will be of great use to the teachers,
teacher educators, and academic administrators. Policy makers and
parents to take care of the components concerned to values at
different levels and kinds of education."
Ramachadra Reddy, B (2007) studied ‘Teaching Behaviour of High
School Teachers’ (B. Ramachandra Reddy. New Delhi, Discovery
Publishing House, 2007, xvi, 510 p., tables, figs., $55. ISBN 81-8356-
325-2).
According to author while adding this book to the list of books
already adorning the galaxy of education, the author do not feel
apology for the same because there are few books in the area of
classroom/teaching behaviour. The importance of the area of process
of education is rarely felt either by the agencies, which implement
various reforms or by the researchers. In a comprehensive survey of
research in education, it is evident that the number of studies done in
the area of 'Teaching Behaviour' is negligible. This has lead to the
inadequacy of the data regarding the effective teacher behaviour or
teacher acts. Teacher educators are not clearly aware of what teacher

53
behaviour has to be developed among student teachers. Hence, they
have resorted to the global concept of methods of teaching suggested
by philosophers and psychologists. Even the process of transmitting
the behavioural characteristics to the prospective teachers is of
doubtful validity. There is a great need to conduct researches in the
areas of classroom teaching, teacher behaviour and teacher education.
This is a must, especially in developing countries like India.
Several personal and psychological factors may contribute for
effective teaching behaviour. The present book is aimed to identify
certain socio-psychological factors affecting the teaching behaviour of
high school teachers. Teaching behaviour of 256 high school teachers
are observed in their live classroom sessions through an well
established observational system.
Sharma, Meenu (1992) investigated into 'A Study of Teachers
Socio-economic Status and values with reference to their attitude
towards nation' (Ph.D., Edu., Agra Univ. - V Survey of Educational
Research). The study attempts to compare male and female teachers
of different levels for their socio-economic status, value and attitude
towards the nation (ATN). The major objectives of the study is (1) To
study the differences in value orientation, SES and ATN of Male and
female teahes of different levels; (2) To study the relationship of value-
orientation and ATN in male and female teachers of different levels,
and (iii) to study the relationship of ATN and SES among male and
female teachers of different levels.
The major findings: (1) It was found that male and female
teachers of different levels differed in SES but they did not differ on
value-orientation and ATN. (2) To some extent, value-orientation was
related to ATN. (3) ATN and SES were also found to be related.

54
 Sheela (1988) studied 'Change in Teaching Behaviour as a
function of inculcation of values predicting teachers' effectiveness
(Ph.D., Edu., Panjab Univ., - V Survey of Educational Research). This
investigation is to study the change in teaching behaviour as a function
of inculcation of values predicting teacher's effectiveness.
The objectives of the study are (1) To identify the most effective
and the least effective teachers at the secondary level through a multi-
dimensional criteria of teacher effectiveness; (2) To identify the values
that best discriminate the high-effective teachers from the low-
effective teachers, through master ranks of values of each subgroup;
(3) To inculcate the identified values in student-teachers, which are
indicators of teacher effectiveness and are termed as educational
values, and (4) To test the effect of inculcation of values of the
teaching behaviour of student-teachers.
The conclusion of the study revealed that a significant
relationship was found between intelligence and value-orientation gain
for cooperation and dedication to training profession, perseverance,
scientific outlook and rationalization on various sections of VOBT at the
pre-treatment stage. However, only one value, perseverance, was
found having a positive significant relationship with intelligence at the
post-test stage. And Socio-economic status also correlated
significantly with all the five values on Test-D of VOBT at the pre-
treatment stage but none was found significantly related at the post-
test stage.
Srivastava, Vinodini (1990) studied 'A study of change
proneness and job satisfaction among teachers with reference to
teacher values (Ph.D., Edu., Agra Univ., - V Survey of Educational
Research). This study concentrates on the Change-proneness and job

55
satisfaction of teachers of different levels with reference to different
values.
The objectives of the study are - to study the differences in the
change-proneness to change among teachers with different kinds of
values and to study the differences in job satisfaction among teachers
with different kinds of values and along with other objectives.
The important findings of this study are - (1) In case of primary
teachers; there were significant sex differences in the relationship
between social values and change-proneness. (2) In the case of
Secondary School Teachers, significant sex differences in the
relationship between economic value and change-proneness, political
value and change-proneness and religious value and change-
proneness were found. (3) In the case of degree teachers no sex
difference in the relationship between different values and change-
proneness was found. (4) In the case of primary teachers and
secondary teachers, no sex difference in the relationship between
different values and job satisfaction was found. (5) In the case of
degree teachers there was a significant sex difference in the
relationship between theoretical value and job satisfaction.
Singh (1997 - VI Survey of Educational Research) studied the
relationship between non-verbal creative thinking and behaviour ratios
of science teachers trained through microteaching technique.
Studies Abroad:
Allson Soutter (2008) probed into ‘Teachers Strategies for
promoting student well-being and preventing bullying in Steiner
Schools’. The Teachers in Rudolf Steiner schools believe in teaching
through relationships. They believe that you only learn from people
you like and respect and that to be able to teach effectively you have

56
to be able to recognize the strengths of your students. By doing this
you model respectful relationships and prevent bullying.
They begin the day or the lesson by shaking the hand of each
child as they enter the classroom. By greeting each child individually
you have a chance to have a quiet word with those who need it and
see which children are a bit fragile and need extra care to prevent
blow-ups. Then at the end of the session, before letting the children go
out into the playground you do some group activity like saying a poem.
This is believed to have an effect on preventing playground bullying.
Stenier teachers use poetry in much the same way as it was used
in the past. They find that by saying a poem together, children learn to
work together because they have to accommodate to the speed at
which others are speaking the verse. Poems are also useful to show
children how clever they are because they are much better than adults
at rote learning. Poems are always taught orally (to teach
concentration and validate poor readers), a line, then a couplet, then a
verse at a time. This shows the children everyone can learn and
prevents children being labeled as stupid and so targeted by bullies.
Each week Steiner teachers meet after school and discuss a class
of children. The rule is that everyone who teaches the children or who
has supervised them in the playground contributes ideas abut what
works with each child. There is no negativity; the focus of the meeting
is to teach the children better. Steiner teachers have the same class
for many years so they understand that it is their responsibility to
reach each child and to keep harmony in the class by showing the
children that all are valuable.
They understand that they have to find a way to like each child
and so they are encouraged to mediate on their class each night and

57
think of each child as the person they have the potential to become.
When they dislike a child they recognize that it is their problem not the
child’s. They have to ask themselves why they find errors in social
behaviour so offensive when they know it is just immature
performance of a skill. Children, Teachers have a great deal of power
to prevent bullying by showing they believe that everyone in their class
in a worthy person.
Barbara Marshall Matthews (2005) investigated into ‘the
Chinese Value Survey: An interpretation of value scales and
consideration of some preliminary results’ (Flinders University, School
of Education, Inter National Educational Journal, China).
This study investigated relationships between students'
perceptions of their teachers' interpersonal behaviour and their
subject-related attitude in primary science classes in Brunei. Teacher–
student interpersonal behaviour was mapped with the Questionnaire
on Teacher Interaction (QTI) and reported in terms of two independent
dimensions called Influence (teacher dominance vs. submission) and
Proximity (teacher cooperation vs. opposition). While prior research
using the QTI mainly focused on secondary education, the present
study was one of the first in Brunei and in primary education and one
of few studies to use multilevel analysis. Data from 1305 students from
64 classes were used in this study. Results indicated strong and
positive effects of Influence and Proximity on students' enjoyment of
their science class and supported findings of earlier work with the QTI.
Campbell, W.J.(2008) studied ‘the Teacher’s view of Teaching
Behaviour’. This study disclosed that one of the most exciting
developments in recent studies of teaching behaviour has been the
enlistment of classroom teachers to contribute to the pool of insights

58
that is accumulating. The teachers are being encouraged to see
themselves as professionals who have an excellent opportunity to
generate insights into a specialized area of human behaviour, and, at
the same time, contribute to the more general field of psychology. The
ascription of this new status has enhanced their confidence and has
resulted in their responding with sensitive and insightful comments on
the nature of teaching.
For purpose of this study, it was decided to focus upon the
expressed views of teachers, rather than upon views, which others
might infer from analyzing teaching behaviour. A second decision was
made to survey two different sets of views: (a) chose relating to
‘teaching as it is’ and (b) those relating to ‘teaching as it should be’. In
the former instance, it secured advisable to examine the views of
representative groups of teachers, but in the latter instance there
secured to be merit in focusing upon those few studies of interviews
with teachers judged to be outstandingly effective.
Den Brok, Perry; Fisher, Darrell and Scott, Rowena (2005)
probed into ‘The Importance of Teacher Inter-personal Behaviour for
Student Attitudes in Brunei Primary Science Classes’ (International
Journal of Science Education, Routledge, Part of the Taylor & Francis
Group, Volume 27, Number 7, 3 June 2005, pp. 765-779(15) Australia).
This study investigated relationships between students'
perceptions of their teachers' interpersonal behaviour and their
subject-related attitude in primary science classes in Brunei. Teacher–
student interpersonal behaviour was mapped with the Questionnaire
on Teacher Interaction (QTI) and reported in terms of two independent
dimensions called Influence (teacher dominance vs. submission) and
Proximity (teacher cooperation vs. opposition). While prior research

59
using the QTI mainly focused on secondary education, the present
study was one of the first in Brunei and in primary education and one
of few studies to use multilevel analysis. Data from 1305 students from
64 classes were used in this study. Results indicated strong and
positive effects of Influence and Proximity on students' enjoyment of
their science class and supported findings of earlier work with the QTI.
Dennis M.McLnerney (2005) studied ‘Educational Psychology –
Theory, Research and Teaching: A 25-year retrospective’. This presents
a brief overview of developments in educational psychology over the
last twenty-five years. It firstly presents an historical context by
reviewing four basic emphases in educational psychology; cognitive
psychology, behavioural psychology, social cognitive theory and
humanism. The article then reviews the growth in cognitive
psychology research by briefly examining developments arising from
Piagetian, Vygotskian and information processing theories. The article
examines the development of constructivist approaches to learning
and teaching, and the growth in cognitive theories of motivation,
Cross-cultural, methodological and other developments in paradoxes to
stimulate the reader to consider some implications of this 25 years
over view.
Dorothee Doerfel-Baasen (2006), University of Potsdam,
Hellogard Rauh, Germany studied ‘Parents and Teachers of Young
Children Under conditions of Socio-political Change’. His study
disclosed that ‘Socialization settings before and after the unification of
Berlin were investigated in two cohorts for young children who entered
the newly united elementary school system in 1992 or 1995 and/or
1996. Differences in East and West child-rearing and educational
values in preschool, family, and school were partly compatible with

60
hypotheses about individualistic and collectivist societies. The adults in
all three settings were apprehensive of the rapid societal changes in
the East more than in the West. Cohort changes, however, were more
pronounced in the children's behavior than in that of the adults, were
gender specific, and were more marked in the West rather than in the
East Berlin children.
Li-Ling Hsu, RN (2006) studied into ‘An analysis of Clinical
Teacher Behaviour in a nursing practicum in Taiwan’. The aim of this
study was to identify and assess the teaching behaviours (knowledge,
attitudes and skills) observed in nurse educators as they taught in the
clinical setting. Many quantitative studies have defined and evaluated
teaching effectiveness in the clinical area. Some of these studies
established instruments to evaluate faculty effectiveness in the clinical
setting; however, they tended to be so broad that they were of limited
use in understanding clinical teaching behaviours in nursing education.
This study explored clinical teaching behaviours in a nursing
practicum. Ten nurse educators taught 10 students in the medical-
surgical unit at a hospital in Taiwan for about four weeks. The
researcher observed each teacher and one other observer for two days
during regularly scheduled clinical teaching time. Data collection and
analysis were done by a qualitative approach. Content analysis is a
process of identifying, coding and categorizing the themes in the data.
The result of his study disclosed that the themes of clinical
teaching that emerged from data analysis included teaching aims
(task-oriented and learner-centered), teacher competence (teacher
knowledge, instructional strategies, planning learning experience,
teaching priorities, feedback and caring) and teaching commitment
(professional identity and giving of self). These findings offer a holistic

61
blueprint of clinical teaching for nursing faculty members, which will
enhance the quality of nursing education. Complexity in nursing
education has increased as it is challenged to meet the needs of
diverse populations in rapidly evolving and highly technical health-care
settings. Clinical teachers must be enabled and empowered to provide
students with appropriate knowledge and skills to meet the needs of
patients. To develop students’ professional nursing identity now and in
the future, nurse educators have to commit themselves to both nursing
and teaching in clinical settings. More nurses need to be prepared for
careers in education at the master’s and doctoral levels.

Martin V.Cogington (1981) studied ‘Reactions to Achievement

Behaviour from a Teacher and Student Perspective: A Developmental
Analysis’. This study disclosed that participants from first grade
through college (N = 168) evaluated the achievement behaviour of
hypothetical students differing in ability, effort expenditure, and test
outcome, both from the perspective of student and teacher.
Perceptions of teacher values were consistent over age: Effort and
outcome were perceived as highly salient cues for determining degree
of teacher rewards and punishment, with student ability level being of
little relevance. In contrast, student, perspectives indicated a high
valuation of ability across all grade levels. Moreover, whereas effort
was strongly valued in elementary school, inconsistencies appeared in
junior high school such that by high school and college a devaluation of
effort occurred. This progressive devaluation was associated with an
evolving student belief that low-effort expenditure implies higher
ability.

62
 Sally Thomas (2007) probed into ‘Value-added measures of
School Effectiveness in the United Kingdom’. The researcher has
mostly focused on the performance of schools in terms of examination
and test results. On their own, such results are insufficient for proper
judgments about schools’ performance. Other pupil outcomes such as
pupil attendance, capacity for independent learning, attitudes towards
school and learning, behaviour and self-concept are also important.
School effectiveness research aims to investigate a broad range of
educational outcomes. Examples of this approach are provided by the
Junior School Project (Mortimore et al., 1988), the Lancashire project
(Thomas & Mortimore, 1996) and the ISEP in Schotland (MacBeath &
Mortimore, 1994), which involves collecting pupil, teacher and parent
attitude data in addition to academic outcomes. Nevertheless, the
main performance indicator for schools continues to be how successful
they are at ensuring that as many pupils as possible achieve their full
academic potential.
Seah W.T. (2002) investigated into ‘the Perception of, and
Interaction with, Value Differences by Immigrant Teachers of
Mathematics in Two Australian Secondary Classrooms’ (Journal of
Intercultural Studies, Volume 23, Number 2, 1 August 2002 , pp. 189-
210(22), Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group,
Japan). This paper reports on a preliminary study which investigates
the nature of value differences experienced by two immigrant teachers
of mathematics, and their responsive strategies to negotiate these
cultural value differences/conflicts as they attempt to socialize
themselves professionally in their host culture. The research
methodology adopts a qualitative approach incorporating features of
narrative analysis. While cultural differences may not possibly be

63
eliminated, immigrant teachers may empower themselves by engaging
in cultural interactions. Practical implications are suggested.
Wee Tiong Seah, (2008) Monash University, Australia studied
‘The Professional Socialization of Teachers in Transition: A Values
Perspective’ that Teachers’ transition between sites of professional
practice can take several different forms. It may be as subtle as a
teacher moving between school levels, say, from Year 8 in the middle
school to Year 11 in the senior school within the same campus. A move
between schools may be prompted by a teacher moving his/her family
between suburbs, or from the suburb to the countryside (or vice
versa). A teacher may be moving across different school systems (e.g.
from independent school to state school), or between a co-educational
and a single-sex school. Such transitions may be facilitated in part by
the construction of new schools or the closure of those, which the
authorities deem not sustainable. Teachers may also have come from
inter-state, or from another country on teacher exchange program, as
an expatriate, or as an immigrant. In another sense, all teachers may
be regarded as teachers in transition as they practice against a
professional and socio-cultural context in which change is the only
constant. Each of these experiences potentially subjects the teacher in
transition to differences in organizational and Pedagogical cultures,
heightening feelings of dissonance and affecting teaching
effectiveness. Yet, this aspect of teacher professional socialization has
not really attracted research attention. In fact, some may expect a
teacher in transition to simply ‘fit in’ the host culture as is represented
by the school to which the teacher has joined. Against this context, a
study was designed to explore the successful experiences of teachers
in transition between professional cultures. These were examined from

64
the perspective of personal values in the socio-cultural tradition.
Specifically, the study identified a range of teacher experience of
dissonance as a result of perceived value differences (e.g. Seah, 2002),
examined ways in which these perceived differences at the teachers’
workplaces were negotiated (e.g. Seah, 2003a), and explored the
affordness and constraints associated with these negotiations. This
paper seeks to share some of the interpretations of the data collected
through the study, particularly those relevant to the values
perspective. It is worth noting at this point that the study within which
this paper is situated had been conducted in the context of secondary
mathematics, and with immigrant teachers. These immigrant teacher
participants had grown up, were educated, and had taught in their
respective home countries before settling in Australia. It was envisaged
during the conception of the study that immigrant teachers of
mathematics could potentially be a rich source of information relating
to professional socialization across cultures, in terms of the possibly
more intense experience of practicing across geopolitical borders, and
also in terms of the possibly sharper sensitivity to cultural differences
as a result of teaching a supposedly culture-free subject such as school
mathematics. This may help these teachers to acquire a richer
vocabulary with which the relevant experiences may be articulated.
Additionally, an understanding of the professional socialization
experiences of immigrant teachers is crucial in optimizing the continual
supply of foreign talent in the face of imminent severe shortage of
teachers in school classrooms in Australia.
MOTIVATION:
Studies in India:
Anand, S.P. (1996) studied 'Development of a motivational

65
package to promote Teacher effectiveness at Primary level (An
Independent study, Bhubaneswar: Regional Institute of Education,
DPEP Study, IEA, 5, July, 1998).
Anand, S.P. (1998) investigated into 'A Study of Motivation for
teacher effectiveness at primary level. (IER, Vol.33, (1), January, 1998.
Bhattacharya (2000 - VI Survey of Educational Research)
established that intrinsic motivation is essential for elevating level of
teaching competence and improving attitude towards teaching
profession of primary teachers.
Kukreti (1994 - VI Survey of Educational Research) worked to
find out the motivational factors of a teaching job which are correlates
of competent teaching and which differentiate competent and
incompetent teachers.
Gupta and Pande (1999 - VI Survey of Educational Research)
found the commitment level of polytechnic teachers and strategies to
enhance it.
Mittal, Jai Prakash (1992) studied 'An exploratory study of
Teachers' Motivation to work and some factors associated with high
and low work Motivation of Teachers (Ph.D., Edu., Meerut Univ. - V
Survey of Educational Research).
This studied disclosed to explore levels of Teacher's Motivation to
work and studying some of the important factors associated with high
and low work motivation of teachers, viz., their job satisfaction,
personality factors, school organization climate and pupil likings.
The objectives of the study is i) to ascertain the level of
motivation to work among school teachers and to identify those
ranking high and low on the same variable; ii) to compare those high
and low on work motivation along the following criteria and to

66
determine the impact of the same on the variables under study; iii) to
compare the attitudes of pupils towards teachers low and high on work
motivation and iv) to draw some significant conclusions on factors
affecting the work motivation of teachers from the above.
The major findings of this study - (1) In general, motivation to
work was average or above average; (2) Those belonging to the female
sex, those younger in age and those having teaching experience of up
to 10 years, scored significantly higher; (3) Status, qualification family
income did not seem to exert much of an impact on motivation to
work; (4) Those working in urban areas, unaided schools, in girls'
school and in co-educational schools displayed higher motivation to
work than those working in rural areas, government schools and
exclusively boys' schools; (5) Among school variables, the size of
school and management had no relationship with motivation to work
whereas location and type of school had; (6) High and low motivated
teachers differed along the following personality variables,
respectively, low vs. high anxiety, extraversion vs. introversion, tender
minded, emotionality vs. alert poise, and independence vs.
subduedness; (7) The teachers' motivation to work was significantly
related to job satisfaction. (8) Those higher on work motivation
perceived organizational climate to be characterized by less
disengagement and alienation, more espirit, more openness and
autonomy than those low on the same; (9) Motivation to work and
pupil ratings were positively correlated and the latter seemed to affect
the former; (10) Thirteen predictor variables accounted for 82%
variance in the criterion variable of the teachers' motivation to work;
Mohan Raju (1992 - VI Survey of Educational Research) made a
study of factors, which contribute to stimulate and sustain the

67
commitment of senior secondary school teachers of Delhi to the
teaching profession.
Studies Abroad:
Camilia Anne Czubaj (1996) studied thirteen years,
kindergarten through twelfth grade, are spent by a student attain a
high school education. For thirteen years, five times a week, six hours
a day – this enormous amount of time a student remains under the
direction of a teacher. The teacher thusly, plays a significant role in
the student’s life. As one become a product of one’s learning, the
student builds him/herself with the teachings of a teacher. The
teacher’s knowledge, along with the teacher’s feelings become
integrated within the student’s schemata. Should the teacher not like
teaching; the student emerges from the classroom with a dislike for
education. When the teacher loves his/her profession, the student
learns to love education. What makes a person love his/her
profession? There are many dynamics, which coalesce into the person
who loves his/her profession. The major dynamic is motivation. When
one understands the components involved in the construct of
motivation, one can better become and remain motivated. When a
teacher remains motivated, loving the teaching profession, the
students not only learn the content taught by the teacher.
Clermont Barnabeacute & Mildred Burns (1994) studied
‘Teacher’s Job Characteristics and Motivation’ (Department of
Administration and Policy Studies in Education, McGill University,
Quebec, Canada H3A 1Y2, Published in: journal Educational Research,
Volume 36, Issue 2 Summer 1994, pages 171 – 185, U.K).
The Job Characteristics Model of Motivation, developed by
Hackman and Oldham, proposed interactive relationships between job

68
characteristics, psychological states and worker motivation. The Job
Diagnostic Survey (JDS) has provided a useful diagnostic tool for
business settings. This project tested the utility of the JDS to diagnose
factors affecting teachers' motivation.
Editorial (2007) published ‘Influences of job type, job status, and
gender on achievement motivation’ (Journal Current Psychology,
Springer New York, Volume 14, Number 2 / June, 1995, Subject
Collection Behavioral Science, Demark).
The report reveals that this study explored two issues. First, the
stereotype was explored that teachers are lower in intrinsic
achievement motivation than those in other occupations; second, that
job type, job status, and/or gender influence intrinsic achievement
motivation. Job type was explored based on the stereotype of a high
achievement motivation condition (banking) versus a low condition
(teaching). Job status was examined as currently working versus
retirement from the occupation. Gender referred to sex, male and
female. Each of the eight cells of a 2x2x2 factorial design contained 15
subjects randomly drawn from population pools (N=264) screened for
membership on specific age, years of employment, and years of
retirement. Intrinsic achievement motivation was assessed by the four
factors of the Helmreich and Spence (1974) Work and Family
Orientation Questionnaire (WOFO). Data were analyzed for main and
interaction affects using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).
No support was found for the proposition that banking personnel are
higher in motivation than teachers. On the second issue, gender and
job status yielded statistically significant effects, suggesting that a
person’s gender and whether he is working or retired both exert an
influence upon his intrinsic achievement motivation.

69
 Foster, R (2000) studied ‘Becoming a Secondary Teacher in
France: a trainee perspective on recent developments in initial teacher
training’ (Source: Educational Studies, Volume 26, Number 1, 1 March
2000, pp. 5-17(13), Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis
Group, France).
The researcher disclosed that the paper begins by outlining
recent reforms of initial teacher training in France, changes aimed at
moving French teacher training away from its traditional focus on
subject knowledge and pedagogic theory towards a stronger emphasis
on classroom practice issues such as teaching and learning strategies
and motivating reluctant learners. It goes on to examine the
perceptions of some French trainee teachers; for example, how well
prepared they felt for the challenges ahead and their training and
support whilst on placement. Their responses reveal concern about the
appropriateness and variability of some of their training, particularly
school-based elements and mentor support. The responses also raise
some interesting comparisons with experience in the UK and other
European countries, all of which are debating matters such as teacher
accountability, societal expectations of the education system and how
teachers should be trained. These comparative issues will be the focus
for further research.
Green, J; Nelson, G; Mortin, A.J and Marsh, H.(2008)
studied ‘The Casual Ordering of Self-concept and Academic Motivation
and its effect on Academic Achievement’. Critical questions in
educational psychology research to be addressed in this paper concern
the casual relationship between Academic Self-concept and Academic
Motivation effect on Academic Achievement. Do changes in Academic
Self-concept and Academic Motivation lead to changes in subsequent

70
Academic Achievement? Various studies have attempted to answer
this question by examining the casual relations between Academic
Self-concept and Academic Achievement as well as Academic
Motivation and Academic Achievement. Less integral to research
however has been the investigation of the relationship between both
Academic Self-concept and Academic Motivation and their combined
effects on Academic Achievement. For this reason, this paper aims to
education further the relationships among self-concept, Motivation and
Academic Achievement by proposing a longitudinal design by which
self-concept and motivation are measure from a multidimensional
perspective. The theoretical and practical implications of this
important question were discussed.
Jonathan Bayley and others (2008) studied ‘Teacher 2001
Project: The Canadian Study of Teacher Satisfaction, Motivation and
Health’. This is a progress report on the Canadian Teacher, 2001
Project: The Canadian study of teacher satisfaction, motivation and
health. This study is part of an international study of teachers in which
their data and analysis will be compared to those of colleagues in New
Zealand, U.S.A., England, Australia and Malta. A team of five from the
University of Regina’s Faculty of Education has undertaken to conduct
the Canadian portion of this investigation. We anticipate collecting
several thousand surveys and intend to report on the full sample of
responses and to compare these with sub-samples drawn to reflect the
makeup by province of characteristics such as gender, grade level
taught, public and other schools, linguistic grouping and provincial
jurisdiction. In addition to using a common set of questions for the
basic survey, we have included questions submitted by our research
partners from the profession of teaching. This study is presently being

71
conducted via a website in Canada. Problems with Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) and their own server caused some of their early
respondents to be frustrated by completing the questionnaire and not
being able to submit. They have changed the design of the website to
assign an identification number to an individual logging on. The
individual may then exit the website and re-enter, using their
identification number to complete their responses. The short answer
portion of the questionnaire takes only about a half hour to complete
but the longer written commentary on the open-ended questions may
extend the time necessary to complete the survey.
This study is part of an international study of teachers in which
our data and analysis will be compared to those of colleagues in New
Zealand, USA, England, Australia and Malta. A Team of five from the
University of Regina’s Faculty of Education has undertaken to conduct
the Canadian investigation of teacher job satisfaction, motivation and
health. The principal researcher for this project (Ryan) was one of five
researchers for the New Zealand study, out of which came strong
indicators of factors influencing teacher and student performance
(Teacher 2000 Project: An International Study of Teacher Satisfaction,
Motivation and Health. The New Zealand Report, 1998). The research
literature indicates that social contexts surrounding today’s schools are
having powerful and worrisome effects on teacher and the
opportunities provided for children to develop their potential. The
study encompasses a detailed two-year quantitative and qualitative
analysis of teachers’ perceptions of the impact of their teaching role on
their general satisfaction and well-being.
Kerry Barnett & John McCormick (2003) studied ‘Vision,
relationships and Teacher Motivation: A Case Study’ (Journal of

72
Educational Administration, Year:2003, Volume41, Issue1, pp.55-73,
10.11.2008, Australia).
The investigation of the said authors disclosed that the School
leaders continue to be urged to have vision. Some argue that effective
schools have principals who create and communicate a vision for the
school. However, although there is literature on visionary leadership,
relatively little is empirical. The purpose of the study was to investigate
transformational leadership behaviour and vision in schools. Four
schools, in which the transformational leadership practices of principals
were perceived by teachers to be characterized by individual concern
and vision, were identified. A qualitative approach using semi-
structured interviews was used to collect data. Content analysis
identified patterns and themes in the data from which propositions and
conclusions were drawn. Within the context of the study, the results
suggest that the influence of vision may be overestimated and the
most critical leadership transformational behaviour is individual
concern. The main conclusion of the study is that leadership in schools
is mainly characterized by relationships with individuals, and it is
through these relationships a leader is able to establish her/his
leadership and encourage teachers to apply their expertise, abilities,
and efforts towards shared purposes.
Lesley Mandel Morrow & John Young Rutgers (1997)
studied ‘A Family Literacy Program connecting school and Home :
Effects on Attitude, Motivation and Literacy Achievement’. This study
connects home and school literacy contexts by involving parents in
developmentally appropriate and culturally sensitive literacy activities
with their children. The purpose of the programme was to enhance
children’s achievement and interests in literacy. The family

73
programme was similar to a literature-based school programme that
included classroom literacy centers, teacher-modeled literature
activities, and literacy center time. Meetings were held monthly, with
parents, teachers, and children all working together. The programme
was in inner-city school district including African American and Latino
families. There were 56 children in 1st through 3rd grades (28 in the
experimental group and 28 in the control) pre and posttest data
determined achievement and motivation differences favouring the
family programme.
Magdalena Kubanyiova (2006) studied ‘Developing a
Motivational Teaching Practice in EFL Teachers in Slovakia: Challenges
of Promoting Teacher Change in EFL Contexts’. This study disclosed
the role of the teacher in engaging students in learning is immensely
complex in that it concerns almost all academic and social aspects of
the classroom environment. Doryei’s (1994a) situated framework of L2
role that impact on L2 motivation the affiliative motive (i.e., students’
desire to please the teacher), authority type (i.e., authoritarian,
democratic or laissez-faire teaching style) and direct socialization of
student motivation, which includes modeling, task, presentation and
feedback. The extent to which the teacher fulfils these roles, in other
words, the extent to which opportunities for learner engagement are
either constructed or obstructed, does not only depend on what the
teacher does in the classroom, but also on how the classroom
discourse is used (Walsh, 2002). Clearly, teachers are responsible for
creating and maximizing learning opportunities (Kumaravadivelu,
2003) in very complex ways, fulfilling both academic and social rules.
The importance of attending to both pedagogic and social
priorities by the teacher (Senior, 2002) has been acknowledged and

74
specific teacher behaviours that enhance learner motivation have been
outlined in numerous theoretical frameworks. These include classroom
environment research (see e.g., the Classroom Environment Scales in
Moos, 1979), self-determination theory (Noels, 2003; Noels, Clement &
Pelletier, 1999; Reeve & Jang, 2006; Skinner & Belmont, 1993), goal
orientation theory (Midgley, Kaplan & Middleton, 2001; Patrick, 2004;
Turner et al., 2002), or research on L2 anxiety (Spielmann & Radnofsky,
2001). They all posit that in order to enhance students’ motivation to
engage in learning, creating sufficient opportunities for cognitive
development (by, for example, promoting autonomy, emphasizing
mastery over performance goals, and providing informative feedback)
seems to be equally important as creating a caring classroom climate.
Mei-Mei Changa (2005) studied Modern Foreign Languages
(National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan,
Journal Computer Assisted Language Learning, Volume 18, Issue 3 July
2005 , pages 217 – 230, China).
This study reveals that the purpose of this study was to examine
the effect of self-regulated learning strategies on learners' perception
of motivation within web-based instruction. In this study, self-regulated
learning strategies, which were intended to assist students to self-
observe and self-evaluate their effectiveness, were incorporated into a
one-semester web-based course to help students improve their
learning motivation. Research results revealed that students'
motivation perception benefited from the web-based instruction with
self-regulated learning strategies. Students learning within a web-
based environment with self-regulated learning strategies became
more responsible for their own learning, more intrinsically orientated
and more challengeable. They tended to value the learning material

75
more and became more confident in course understanding and class
performance.
Yu,Weihua (2005) probed into ‘Promoting in quality in China’s
Higher Education by Motivating Students Attending the British Culture
Survey Course’. In this study an intervention project by means of
motivational approaches in a British Culture Survey Course for English
majors in main land China’s university classroom context. The
intervention uses such motivational theories as attribution and task
orientation to motivate the teaching and learning of the EFL course so
as to create a cooperative classroom environment. Theoretical bases
of the Chinese heritage culture and motivation are examined, specific
intervention procedures discussed, relevant data analyzed and finally
some suggestions regarding the EFL teachers’ important role in
promoting the quality of EFL education are made. The intervention
results show that an innovative pedagogy to motivate students’ meta-
cognitive awareness, cognitive and socio-cognitive ability in
cooperative classroom learning situations different from the traditional
cramming methods and examinations proves effective. Motivation
should be given a central role in promoting China’s EFL quality
Education.

SELF-EFFICACY:
Studies in India:
Agarwala, Surila (1999) investigated into 'Relative Efficacy of
Word-supply and sentence repeat method in the modification of oral
reading errors' (Psycho-Lingua, Vol.29 (2), 97-100 (IEA, Vol.1, January,
2001).
Ashum Gupta & Bikkar S. Randhawa (2000) Studied ‘Efficacy

76
within a common Intrinsic Structure (University of Delhi, Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 2, 51-66 (2000), DOI:
10.1177/ 082957350001500205, © 2000, SAGE Publications).
This study envisaged that because of a marked increase in the
Canadian immigrant and refugee population in recent years, school
psychologists today are frequently called upon to make
recommendations concerning the learning needs of students from
many diverse backgrounds and cultures. The purpose of this study was
to examine possible gender as well as cultural differences in
mathematics attitude, achievement, and self-efficacy between
Canadian high school students and English-speaking high school
students from a northern city in India. Although the participants, tested
in their home countries, were administered the same battery of
measures, the findings revealed, among other things, significant
multivariate and corresponding univariate country, gender, and country
x gender interaction effects. The importance of these findings for the
practice of school psychology is discussed.
Goker (2006) studied the impact of peer coaching on self-
efficacy and instructional skills of EFL pre-service teachers in Northern
Cyprus. Using Bandura's (1995) General Self-Efficacy Scale, Goker
found that peer coaching improved pre-service teachers' self-efficacy.
The findings of this study, similar to Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) and Sia
(1992) study, show that experiential activities, such as teaching
practicum or other mastery experiences seem to have a great impact
on self-efficacy of pre-service teachers.
Reddy, B.S. Kumar and Srinivas, P.B. (1997) studied 'Efficacy
of behavioural programme in managing teacher stress and improving
teacher effectiveness' In, Teacher Empowerment and School

77
Effectiveness at Primary Stage: International Perspective. National
Council of Educational Research and Training (IEA, 6, January, 1999).
Singhal, Sushila and Sharma, Rita (1996) studied 'Teacher
self-efficacy and competence for improving quality of primary
schooling. In, Studies on Classroom Processes and School
Effectiveness at Primary Stage. NCERT (IEA, 6, January, 1999).
Srivastava, Y.V. (1995) investigated into 'Efficacy of concept
attainment model in the teaching of English Grammar' (Psycho-Lingua,
Vol.25 (1 & 2), 69-72).
Studies Abroad:
Andre’ Brouwer and Welko Tomic (2000) probed into ‘A
longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in
classroom management.’ (Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open
University, P.O. Box 2960 NL-6401 DL Heerlen, Netherlands)
This study examined the direction and time frame of relationships
between perceived self-efficacy in classroom management and the
three dimensions of burnout among 243 secondary school teachers.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses indicated that perceived
self-efficacy had a longitudinal effect on depersonalization and a
synchronous effect on personal accomplishment. However, the
direction was reversed for the relationship between perceived self-
efficacy and emotional exhaustion; the time frame was synchronous. It
was concluded that perceived self-efficacy in classroom management
must be taken into consideration when devising interventions both to
prevent and to treat burnout among secondary school teachers.
Chacón (2005), meanwhile, looked at self-perceived efficacy of a
group of 100 EFL middle school teachers in Venezuela and how this
related to their self-reported English proficiency. Using the short

78
version of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale based on Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy (2001), and two other subscales (self-reported
proficiency and pedagogical strategies), Chacón (2005) found that
teachers' perceived efficacy was positively correlated with self-
reported English proficiency. As for the relation between teachers'
sense of efficacy and their use of pedagogical strategies
(communication-oriented vs. grammar-oriented), the results indicated
that the efficacy did not have an influence over the kind of strategies
these teachers preferred. The EFL teachers in this study seemed to be
more inclined toward adopting grammar-oriented methods of teaching.
Denzine; Gypsy M.; Cooney, John B and Mckenzie, Rita
(2005) investigated into ‘Confirmatory factor analysis of the Teacher
Efficacy Scale for prospective Teachers’. The research background on
Teacher Self-Efficacy has revealed substantive problems concerning the
validity of instruments used to measure teacher self-efficacy beliefs.
Although claims about the influence of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on
student achievement, success with curriculum innovation, and so on,
may be true statements, one cannot make those claims on the basis of
that body of evidence if the instruments are not valid measures of
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs.
The purpose of this investigation is to employ the use of modern
confirmatory factor-analytic techniques to investigate the validity of
the hypothesized dimensions of the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson &
Dembo, 1984; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).
Participants for this investigation were 387 prospective teachers
recruited from a university located in the southwestern region of the
UA. Participants for Study 2 were 131 prospective elementary teachers
recruited from the same university as in study1.

79
 A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedure was used to
evaluate the goodness-of-fit for two theoretical models of the TES
items. The proposed two and three factor models of teacher self-
efficacy for prospective teachers were rejected. A re-specified three-
factor model of the TES was then derived from theoretical and
empirical considerations. The re-specified model hypothesized three
dimensions viz., self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations and
external locus-of-causality. The Study 2, the re-specified three-factor
measurement model was evaluated in a new sample. Results of the
CFA procedure indicated satisfactory fit of the re-specified model to the
data; however, the results were not consistent with predictors derived
from social learning theory.
The results of this study call into question the use of the TES and
the interpretation of a large body of literature purporting to study the
relationship of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs to important educational
outcomes.
Editorial (2005) report on ‘Self-Efficacy, Stress, and Academic
Success in College’ (Journal Research in Higher Education, Publisher-
Springer Netherlands, Issue Volume 46, Number 6 / September, 2005,
DOI 10.1007/s11162-004-4139-z Pages 677-706, Date Thursday,
August 18, 2005, Denmark)
This paper investigates the joint effects of academic self-efficacy and
stress on the academic performance of 107 nontraditional, largely
immigrant and minority, college freshmen at a large urban commuter
institution. We developed a survey instrument to measure the level of
academic self-efficacy and perceived stress associated with 27 college-
related tasks. Both scales have high reliability, and they are
moderately negatively correlated. We estimated structural equation

80
models to assess the relative importance of stress and self-efficacy in
predicting three academic performance outcomes: first-year college
GPA, the number of accumulated credits, and college retention after
the first year. The results suggest that academic self-efficacy is a more
robust and consistent predictor than stress of academic success.
Gakiroglu, Erdino (2005) studied ‘Teacher Efficacy and
Academic Performance’. The aim of the study was to investigate the
effect of gender and university grade level on pre-service teachers’
mathematics teaching efficacy belief and academic performance. The
analysis was based on 258 pre-service teachers enrolled in an
undergraduate program in Ankara, Turkey. Results revealed that the
significant effect of gender and university grade level on performance.
However, there is no significant effect of gender and university grade
level on mathematics teaching efficacy. Thus, gender and grade level
are important constructs having impact on performance of pre-service
teachers.
Ghaith and Shaaban (1999) investigated how teaching
experience, gender, and grade level taught correlate with personal and
general teacher efficacy and perceptions of teaching concerns among
292 Lebanese teachers from different school backgrounds. Gibson and
Dembo's (1984) 16-item teaching efficacy scale, in addition to a 28-
item measure that addressed teaching concerns (Ghaith & Yaghi,
1997b) was adopted. Results of the study revealed that personal
teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy were not internally
related and represented two distinct indices. Personal teaching
efficacy, rather than general teaching efficacy, was found to be related
to the perception of teaching concerns. Specifically, the study's results
showed that teaching experience and personal efficacy were

81
negatively correlated with the perception of teaching concerns; that is,
the longer their years in teaching and the more confidence they had in
their personal ability to provide effective teaching, the less they were
concerned about problems related to teaching such as the relations
with parents and supervisors (self-survival) or meeting students'
individual needs (impact). On the other hand, gender, grade level
taught, and general efficacy were not found to be related to the
teachers' perceptions of any of the categories of teaching concerns.
This contradicts Pigge and Marso's (1987) findings that females and
elementary teachers had higher teaching concerns than males and
secondary teachers.
Gibson (1984) studied ‘Teacher Efficacy: A Construct Validation.
According to him Teacher efficacy has been identified as a variable
accunting for individual differences in teaching effectiveness. This
study of elementary school teachers developed an instrument to
measure teacher efficacy, provided construct validation support for the
variable, and examined the relationship between teacher efficacy and
observable teacher behaviours.
Ginns, Ian S.; Watters, James, J. (1996) investigated into
‘Experiences of Novice Teachers: Changes in Self-Efficacy and their
Belief about Teaching’ (Descriptors: Beginning Teacher Induction;
Beginning Teachers; Elementary Education; Elementary School
Science; Foreign Countries; Science Instruction; Science Teachers; Self
Efficacy; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Motivation in Australia)
The main objective of this study was to explore the experiences
of two novice elementary school teachers for factors related to self-
efficacy and motivation to teach science. The experiences were
analyzed for evidence of: (1) successful performance, vicarious

82
experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal as contributors
to the development of science teaching self-efficacy; and (2) links
between self-efficacy and the nature and style of science and other
programs implemented by each novice teacher. The design was based
on qualitative measures using semi-structured interviews conducted at
the mid-point and at the end of each subject's first year of elementary
school teaching. It was found that the subjects benefited from
involvement in a cooperative teaching situation and from a small
school environment with a supportive principal. Induction programs
that provide this kind of support enable novice teachers to implement
worthwhile programs. Teachers who have experienced success and
have high levels of self-efficacy should be mentors for novice teachers.
It is concluded that if teacher educators, experienced teachers, and
school administrators combine their expertise and efforts to foster and
develop novice teachers' sense of science teaching self-efficacy, the
education system can operate more effectively for the betterment of
science education. (Contains 18 references.) (JLS)
Jack Campbell (1996) investigated into ‘A Comparison of
Teacher Efficacy for Pre and In-service Teachers in Scotland and
America’. The observations of the investigator suggests that teacher is
a complex process requiring skills and strategies such as – preparing
lesson and unit plans, motivating students to learn, creating a climate
for teaching, using textbooks and curriculum guides effectively, using a
variety of teaching skills, using media and technology, maintaining
classroom discipline and diagnosing student difficulties and adapting
instruction to meet individual needs. Pre-service and in-service
teacher education programs must certainly include preparation in
these important areas, but should also include the development of

83
confidence in ones ability to execute these teaching activities
effectively. This latter concept has come to be known as teacher
efficacy.
Jefferey, G.Orrell & Earl W.Capron (1988) studied ‘Effects of
Instructional Type and Feedback on Prospective Teachers’ Self-Efficacy
Beliefs’. In this study under-graduate teacher education students were
ran randomly assigned to observe two types of instruction and two
types of attributional feedback concerning teaching a child how to find
the main idea of a paragraph. Dependent measures were the
students’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding teaching the skill and their
predicted persistence in teaching the skill. Two (cognitive modeling vs.
direct instruction) by two (self-efficacy vs. task-oriented statements)
ANOVAs revealed significant effects for cognitive modeling related to
increases in self-efficacy beliefs and persistence levels, and for task-
oriented statements in raising persistence levels. Implications for
research in self-efficacy theory are discussed.
The observation of above researchers is applying self-efficacy
theory in studies of teacher’s beliefs and teacher training. Ashton and
Webb (1986) found that a number of different teacher behaviours are
associated with high self-efficacy beliefs, suggesting that a sense of
self-efficacy contributes to teacher motivation. Because teacher are
expected to manage a wide range of social and academic processes in
the course of a school day, their beliefs concerning the efficacy of their
efforts maybe important determinants of their persistence and the
quality of their efforts. Thus, the training programs that attempt to
instill appropriate skills and attitudes in prospective teachers may need
to consider the effects of their training efficacy beliefs of prospective
teachers.

84
 Josephine M.Shireen Desouza (2004) investigated into ‘A
Study of Science Teaching Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
beliefs of Teachers in India’ (Dept. of B Biology, Ball State University,
Muncie, IN 47306-0440, USA).
The study reveals that middle school teachers in urban schools
in India provided responses to the science efficacy instrument (STEBI-
A). These responses were evaluated using Rasch analysis and
parametric tests. Rasch fit statistics fit statistics and person-item
maps were evaluated. It was found that the instrument worked well for
the two groups of teachers, but the differential item functioning
analysis fund that the teachers utilized several items in the scale
differently. Parametric tests suggested that self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy measures correlated highly for middle school teacher, for
those that did not have a science degree and written science
curriculum. Significant predicators of self-efficacy are – minutes per
week science is taught, educational level, number of days in the school
year, holding of a science degree, and the presence of a science
curriculum. From all of the analyses we conclude that teaching
experience is important, but not necessarily enough to increase
teachers’ outcome expectancy beliefs. The results of this study should
benefit educators and policy makers with respect to teacher education
in India and around the world.
Kevin D.Finson (2001) studied ‘Investigating Pre-service
Elementary Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Relative to Self-Image as a Science
Teacher. This study is part of the examination of a pilot investigation
into the possible relationship between pre-service teachers’ self-
efficacy and perceptions of self as a science teacher. Self-efficacy was
measured using the science Teaching Efficacy belief Instrument, Form

85
B (STEBT-B) developed by Riggs and Enochs (1990). Perceptions of self
as a science teacher were measured using the revised DASTT-C. In this
instance, pre-test and post-test data generated by both instruments for
a single elementary science methods class were utilized and
compared. In addition, pre-service teachers wrote brief narrative
descriptions of their drawings. These data were compared in an
attempt to determine if any relationship appears to exist between
DASTT-C and STEBI scores.
Scanian, Kolone, R.L. (2006) Studied ‘Self-Efficacy,
perceptions of barriers, Vocational identity, and the career exploration
behaviour of Latino/a high school students. This study explored the
potential relationship between the social cognitive variables of career
decision-making self-efficacy and perceptions of barriers and the
outcome variables of vocational identity and career exploration
behaviours in sample of 128 urban Latino/a high school students. The
results indicates that higher levels of career decision-making self-
efficacy were related to both differentiated vocational identity and a
greater engagement with career exploration tasks. Perception of fewer
barriers was also found to be related to a more integrated vocational
identity.
The term Latinos/as is a socio-racial categorization, representing
an aggregator of a number of district national subgroups (e.g., Puerto
Rican, Mexican, Dominican, Cuban), based on supposed differences in
cultural practices (e.g., language, religion) as compared with the
Anglo-Sexon Protestant norm in the United States (Chapa & Valencia,
1993; Cormaz-Diaz, 2001; Earmon & Mulder, 2005; Helms & Cooke,
1999). In 2002, 38.2 million Latinos/as resided in the United States,
constituting 12% of the total U.S. population (Ramirez & de la Cruz,

86
2003). Although Latinos/as represent the fastest growing sector of the
US labour market, their levels of educational and occupational
attainment remain significantly below that of non-Hispanic Whites
(Ramirez & de la Cruz, 2003; Tsai, Pole, Levenson, & Munoz, 2003).
Given the youthfulness of the Latino/a community as compared with
other demographic groups (Eamon & Mulder, 2005; Hobbs & Stoops,
2002, Zayas, Lester, Cabassa & Fortuna, 2005). Latinos/as constitute
not only a growing proportion of the US population but all a segment of
the population likely to be making career-related decisions in the
coming years.
Decision-making self-efficacy has been identified as an important
variable in the career development of high school students. Career
decision-making self-efficacy refers to the degree to which individuals
feel confident in their ability to successfully engage in tasks associated
with making a career choice and with commitment to a career (Taylor
& Betz, 1983). It has also been observed that career-related self-
efficacy in general may prove to be an important element in
formulating a model of career development for Lathinos/as (Arbona,
1995; Fouac, 1995). Research has shown support for the relationship
between career self-efficacy and career interests, as well as careers
considered among young adult Latino/a students studying for high
school equivalency degree (Bores-Rangel, Chuch, Szendre & Reeves,
1990; Church, Teresa, Rosebrook & Szendre, 1992). Fores and O’Brien
(2002) found that self-efficacy for nontraditional careers was
negatively related to traditional career choices and positively relate to
prestige for a group of female Mexican American high school students.
Research has not yet examined the role that career decision-making
self-efficacy may play among Latino/a adolescents.

87
 Several vocational researchers have noted the potential influence
that perceptions of barriers may have on the career decision-making
process for people who face systemic factors (e.g., racial/ethnic
discrimination, institutionalized racism) that have traditionally limited
educational attainment and career advancement (Arbona, 1990; Lent
et al., 1994). Brown and Lent (1996) observed that perceived
educational and occupational barriers might negatively affect career
development by limiting the translation of interests into goals and
goals into actions. McWhirter (1997) noted that Mexican American
high school students reported more perceived barriers than did their
European American counterpart. However, in another sample of
Mexican American adolescents, McWhirter et al., (1998) did not find a
direct effect between perceptions of barriers and career expectations.
This study considers the potential influence of career decision-
making self-efficacy and perceptions of barriers of vocational identity.
One of the central tasks of adolescence is identity development
(Erikson, 1963). In an effort to solidity a self-image, adolescents
struggle to gain a better understanding of their own emotions, beliefs,
and values. Additionally, they are likely to seek a sense meaning or
purpose in their lives and have a greater tendency to look toward the
process of identity formation is the establishment of a vocational
identity, including a clearer and more stable sense of one’s interests,
abilities, and talent as well as the ability to establish goals and make
career-related decisions (Holland, Daiger & Power, 1980). Super,
Savickas, and Super (1996) observed that the establishment of a
vocational identity – the assessment and knowledge a person’s
objective vocational traits – serves as the basis for making occupation
choices that are a good fit, consequently ensuring optimal adjustment

88
outcomes. To our knowledge, no empirical studies have directly
examined the construct of vocational identify in Latino/a high school
students.
The researcher has also examined the potential impact of career
decision-making self-efficacy and perceptions of barriers on career
exploration behaviours. Specifically, activities related to career
exploration (e.g., participating in a mock interview, conducting
research on a specific career) provide students with the opportunity to
explore their interests and therefore enhance their career
development. Previous researchers have examined the potential
impact of care exploration behaviours within the context of career
development as well as the factors that may, in turn, influence the
type and number of career activities in which an individual chooses to
engage (Blustein, 1989; Luzzo, James & Luna, 1996; Nevill & Schlecker,
1988; Solberg, Good, Fischer, Brown & Nord, 1995).
Schmitz, G. S., & Schwarzer, R. (2000) studied ‘Self-efficacy of
Teachers in Germany’. In this study it is observed that why do some
teachers succeed in being good teachers, in continuously enhancing
students' achievements, in setting high goals for themselves and
pursuing them persistently, while other teachers cannot meet
expectations imposed on them and tend to collapse under their burden
of daily stress? There are many reasons. One pertains to a teacher's
perceived self–efficacy as a job specific personality trait. In the present
article, the construct of perceived teacher self–efficacy is defined and
distinguished from related constructs by referring to Bandura's social–
cognitive theory. In a retrospective view on the history of the construct
in the English–speaking world, theoretical problems and psychometric
deficiencies become obvious. To stimulate research in the German–

89
speaking countries, a new scale to measure teacher self–efficacy was
developed and tested in a longitudinal field study. The nationwide test
of this instrument on 275 teachers in ten schools revealed good
psychometric properties. First indicators of validity could be obtained
by means of correlations with other teacher characteristics at two
points in time. High negative relations with job strain and with job
burnout were found. Moreover, teachers high on teacher self–efficacy
were used to offer up more leisure time for their students than their
less self–efficacious counterparts.
Selaledid, K.(2008) studied ‘Teacher Efficacy in the Free State
Province of South Africa’ ( Department of Education, Vista University,
Welkom Campus, P.O. Box 1881, Welkom, 9460, AFRIQUE DU SUD,
France).
This study operationalised the self-efficacy construct and applied it to
the assessment of teachers' self-efficacious behaviours with respect to
the new educational perspective in the Free State Province after May
10, 1994. Data sources included 1128 sampled primary and secondary
urban school- teachers from 93 schools. The variables studied were
School Category, Gender, and Teaching experience as independent
variables. The dependent variable was Self-efficacy. After factorial
analyses and the use of three-way ANOVA, the findings revealed a
significant effect for the School Category with respect to Teacher
Administrative Responsibilities (TAR), Teacher Classroom Organization
(TCO), and Teacher in Relationship with Others (TRO) as dependent
variables. This pattern was inconsistent with Gender and Teaching
Experience. A discussion, interpretation of the results, and suggestion
for future research in this realm are rendered.
Paula A.DeForest & Jan N.Hughes (1992) probed into ‘Effect

90
of Teacher Involvement and Teacher Self-Efficacy on Ratings of
Consultant Effectiveness and Intervention Acceptability’. The study
indicates that from a pool of 102 elementary school teachers, 30
teachers scoring highest on a measure of personal teaching efficacy
and 30 teachers scoring lowest on personal teaching efficacy were
randomly assigned to view one of two videotapes of consultation. The
two videotapes were identical, with the exception of the teacher’s
involvement in making decisions at each of three decision points in
consultation: Identifying the problem, selecting an assessment
procedure, and selecting an intervention plan. After viewing the tape,
teachers rated the consultant’s effectiveness and the intervention’s
acceptability. Teachers with high personal teaching efficacy rated the
consultant as more effective and the intervention as more acceptable.
No main effect for level of involvement or hypothesized interaction
effect was found. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Zohreh, R.Eslami (2008) studied ‘Teachers' Sense of Self-
Efficacy, English Proficiency, and Instructional Strategies: A Study of
Nonnative EFL Teachers in Iran’ (Azizullah Fatahi Tarbiat Modarres
University, Iran).
This study examined the efficacy beliefs of nonnative English
speaking (NNES) Iranian EFL teachers. EFL teachers' perceptions of
their teaching efficacy in terms of personal capabilities to teach English
as a Foreign Language (EFL) and their perceived English language
proficiency level were examined. A modified version of the Teacher
Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) was
used to assess efficacy for management, engagement, and
instructional strategies. Based on Chacón's (2005) study, two other
subscales (self-reported proficiency and pedagogical strategies) were

91
also used. The results showed that the teachers' perceived efficacy
was positively correlated with self-reported English proficiency. The
findings also revealed that the more efficacious the teachers felt, the
more inclined they were to use communicative-based strategies. The
study has implications for the preparation of NNES teachers and the
support they need to develop their language proficiency, which in turn
is related to their perceived self-efficacy.

92
 METHODOLOGY
After careful review of previous researches, it is found that there
are adequate number of studies in quantity and quality on Teacher
Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy, but very
few studies are found on relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
Allson Soutter (2008) probed into ‘Teachers Strategies for
promoting student well being and preventing bullying in Steiner
Schools’. The Teachers in Rudolf Steiner schools believe in teaching
through relationships.
Barbara Marshall Matthews (2005) investigated into ‘the Chinese
Value Survey: An interpretation of value scales and consideration of
some preliminary results’.
Anand, S.P. (1996) studied 'Development of a motivational
package to promote Teacher effectiveness at Primary level.
Mittal, Jai Prakash (1992) studied 'An exploratory study of
Teachers' Motivation to work and some factors associated with high
and low work Motivation of Teachers
Clermont Barnabeacute & Mildred Burns (1994) studied ‘Teacher’s
Job Characteristics and Motivation’.
Green, J; Nelson, G; Mortin, A.J and Marsh, H.(2008) studied ‘The
Casual Ordering of Self-concept and Academic Motivation and its effect
on Academic Achievement’.
Teachers with a high sense of efficacy about their teaching
capabilities may have an easier time motivating their students and
enhancing their cognitive development. These teachers may also be
able to refund from setbacks and more willing to experiment with new

93
ideas or techniques. Low efficacious teachers may rely more on a
controlling teaching style and may be more critical of students
(Woolfolk Hoy.2003).
Bandura (2001) opined that ‘Schools in which staff members
collectively judge themselves capable of promoting academic success
imbue their schools with a positive atmosphere for development that
promotes academic attainments regardless of whether they serve
predominantly advantaged or disadvantaged students.
The review points out that Teacher Self-Efficacy research tends
not to adhere to an agentic perspective as a theoretical framework in
consistent and systematic ways. There was often disconnecting
between the researchers' ways of understanding and defining Teacher
Efficacy and their ways of capturing data and assessing the construct.
In addition, across studies, there has been differential attention given
to capturing the variation in degrees of agency that characterize the
construct. Moreover, in many of the selected studies, it was observed
that Teacher Efficacy was treated as an outcome of other variables
such as opportunity for staff development and teaching level, fewer
studies have investigated its influential role in directing teaching
related decisions and behaviors. This trend reflects a discrepancy
between Teacher Self-Efficacy research and the core spirit of Bandura's
concept of self-efficacy, or agency, which lends to the confusion in
understanding the nature and role of Teacher Self-Efficacy in education.
Conclusively, to make headway in this field of research, it is
critical to first clarify and make explicit the theoretical underpinnings of
this work. Bandura's triadic reciprocal model provides a useful
framework from which to work. The challenge appears to be remaining
consistent in the application of the directives of this theory in the

94
design of future studies and in the development of instrumentation
(Farlex Free Library – Articles on Teacher Education, December, 22,
2005). It also may be important to consider the significance of Teacher
Self-Efficacy as a personal trait that differentially predicts teacher
behavior and its relation with Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher
Motivation. Although the current review is limited in its scope due to
the small number of studies considered, it is useful in suggesting an
alternative paradigm from which to scrutinize Teacher Self-Efficacy.
In Indian scenario Teacher Self-efficacy is one of recent
developing aspect in educational research concept. Hence, the
researcher of the present study has attempted to pursue his
investigation on Teacher Self-Efficacy in relation to Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Motivation.
4.1.0: Definitions of the Terms Used:
In the present study the investigator is confined to ascertain the
relationship between three teachers centered variables viz., Teacher
Value Behaviiour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy. The
definitions of these variables are dealt with hereunder.
4.1.1: Teacher Value Behaviour:
This aspect was designed with five dimensions and each
dimension is focused to measure the behavioural value of the teacher
on different aspects.
(1) Work aspect:
The work aspect is disclosed the commitment, sincerity,
regularity, obedience, and sympathy etc., of the Teacher
(2) Learner aspect:
This aspect envisages that appreciation of the learner, identifying
the right thinking, development of honesty and cooperation, patience

95
towards learner of the teacher are included.

(3) Professional aspect:

This aspect shows that respect towards elders and officers;
Professional discipline, transparency and responsibility are discussed.
(4) Adjustment aspect:
The aspect Adjustment refers to relations with colleagues,
environment, sharing the feelings, equality issues are incorporated and
studied.
(5) Emotional aspect:
The Emotional aspect is designed with optimism, satisfactory,
happiness, respect, patriotism etc., are studied.
4.1.2: TEACHER MOTIVATION:
Definition of motivation vary greatly because of the complexity of
the concept, and because many authors tend to define motivation in
terms of specific theories. However, there appears to be general
agreement that motivation activates human energy; that it is a force
that leads people to attempt to satisfy their needs; that all human
behavior is motivated to some degree; and that the critical factor is the
direction of the motivation.
Zimmerman (1968) describes the college professor as an
individual with a motivational structure that has: (a) high educational
expectancy, (b) low economic motivation and financial expectancy, (c)
a felt need of high ethical standards, (d) a need to communicate facts
and ideas to others on an interpersonal level. However, confusion still
exists as to what really motivates the college teacher to teach. As
Bess (1981) states, "…we still are quite unsure about what does make

96
the occupation of teaching and doing research in higher education as
satisfying as it must be" (p.39). Phenix (1975) describes the personal,
subjective, and intrinsic force that motivates the college teacher.
The Teacher Motivation in relation to the present study is
designed with nine dimensions viz., Classroom Teaching, School
Administration, Professional Pleasure, Climate Factors, Inter-personal
relations, Student behaviour, Working condition, Professional
development and Personal.
(1) Classroom Teaching: In this aspect the teaching performance of
the faculty members as well as their teacher activities and teaching
ability in the Classroom teaching are included.
(2) School Administration: This aspect disclosed the management of
the institution, implementation of policies of the administrators,
participation in the administrative activities of the institution are
included.
(3) Professional Pleasure: This aspect envisages the pleasure of
the teacher while teaching in the classroom, love of profession,
receiving appreciations from the students, guiding the students in the
right way, creation of inspiration among students etc., are discussed
with reference to the existing conditions as prevailed in the
institutions.
(4) Climate Factors: This aspect envisages regarding the facilities
that influence the Teachers and Students to perform more effective
and the basis how to achieve the goals successfully.
(5) Inter-Personal Relations: In aspect institutional relations with
the Parents, Students, Administrators and other aspects in relation to
academic aspects are included.
(6) Student Behaviour: This aspect disclosed the behavioural

97
attitude in relation to their shrewdness, discipline, participation in the
school activities, expression of their opinions are discussed.
(7) Working Conditions: In this aspect the teacher satisfaction in
relation to remuneration, acceptances of the teacher to reside in the
work area, planning of professional development are included.
(8) Professional Development: This is one of the most important
aspects of the present study of Teacher Motivation. In this aspect In-
service Training, possessing higher qualifications, implementation of
innovative practices in teaching and implementation of new
experiment methods of teaching are included.
(9) Personal: This aspect is confined to teacher’s personal
experiences in relation to his family, Classroom teaching, assessment
of student abilities, power of mind set adjustment while entering into
the classroom are discussed.
4.1.3: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY:
The Teacher Self-efficacy is consists of forty items covering with
four dimensions as detailed below.
1.Mastery experiences: This is potentially the most powerful
for forming efficacy beliefs because it is direct information about
success. The performance accomplishments do not directly equate
with self-efficacy. Both situational (e.g., the complexity of the task)
and cognitive processing (e.g., the perception of one’s ability)
concerning the performance will affect the self-efficacy judgment and
belief.
2.Vicarious experiences or Modeling: Just as individuals do
not need to directly experience reinforced personal behaviours in order
to learn (they can vicariously learn by observing and modeling relevant
others who are reinforced), the same is true of acquiring efficacy

98
(Bandura, 2000).
3.Social Persuasion: Not as powerful a source of information as
the previous two and sometimes oversimplified as a ‘can-do’ approach,
people’s belief in their efficacy can be strengthened by respected,
competent others persuading them that they have what it tasks on this
particular task.
4.Physiological and Psychological arousal: People often rely
on how they feel, physically and emotionally, in order to assess their
capabilities. More than the other sources of information, if these are
negative this will generally greatly detract from efficacy. If these
physical and mental states are well off, they don’t necessarily process
as contributing much to the individual’s efficacy.
In this study an attempt is made to find whether Value behaviour
and Motivation of teachers have anything to do with Teacher Self-
efficacy or not. Thus this study attempts to explore the relationship
between Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-
efficacy. Efforts are made to justify the problem with the help of
statistical information presented in the following pages.
4.2.0: Definitions of the terms used:
In the present study, the investigator is concerned with Teacher
Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
Definitions of these constructs are dealt with.
4.2.1: Teacher:
The term teacher in this study is used to refer to Junior Colleges
in Vizianagaram District.
4.2.2: Teacher Value Behaviour:
The definition of Teacher Value behaviour is the teachers’ Work
centered, Learner Centered, Professional Centered, Adjustment

99
Centered and Educational Centered aspects.
4.2.3:Teacher Motivation:
The Teacher Motivation in the present study disclosed that
personal joy and pleasure that can be derived from the act of teaching
and the inter-personal communication of knowledge. All these are
depend on classroom, school administration, climatic factors of the
school, behaviour of the students, personal relations with colleagues
and students, working conditions, personal problems of the teacher.
Accordingly, the Teacher Motivation has defined in nine dimensions –
Classroom teaching, School administration, Professional pleasure,
Climate factors, Inter-personal relations, Student behaviour, Working
condition, Professional development, Personal.
4.2.4:Teacher Self-Efficacy:
The Teacher Self-efficacy is a state but not trait. Teacher Self-
efficacy is designed to make a probe to measure their efficacious
situations in relation to teaching learning process in classroom
teaching. This study is designed with four dimensions viz., Mastery
experience, Vicarious experience, Social experience and Physiological
and Psychological experience.
4.3.0: Problem:
The problems taken in this study are to establish reliability and
validity of Teacher Value behaviour scale, Teacher Motivation Scale and
Teacher Self-efficacy scale to test the relationship between these three
aspects.
The answer to the above, the execution, processing to evaluate
each aspect is designed as follows -
(1) Development of suitable tool to measure Teacher Value
Behaviour.

100
 (2) Development of suitable tool to measure the Teacher
Motivation.
(3) Development of suitable tool to measure Teacher Self-efficacy.
(4) Finding out relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour and
Teacher Motivation.
(5) Finding out relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour and
Teacher Self-efficacy.
(6) Finding out relationship between Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Self-efficacy.
4.3.1: Objectives:
(1) To develop and standardize the Teacher Value Behaviour of
Dr.VSR, Pakalapati (2004) to be used by teacher himself.
(2) To develop and standardize the Teacher Motivation Scale of
Dr.U.L.Narayana (1986) to be used by teacher himself.
(3) To develop and standardize the Teacher Self-efficacy
constructed by the present investigator is used.
(4) To find the relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour and
Teacher Motivation.
(5) To find the relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour and
Teacher Self-efficacy.
(6) To find the relationship between Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Self-efficacy.
(7) To find out the significant difference between different
categories of demographic variables in respect of Teacher
Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(8) To find out significant difference between high and low Teacher
Value Behaviour in respect of Teacher Motivation and Teacher
Self-efficacy.

101
 (9) To find out significant difference between high and low Teacher
Motivation in respect of Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher
Self-efficacy.
(10) To find out significant difference between high and low Teacher
Self-efficacy in respect of Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher
Motivation.
4.3.2:Hypotheses:
In the present study the investigator has proposed the following
hypotheses for testing the results.
(1) There is no significant relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Motivation.
(2) There is no significant relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Self-efficacy.

(3) There is no significant relationship between Teacher Motivation

and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(4) There is no significant relationship between dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-
efficacy.
(5) There is no significant relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Motivation.
(6) There is no significant relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(7) There is no significant relationship between Teacher Motivation
and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(8) There is no significant relationship between various dimensions
of Teacher Value Behaviour.

102
(9) There is no significant relationship between various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation.
(10) There is no significant relationship between various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy.
4.3.3:Subsidary Hypotheses:
(1) Male and Female Teachers do not differ significantly in respect of
their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher
Self-efficacy.
(2) Rural and Urban locality Teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Self-efficacy.
(3) Post-graduates, Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., Post-graduate
with B.Ed., and Post-graduate with M.Ed., qualified teachers do
not differ significantly in respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour,
Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(4) Lecturers and Principals do not differ significantly in respect of
their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher
Self-efficacy
(5) Science, Humanities and Language teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher
Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(6) Teachers with Experience below 10 years, 10 to 15 years, 15 to
20 years, 20 to 25 years, 25 to 30 years and above 30 years do
not differ significantly in respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour,
Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(7) Married and Unmarried teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Self-efficacy.

103
(8) Residential and Non-residential teachers do not differ significantly
in respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation
and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(9) Co-educational, exclusively for women and exclusively for men
Institution’s teachers do not differ significantly in respect of their
Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-
efficacy.
(10) Residential, Aided, Government and Private Un-aided institution
teachers do not differ significantly in respect of their Teacher
Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(11) There is no significant difference between high and low in respect
of Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher Motivation.
(12) There is no significant difference between high and low in respect
of Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(13) There is no significant difference between high and low in respect
of Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
4.3.4:Limitations:
(1) This study is confined and limited to the teachers working in
Junior Colleges of Vizianagaram District of Andhra Pradesh.
(2) To measure the Teacher Value Behaviour, the dimensions like
Work Centered, Learner Centered, Professional Centered,
Adjustment Centered and Educational Centered are covered in
this study.
(3) To measure the Teacher Motivation, the dimensions viz.,
Classroom Teaching, School Administration, Professional Pleasure,
Climate Factors, Inter-personal relations, Student Behaviour,
Working Condition, Professional Development and Personal areas
are covered.

104
(4) To measure the Teacher Self-efficacy self-rating scale was used
with four dimensions viz., Mastery experience, Vicarious
experience, Social experience, Physiological and Psychological
experience are covered.
4.4.0:Procedure adopted:
In order to test the hypotheses, the research is planned and
executed in three phases using and adoption of various Standardized
tools.
1. Development and standardization of the Scale of Dr.VSR,
Pakalapati’s (2004) Teacher Value Behaviour.
2. Development and standardization of Teacher Motivation Scale
of Dr.U.L.Narayan’s (1986) Teacher Motivation.
3. Measurement of Teacher Self-efficacy with the help of
Bandura’s (2000) ‘Cultivate Self-Efficacy for Personal and
Organizational Effectiveness’ contexture designed keeping the Teacher
in Indian scenario is make use of.
4.4.1: Selection of Items:
The investigator according to the aims and objectives of the
study prepares a large number of items. The items are prepared to
measure each of the tool inter and intra-dimensions. The information
in relation to the tools are prepared by collecting information from
various sources i.e., books, other standardized tests, discussion with
experts, professional journals etc. A thorough comparison is made
between the prepared items and corresponding items collected from
various sources. Thus the final form of items is prepared.
(a) Teacher Value Behaviour Scale consists of 50 statements as
per the earlier design of the previous researchers.
(b) Teacher Motivation Scale consists of 53 statements as per the

105
 earlier design of the previous researchers – and
(c) Teacher Self-efficacy Scale consists of 46 statements initially
designed by the investigator.
These tools are supplemented by a careful study of related literature
and informal meetings with experienced teachers, head-teachers and
teacher educators. Thus the items in the above tools are finalized,
listed and arranged in related to the present study. These tools are
examined by the experts for item-relevance and usefulness and finally
concluded to retain the items as mentioned above. The distribution of
the selected tools for the pilot study is as follows.
4.4.2: Standardization of Teacher Value Behaviour Scale:
Table 4.1: Table showing the items and percentage of items in
provisional
Teacher Value Behaviour Scale

Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education T

Specificatio Centere Centere al nt al O
n d d Centered Centered Centered T
(Area–I) (Area – (Area –III) (Area –IV) (Area –V) A
II) L
No.of Items 10 10 10 10 10
(1 – 10) (11 – (21 – 30) (31 – 40) (41 – 50) 50
20)
Percentage 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 1
00%
4.4.3: Administration:
This tool is administered to a tryout sample of 150 Junior College
Teachers in and around of Vizianagaram. Instructions to the teachers
are given on the title page of the each scale. Care is taken to reduce
bias in rating. This is done by clearly stating the purpose of study.
Confidence is creating among the teachers by assuring them their
responses will be kept confidential.

106
4.4.4: Scoring:
The responses are scored according to the key. For all positive
items score from 5 to 1 for the five responses i.e., SA: Strongly Agree;
A: Agree; N: Neutral; DA: Disagree; SDA: Strongly Disagree respectively
are given. For all negative statements scores 1 to 5 are given
respectively for SA, A, N, DA, SDA. The positive and negative items are
shown separately in this chapter. The maximum possible score is 250
and the minimum possible score is 50. High score indicates high
Teacher Value Behaviour, low score indicates low Teacher Value
Behaviour.
4.4.5: Item Analysis:
For the purpose of determining the degree to which each item is
effective in discriminating high and low Teacher Value Behaviour, an
item analysis of the data obtained from the above sample is under
taken by taking two extreme groups (high and Low). All the 50
responses are scored and scores are arranged in an order from highest
score to the lowest score. Then the upper 20% of the total responses
and lower 20% of the responses are taken into consideration for
measuring significance of difference of means to know the item
validity. Arithmetic means and Standard Deviations for all the 50 items
of the upper half and lower half are calculated. Critical Ratio is then
calculated for all the items between upper and lower half. If the value
of critical ratio of the item is greater than 1.98 (significant at 0.05 level
of significance) then the item is found valid and accepted. If the value
of critical ratio of the item is less than 1.98 then the item is considered
as invalid and rejected. The scale with all the accepted items is used
for final study.
The items retained after item analysis for the final study of

107
Teacher Value Behaviour is confirmed with 30 items. The following
table 4.2 shows the values of critical ratios of items.
Table 4.2: Table showing the Value of Critical Ratio’s
of items in Teacher Value Behaviour
Item C.R. Remark Item C.R. Remark Item C.R. Remark
No. s No. s No. s
1 5.37 Accept 20 6.34 Accept 39 3.16 Accepte
ed ed d
2 2.45 Accept 21 4.93 Accept 40 1.41 Rejecte
ed ed d
3 4.59 Accept 22 1.91 Rejecte 41 4.58 Accepte
ed d d
4 1.76 Rejecte 23 5.09 Accept 42 1.74 Rejecte
d ed d
5 6.98 Accept 24 3.43 Accept 43 3.54 Accepte
ed ed d
6 1.94 Rejecte 25 7.43 Accept 44 1.83 Rejecte
d ed d
7 2.96 Accept 26 1.93 Rejecte 45 2.84 Accepte
ed d d
8 1.68 Rejecte 27 5.49 Accept 46 1.78 Rejecte
d ed d
9 2.93 Accept 28 1.53 Rejecte 47 2.69 Accepte
ed d d
10 1.86 Rejecte 29 4.63 Accept 48 4.63 Accepte
d ed d
11 4.09 Accept 30 1.64 Rejecte 49 1.92 Rejecte
ed d d
12 5.68 Accept 31 2.69 Accept 50 2.16 Accepte
ed ed d
13 3.49 Accept 32 1.48 Rejecte
ed d
14 6.88 Accept 33 3.89 Accept

108
 ed ed
15 1.93 Rejecte 34 1.76 Rejecte
d d
16 3.84 Accept 35 2.84 Accept
ed ed
17 1.79 Rejecte 36 1.98 Accept
d ed
18 1.58 Rejecte 37 1.91 Rejecte
d d
19 1.83 Rejecte 38 2.24 Accept
d ed

The Teacher Value Behaviour originally constructed earlier and

standardized by Dr.VSR, Pakalapati (2004) with 50 items because this
is most appropriate tool to measure the Teacher Value Behaviour with
five dimensions viz., Work Centered, Learner Centered, Professional
Centered, Adjustment Centered and Educational Centered. Dr.VSR,
Pakalapati (2004) developed and standardized the Teacher Value
Behaviour on the try-out sample of Student-teachers, but the present
researcher intends to measure the Teacher Value Behaviour of Junior
College Teachers. Hence, the investigator retested this inventory on a
try-out sample of 150 teachers in and around Vizianagaram.
There are 50 items with five dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour of Dr.VSR, Pakalapati (2004). The distributions of 50 items
dimension wise are as follows.
S.No Name of the Area Coverage of Total No.of Items
. S.Nos
1 Work Centered 1 to 10 10
2 Learner Centered 11 to 20 10
3 Professional Centered 21 to 30 10

109
 4 Adjustment Centered 31 to 40 10
5 Educational Centered 41 to 50 10
6 Total Coverage 01 to 50 50

After retested the 50 items coverage of five dimensions of the

Teacher Value behaviour the final statements are mentioned in Table
4.3:

Table 4.3: Table showing the Number of Items and Percentage of items
retained Under Five dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour
No.of Percentag
S.No. Name of the Dimension Items e
Retained
1 Work Centered 6 20%
2 Learner Centered 6 20%
3 Professional Centered 6 20%
4 Adjustment Centered 6 20%
5 Educational Centered 6 20%
6 Total Items 30 100%

4.4.6: Reliability:
The reliability of the scale is calculated by split-half method.
Odd-Even split is used in dividing the test into two halves. The
reliability co-efficient is found to be 0.832. This reliability co-efficient is
sufficiently large for us to assume that the present Teacher Value
Behaviour is highly reliable instrument is used in the present research.
4.4.7: Validation:

110
 The validity of the present Teacher Value Behaviour Scale is
estimated by using the ‘known group technique’. The validity of the
scale is sought to be estimated from the Teacher Value Behaviour of
two groups of teachers – one of which is low competent teachers and
other high competent teachers. In the present study two groups of
teachers of 20 each was selected for administering the Teacher Value
Behaviour scale. One of the groups is low competent in their Value
Behaviour and this fact is know to the investigator in advance.
Similarly, the second group of 20 was known in advance to be high
competent in their Value Behaviour.
The tool administered to these two groups of teachers and ‘t’
value is calculated. The value of ‘t’ is found to be highly significant
and hence, the tool is believed to be a valid. The value of ‘t’ is
presented in table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Table showing the value of ‘t’ between Teachers
with high and low Teacher Value Behaviour
Category Mean S.D N ‘t’ Level of
significanc
e
Low Teacher 121.63 24.63 20
Value Behaviour Highly
9.87 Significant

High Teacher 189.64 18.56 20

Value Behaviour

4.5.0: Development and Standardization of

Teacher Motivation Scale (TMS):
In order to measure the Teacher Motivation Scale is developed,
the investigator make use of Likert’s method of summated technique is
adopted. This technique is used because it is the most reliable and
straightforward technique.

111
4.5.1: Selection of Items:
The investigator according to the aims and objectives of the
study prepares a large number of items. The items are prepared to
measure the Classroom Teaching, School Administration, Professional
Pleasure, Climate Factors, Inter-Personal Relations, Student Behaviour,
Working condition, Professional Development and Personal aspects of
the Teachers. These items are prepared by collecting information from
various sources i.e., books, other standardized tests, discussion with
experts, professional journals etc. A through comparison is made
between the prepared items, and corresponding items collected from
various sources. Thus the final form of the items is prepared. There
are 53 items. These 53 items are supplemented by a careful study of
related literature and informal meetings with experienced teachers,
head-teachers and teacher educators. Thus, the items are finalized,
listed and rearranged. Experts for item-relevance and usefulness
examine this list. Then language experts for grammatical soundness
examine the items. Finally 35 items are retained.
Instructions are typed on the cover page of the rating scale.
Similarly, instructions are given clearly to explain the purpose of the
study and what the subjects have to do. However, much care is taken
to check the ‘halo effect’. The distribution of 53 items selected for the
pilot study is as follows –

Total No.of
S.No Dimension Category Items items
. covered in covered in
the area the area
1 Classroom Teaching 1 to 7 7
2 School Administration 8 to 13 6
3 Professional Pleasure 14 to 19 6

112
4 Climate Factors 20 to 24 5
5 Inter-Personal Relations 25 to 29 5
6 Student Behaviour 30 to 36 7
7 Working Condition 37 to 41 5
8 Professional Development 42 to 47 6
9 Personal 48 to 53 6
10 Total for all Dimensions 01 to 53 53

Table 4.5: Table showing the items in provisional

Teacher Motivation Scale
Number
S.No Dimension Category of items Percentage
. covered Dimension
wise
1 Classroom Teaching 07 13.26%
2 School Administration 06 11.32%
3 Professional Pleasure 06 11.32%
4 Climate Factors 5 9.4%
5 Inter-Personal Relations 5 9.4%
6 Student Behaviour 7 13.26%
7 Working Condition 5 9.4%
8 Professional Development 6 11.32%
9 Personal 6 11.32%
10 Total for all dimensions 53 100%

4.5.2: Scoring:
The same procedure, which is used to score the Teacher Value
Behaviour Scale, is adapted to Teacher Motivation Scale. Total number

113
of items included in this tool is 53. The maximum possible score is
265. The high score indicates high Teacher Motivation and low score
indicates low Teacher Motivation.
4.5.3: Item Analysis:
For the purpose of determining the degree to which each item is
effective in discriminating high and low Teacher Motivation, an item
analysis of the data obtained from the above sample is undertaken by
taking two extreme groups (high and low). All the 53 responses of the
150 subjects are scored and total scores are arranged in an order from
highest score to lowest score. Then the upper 20% of the total
responses and lower 20% of the total responses are taen into
consideration for measuring significance of difference of means to
know the item validity. Arithmetic Means, Standard Deviations for all
the 53 items of the upper half and lower half are calculated. Critical
Ratio value is then calculated for all the items between Upper and
Lower half. If the value of critical ratio of the items is greater than 1.98
(significant at 0.01 level of significance) then the item is found valid
and accepted. If the value of Critical Ratio value of the item is less
than 1.98 then the item is considered as invalid and rejected. The
scale with all the accepted items is used for final study.
The items retained after item analysis for the final study in
Teacher Motivation Scale are 35. Table 4.6 shows the values of Critical
ratios of items.

114
Table 4.6: Table showing values of Critical Ratio
of items of Teacher Motivation Scale

I C.R. Remark I C.R. Remark I C.R. Remark

tem s tem s tem s
No. No. No.
1 3.69 Accept 20 5.42 Accept 39 1.74 Rejecte
ed ed d
2 6.42 Accept 21 1.29 Rejecte 40 6.52 Accepte
ed d d
3 1.91 Rejecte 22 6.54 Accept 41 3.44 Accepte
d ed d
4 2.64 Accept 23 1.78 Rejecte 42 5.28 Accepte
ed d d
5 5.09 Accept 24 2.32 Accept 43 1.86 Rejecte
ed ed d
6 1.53 Rejecte 25 4.11 Accept 44 3.59 Accepte
d ed d
7 4.64 Accept 26 1.09 Rejecte 45 1.67 Rejecte

115
 ed d d
8 5.93 Accept 27 1.52 Rejecte 46 6.08 Accepte
ed d d
9 6.61 Accept 28 3.93 Accept 47 2.47 Accepte
ed ed d
10 1.08 Accept 29 2.84 Accept 48 3.36 Accepte
ed ed d
11 6.59 Accept 30 2.96 Accept 49 1.75 Rejecte
ed ed d
12 1.23 Rejecte 31 5.06 Accept 50 5.06 Accepte
d ed d
13 2.48 Accept 32 1.06 Rejecte 51 5.68 Accepte
ed d d
14 1.36 Rejecte 33 3.45 Accept 52 1.61 Rejecte
d ed d
15 4.83 Accept 34 6.42 Accept 53 4.97 Accepte
ed ed d
16 3.89 Accept 35 1.79 Rejecte
ed d
17 6.68 Accept 36 2.48 Accept
ed ed
18 1.86 Rejecte 37 1.68 Rejecte
d d
19 2.28 Accept 38 4.81 Accept
ed ed

Further, number of items and percentage of items of nine

dimensions of Teacher Motivation retained as shown in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 Table showing No.of items and percentages of Items
retained

116
 under nine dimensions of Teacher Motivation Scale

Number Percentage
S.No Dimension Category of items Dimension
. covered wise
1 Classroom Teaching 05 14.28%
2 School Administration 04 11.42%
3 Professional Pleasure 04 11.42%
4 Climate Factors 03 8.57%
5 Inter-Personal Relations 03 8.57%
6 Student Behaviour 05 14.28%
7 Working Condition 03 8.57%
8 Professional Development 04 11.42%
9 Personal 04 11.42%
10 Total for all dimensions 35 100%

4.5.4: Reliability:
The reliability of the scale is calculated by split half method.
Odd-Even split is used in dividing the test into two halves. The
reliability co-efficient is found to be 0.878. The reliability co-efficient of
0.878 is sufficiently large for us to assume that the present Teacher
Motivation Scale is highly reliable instrument for measuring the
Teacher Motivation Scale.
4.5.5: Validation:
The validity of the present Teacher Motivation Scale is estimated
by using the ‘known group technique’. The validity of the scale is
estimated from the Teacher Motivation of two groups of teachers. One
of which is low teacher motivation and other is high motivation. In the
present study two groups of teachers of 20 each was selected for
administering the Teacher Motivation Scale. The first group of 20 is low
Teacher Motivation teachers and second group of 20 is high Teacher
Motivation teachers, and the investigator knows this fact in advance.
The tool is administered to these two groups of teachers and ‘t’

117
value is calculated. The value of ‘t’ is found to be highly significant
and hence the tool is believed to be a valid tool. The value of ‘t’ is
presented in the table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Table showing the value of ‘t’ between Teachers with
High and Low Teacher Motivation
Category Mean S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significan
ce
Low
Teacher
162.86 29 20
Motivation
Highly
6.58
Significant
High
107.03 24 20
Teacher
Motivation

4.6.0: Retesting the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale:

In the present study the investigator made use of the principle of
Dr.Bandura’s (2000) ‘Cultivate Self-Efficacy for Personal and
Organizational Effectiveness Inventory’ developed and
standardized because this is most appropriate tool to measure the
Teacher Self-Efficacy areas – (1) Mastery experience; (2) Vicarious
experience; (3) Social experience and (4) Physiological and
Psychological experience. Dr.Bandura (2000) developed and
standardized the Teacher Self-Efficacy Inventory on the try-out sample
of High School Teachers, but the present researcher intends to
measure the attitudes of teachers towards teaching. Thus, the
investigator retested this inventory on a try-out sample of 150
teachers in and around Vizianagaram.
There are 46 items under four different areas of Teacher Self-
Efficacy Inventory of Dr.Bandura (2000). The distribution of 46 items
area as follows.

118
 The items under ‘Mastery Experience’ (Area –I) are – 1 to 12
The items under ‘Vicarious Experience’ (Area –II) are – 13 to 24
The items under ‘Social Experience’ (Area –III) are – 25 to 35
The items under ‘Physiological and Psychological Experience
(Area –IV) are
36 to 46.
Table 4.9: Table showing No.of items and percentages of Items
in Provisional Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

Number Percentage
S.No Dimension Category of items Dimension
. covered wise
1 Mastery Experience 12 26.09%
2 Vicarious Experience 12 26.09%
3 Social Experience 11 23.91%
4 Physiological and 11 23.91%
Psychological Experience
5 Total for all dimensions 46 100%

4.6.1: Scoring:
The same procedure, which is used to score Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Motivation inventories, is followed. The total
number of items in the Teacher Self-efficacy is 46. The maximum
possible score is 230 and the minimum possible score is 46. A high
score indicates high attitude and a low score indicates low attitude
towards Teacher Self-efficacy.

4.6.2: Item Analysis:

For the purpose of determining the degree to which each item is
effective in discriminating between high and low attitude, an item

119
analysis of the data obtained from the above sample is under taken,
using extreme groups (high and low). All the 46 responses of the
subjects are scored and the scores are arranged in an order from
highest score to the lowest score. Then the upper 20% of the total
scores and Lower 20% of the total scores are taken into consideration
for measuring significance of difference of means to know the item
validity. Arithmetic Means and Standard Deviations for all the 46 items
of the upper and lower halves are calculated. Critical Ratio is, then,
calculated. Critical Ratio is, then, calculated for all the items between
upper and lower half. If the value of critical ratio of the item is greater
than 1.98 (significant at 0.01 level of significance) then the item is
found to be valid and accepted. If the value of critical ratio of the item
is less than 1.98 then the item is considered as invalid and rejected.
The accepted items of the scale are used in the final study.
The items retained after item analysis for the final study in
Teacher Self-efficacy Scale are 40. Table 4.10 discloses the values of
Critical Ratio for all the provisional items.

Table 4.10: Table showing the value of Critical Ratio

of items of Teacher Self-Efficacy

120
Item C.R. Remark Item C.R. Remark Item C.R. Remark
No. s No. s No. s
1 2.69 Accept 17 1.51 Rejecte 33 5.36 Accepte
ed d d
2 5.04 Accept 18 4.68 Accept 34 2.98 Accepte
ed ed d
3 4.76 Accept 19 5.21 Accept 35 3.64 Accepte
ed ed d
4 6.82 Accept 20 2.43 Accept 36 5.72 Accepte
ed ed d
5 8.37 Accept 21 4.52 Accept 37 7.06 Accepte
ed ed d
6 1.93 Rejecte 22 6.39 Accept 38 9.82 Accepte
d ed d
7 5.34 Accept 23 7.32 Accept 39 4.83 Accepte
ed ed d
8 3.67 Accept 24 1.08 Rejecte 40 3.82 Accepte
ed d d
9 4.56 Accept 25 11.49 Accept 41 8.68 Accepte
ed ed d
10 1.78 Rejecte 26 9.66 Accept 42 1.68 Rejecte
d ed d
11 6.63 Accept 27 2.98 Accept 43 9.26 Accepte
ed ed d
12 4.56 Accept 28 8.26 Accept 44 2.48 Accepte
ed ed d
13 3.52 Accept 29 6.41 Accept 45 3.68 Accepte
ed ed d
14 4.69 Accept 30 6.58 Accept 46 5.42 Accepte
ed ed d
15 7.63 Accept 31 4.66 Accept
ed ed
16 5.36 Accept 32 1.86 Rejecte
ed d

121
 After obtaining the Critical Ratio value for all the 46 items as
above, 40 items are retained as specified in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 Table showing Number of Items and Percentage of

final test items of Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

Physiological
Specificatio Mastery Vicarious Social & Total
n experien experienc experien Psychological
ce e ce experience
No. of 10 10 10 10 40
Items
Percentage 25% 25% 25% 25% 100%

4.6.3: Reliability:
The reliability of the scale is calculated by split half method.
Odd-Even split is used in dividing the test into two halves. The
reliability of co-efficient is found to be 0.921. The reliability co-efficient
of 0.921 is sufficiently large for the investigator to assume that the
present Teacher Self-efficacy Scale is highly reliable instrument to
administer among the selected sample of teachers.
4.6.4: Validation:
The validity of the present Teacher Self-efficacy Scale estimated
by using the ‘known group technique’. The validity of the scale is
estimated from the attitude of two groups of teachers. One of which
consists of teachers with low Teacher Self-efficacy and other with high
Teacher Self-efficacy. In the present study two groups of teachers of 20

122
each is selected for administering the Teacher Self-efficacy scale. The
first group of 20 is low in Teacher Self-efficacy and second group of 20
is high in Teacher Self-efficacy, this fact is known to the researcher in
advance.
The tool is administered to these two groups of teachers and ‘t’
value is calculated. The value of ‘t’ is found to be highly significant
and hence, the tool is believed to be a valid tool. The value of ‘t’ is
presented in the Table 4.12.

4.12: Table showing the value of ‘t’ between Teachers

with high and low Teacher Self-efficacy

Category Mean S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Low Teacher 110.6 21.6 20
Self-efficacy 5 5
10.8 Highly
High Teacher 8 Significant
Self-efficacy 20
221.6 19.4
5 5

The above table clearly disclosed that the obtain mean value of
High Teacher Self-efficacy (181.39) is higher than the mean value
(110.65) obtained by the Low Teacher Self-efficacy. The obtained C.R.
value 10.88 is significant at both the levels (i.e., 0.05 and 0.01 levels).
Hence, the null hypothesis formulated to that affect that the extent of
relationship between the above two categories is rejected.
4.6.5: Collection of Data:
After developing and standardizing the three tools of the study,
fresh and final scales are prepared for the final study with a personal
data page. These three standardized tools of the present study are

123
administered to 612 Junior College Teachers in Vizianagaram District of
Andhra Pradesh. For collecting the data the Investigator visited each
Institution and administered these three scales among the Teachers
personally. They are advised to put their name, Sex, Locality,
Qualification, Designation, Subject of Teaching, Professional
Experience, Marital Status, Type of Institution, Type of Status of the
Institution and Type of Management etc., in the space provided in the
personal data sheet of each scale.
Instructions are given in the first page of all the three tools. The
investigator requested the teachers to follow those instructions while
responding to the tools. Teachers are further advised not to leave any
item of the tool. Most of the teachers filled the tools on the spot and
returned to the investigator. All the three tools thus collected, are
scored according to the scoring procedure explained in the
development and standardization of tools.
4.6.6: Sample:
The sample selected for the investigation consisted of 612
samples of Junior College Teachers in Vizianagaram District of Andhra
Pradesh. Random sampling technique is followed to draw the sample
for the present study. The sample is categorized as Sex (Male and
Female), Locality (Rural and Urban), Qualification (Post-graduates, Post-
graduates with M.Phil/Ph.D.,, Post-graduates with B.Ed., and Post-
graduates with M.Ed., qualifications), Designation (Lecturers and
Principals), Subject of Teaching (Teaching Sciences, Teaching
Humanities and Teaching Languages), Experience (Below 10 years, 10
– 15 years, 15 – 20 years, 20 – 25 years, 25 – 30 years and above 30
years experience), Marital Status (Married and Unmarried), Type of
Institution (Residential and Non-residential), Status of Institution (Co-

124
educational, Exclusively for Women, Exclusively for Men) and Type of
Management of the Institution (Residential, Aided, Government and
Private un-aided) and shown in three category scales of the research
study. The details of which are presented in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13: Table showing the distribution of sample category wise
No.of
S.No. Category Sample Nomenclature Teacher
s
selected
Male 396

1 Sex Female 216

---------
Total 612

No.of
S.No. Category Sample Nomenclatures Teacher
s
selected
Rural 411
2 Locality
Urban 201
--------
Total 612
Post-graduates 234
48
Post-graduate with
M.Phil/ Ph.D.
Post-graduate with
3 Qualification 269
B.Ed., 61
---------
Post-graduate with
612
M.Ed.,
Total
Lecturers 550

125
 4 Designation Principals 60
----------
Total 612
Teaching Sciences 316

5 Subject of Teaching Teaching Humanities 153

Teaching Languages 143

---------
Total 612
Below 10 Years 111
10 – 15 years 109
15 – 20 years 126
6 Experience
20 – 25 years 98
25 – 30 years 59
Above 30 years 109
---------
Total 612

No.of
S.No. Category Sample Nomenclatures Teacher
s
selected
Married 540
7 Marital Status
Unmarried 72
--------
Total 612

Residential 96
8 Type of Institution
Non-Residential 516
--------
Total
612
Co-educational 504

126
 9 Status of the Exclusively for Women 66
Institution
Exclusively for Men 42
----------
Total 612
Residential 96

Aided 89
10 Type of Management
Government 219

Private Unaided 208

---------
Total 612

4.6.7:Analysis of Data:
The following statistical techniques are followed to analyze the
data for all the three scales.
Means and Standard Deviations for all the distributions are
calculated.
Pearson’s Product Moment Correlations are calculated for Odd
Even items of rating scales and their reliability indices are computed
by using Spearman Brown Prophecy Formula.
To find the relationship between (a) Teacher Value Behaviour; (b)
Teacher Motivation and (c) Teacher Self-efficacy ‘r’ values are
computed extensively. Co-efficient of correlation for all the dimensions
are also calculated and presented in Table form.
Critical Ratios are calculated for item analysis and to test the
subsidiary hypotheses.

127
 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter is devoted for analysis and interpretation of results
of the present research. The results are presented and all the
hypotheses of the study are tested and verified. The implications of
the results are analyzed and interpreted in relation to the problem of
the study, immediately after each hypothesis is tested. The analysis of
results of any study should be based on suitable statistical treatment.
Further, the measurements of variables undertaken for the study
should be presented clearly and precisely. Accordingly, the results are
analyzed and presented in three phases.
The first phase deals with the testing of major hypotheses, the
second phase deals with testing of subsidiary hypotheses pertaining to

128
significance of difference between different demographic variables in
respect of three variables of the study and the third phase deals with
the testing of hypotheses pertaining to significance of difference
between high and low groups.
5.0: Verification of Major Hypotheses and Interpretation:
There are six major hypotheses in the present study. For testing
these hypotheses, coefficients of correlation are computed. The
calculations of ‘r’ values are done by product movement method
(Garrette, H.E, 1981). The significance of obtained ‘r’s is tested
against null hypotheses as given by Aggarwal, Y.P. (1990).
5.1:Verification of the First Hypothesis of the Study:
The first hypothesis of the study disclosed that ‘there is no
significant relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher
Motivation’. This hypothesis is tested and shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Teacher

Value Behaviour Teacher Motivation

N Category df ‘r’ Level of

Significance
Teacher
Value
612 Behaviour 610 0.53 >0.01

Teacher
Motivation

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
Teacher Value behaviour and Teacher Motivation are correlated

129
each other. Seah W.T. (2002) in his investigation made on ‘the
Perception of, and Interaction with, Value Differences by Immigrant
Teachers of Mathematics in Two Australian Secondary Classrooms’ The
research methodology adopts a qualitative approach incorporating
features of narrative analysis. While cultural differences may not
possibly be eliminated, immigrant teachers may empower themselves
by engaging in cultural interactions. Practical implications are
suggested. Bhattacharya (2000) established that intrinsic motivation is
essential for elevating level of teaching competence and improving
attitude towards teaching profession of primary teachers. Kukreti
(1994) worked to find out the motivational factors of a teaching job
which are correlates of competent teaching and which differentiate
competent and incompetent teachers.
The present findings are in conformity with the findings of the
above researches. So it can be said that teachers with high Teacher
Value Behaviour are supposed to be well motivated. The present
finding affirms the theoretical assumption that Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Motivation are interdependent and interactive.

5.2: Verification of the Second Hypothesis of the Study:

The second hypothesis of the present study states that there is
no significant relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour and
Teacher Self-efficacy. This hypothesis is verified and presented in Table
5.2.
Table 5.2: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Teacher
Value Behaviour and Teacher Self-efficacy

Category N df ‘r’ Level of

Significance

130
 Teacher
Value
Behaviour 612 610 0.63 >0.01

Teacher Self-
Efficacy

The value of ‘r’ is significant at 0.01 level. Hence, it is significant

and the hypothesis is rejected.
A significant positive relationship is observed between Teacher
Value Behaviour and Teacher Self-efficacy. Murugudu Srihari (2007)
investigated into ‘Values of Prospective Teachers’. The findings of this
study will be of great use to the teachers, teacher educators, and
academic administrators. Policy makers and parents to take care of the
components concerned to values at different levels and kinds of
education. Andre’ Brouwer and Welko Tomic (2000) probed into ‘A
longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in
classroom management.’ It was concluded that perceived self-efficacy
in classroom management must be taken into consideration when
devising interventions both to prevent and to treat burnout among
secondary school teachers. The present finding is in agreement with
the above research findings. So it can be said that higher Teacher
Value Behaviour of Teachers greater will be in their Self-efficacy. This
substantiates the theoretical assumption that Teacher Value behaviour
and Teacher Self-efficacy are independent and interdependent.
5.3:Verification of the Third Hypothesis of the Study:
The second hypothesis of the present study states that there is
no significant relationship between Teacher Motivation and Teacher
Self-efficacy. This hypothesis is verified and presented in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Teacher
Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy

131
 Category N df ‘r’ Level of
Significance
Teacher
Motivation
612 610 0.59 >0.01
Teacher Self-
Efficacy

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence the hypothesis is

rejected.
It is observed that there is a positive relationship between
Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy. From the above, it is
evident that the teachers with high degree of motivation would have
positive or favourable towards Teacher Self-efficacy. Bhattacharya
(2000) established that intrinsic motivation is essential for elevating
level of teaching competence and improving attitude towards teaching
profession of primary teachers. The above findings substantiate the
present finding. This finding is also substantiating the theoretical
model, reported in the present study that the relationship between
Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy is reciprocal.
From the above results, it is interesting to note that there is a
significant positive relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour and
Teacher Motivation; Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher Self-efficacy;
Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy. Hence, it may be inferred
that Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-
efficacy are interrelated and interdependent. Further, the teacher
Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy may be
considered as the influencing factors of many problems in their
profession. The theoretical framework that has been developed in the
Conceptual Foundations chapter of this thesis is substantially affirmed.

132
5.4:Verification of Fourth Hypothesis of the Study:
The fourth hypothesis of the study states that there is no
significant relationship between various dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour. This hypothesis is divided into ten parts for the
convenience of verification as follows
(1) There is no significant relationship between Work Centered and
Learner Centered aspects of Teacher Value Behaviour.
(2) There is no significant relationship between Work Centered and
Professional Centered aspects of Teacher Value Behaviour.
(3) There is no significant relationship between Work Centered and
Adjustment Centered aspects of Teacher Value Behaviour.
(4) There is no significant relationship between Work Centered and
Educational
Centered aspects of Teacher Value Behaviour.
(5) There is no significant relationship between Learner Centered and
Professional Centered aspects of Teacher Value Behaviour.
(6) There is no significant relationship between Learner Centered and
Adjustment Centered aspects of Teacher Value Behaviour.
(7) There is no significant relationship between Learner Centered and
Educational Centered aspects of Teacher Value Behaviour.
(8) There is no significant relationship between Professional Centered
and Adjustment Centered aspects of Teacher Value Behaviour.
(9) There is no significant relationship between Professional Centered
and Educational Centered aspects of Teacher Value Behaviour.
(14) There is no significant relationship between Adjustment Centered
and Educational Centered aspects of Teacher Value Behaviour.
For the purpose of testing the above hypotheses, coefficients of
correlation between the various dimensions of Teacher Value

133
Behaviour, scores of Work Centered, Learner Centered, Professional
Centered, Adjustment Centered and Educational Centered are
computed. The ‘r’ values are presented in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4: Table showing inter-correlation matrix for various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour
Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education Tota
Centere Centere al nt al l
d d Centered Centered Centered
Work
Centered 1.00 0.63 0.49 0.38 0.59 0.45
Learner
Centered 1.00 0.44 0.58 0.61 0.56
Profession
al 1.00 0.49 0.39 0.47
Centered
Adjustme
nt 1.00 0.68 0.65
Centered
Education
al 1.00 0.59
Centered

Total 1.00

The data on verification of the hypothesis, there is no significant

relationship between Work Centered and Learner Centered dimensions
of Teacher Value Behaviour as presented in table 5.5.
Table 5.5: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Work
Centered
Learner Centered dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Work
Centered
612 610 0.38 > 0.01
Learner

134
 Centered
The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence the hypothesis is
rejected.
The hypothesis that ‘there is no significant relationship between
the dimensions of Work Centered and Professional Centered’ is tested
and presented in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Work
Centered
Professional Centered dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Work
Centered
612 610 0.48 > 0.01
Professional
Centered

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence the hypothesis is

rejected.
The data on verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant
relationship between Work Centered and Adjustment Centered’
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour as presented in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Work
Centered
Adjustment Centered dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Work
Centered
612 610 0.58 > 0.01
Adjustment
Centered

135
 The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence the hypothesis is
rejected.
The hypothesis that ‘there is no significant relationship between
Work Centered and Educational Centered’ dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour presented in Table 5.8.

Table 5.8: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Work

Centered
Educational Centered dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Work
Centered
612 610 0.63 > 0.01
Educational
Centered

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence the hypothesis is

rejected.
The data verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant
difference between Learner Centered and Professional Centered’
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour presented in Table 5.9.
Table 5.9: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Learner
Centered
Professional Centered dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Learner
Centered
612 610 0.53 > 0.01
Professional

136
 Centered

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence the hypothesis is

rejected.
The hypothesis disclosed that ‘there is no significant relationship
between Learner Centered and Adjustment Centered’ dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour presented in Table 5.10.

Table 5.10: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Learner

Centered
Professional Centered dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Learner
Centered
612 610 0.59 > 0.01
Adjustment
Centered

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence the hypothesis is

rejected.
The data on verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant
relationship between Learnered Centered and Educational Centered’
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour shown in Table 5.11.
Table 5.11: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Learner
Centered
Professional Centered dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour

137
 Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Learner
Centered
612 610 0.53 > 0.01
Educational
Centered

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence the hypothesis is

rejected.
The hypothesis stated that ‘there is no significant relationship
between Professional and Adjustment’ aspects of Teacher Value
Behaviour as mentioned in Table 5.12

Table 5.12: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Professional

Centered
Adjustment Centered dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Professional
Centered
612 610 0.55 > 0.01
Adjustment
Centered

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence the hypothesis is rejected.

The hypothesis stated that ‘there is no significant relationship
between Professional and Educational’ dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour as presented in Table 5.13.

138
Table 5.13: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Professional
Centered
Educational Centered dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour
Dimension N Df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Professional
Centered
612 610 0.49 > 0.01
Educational
Centered

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence the hypothesis is rejected.

The data on verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant
relationship between Adjustment Centered and Educational Centered’
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour shown in Table 5.14.

Table 5.14: Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Adjustment

Centered
Educational Centered dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Adjustment
Centered
612 610 0.48 > 0.01
Educational
Centered

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence the hypothesis is

rejected.

139
 After testing all the sub-divided hypotheses, it is found that the
entire sub-divided hypotheses are significant and hence they are
rejected. Hence, the hypotheses between various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour are rejected.
5.5: Verification of Fifth Hypothesis of the Study:
The fifth hypothesis of the study disclosed that ‘there is no
significant relationship between various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation’. This hypothesis is further divided into thirty seven parts
for the purpose of convenience and verification as follows –
1. There is no significant relationship between Classroom Teaching and
School Administration of Teacher Motivation.
2. There is no significant relationship between Classroom Teaching and
Professional Pleasure of Teacher Motivation.
3. There is no significant relationship between Classroom Teaching and
Climate Factors of Teacher Motivation.
4. There is no significant relationship between Classroom Teaching and
Inter-personal relations of Teacher Motivation.

5. There is no significant relationship between Classroom Teaching and

Student Behaviour of Teacher Motivation.
6. There is no significant relationship between Classroom Teaching and
Student Behaviour of Teacher Motivation.
7. There is no significant relationship between Classroom Teaching and
Working condition of Teacher Motivation.
8. There is no significant relationship between Classroom Teaching and
Professional Development of Teacher Motivation.
9. There is no significant relationship between Classroom Teaching and

140
 Personal of Teacher Motivation.
10.There is no significant relationship between School Administration
and Professional Pleasure of Teacher Motivation.
11.There is no significant relationship between School Administration
and Climate Factors of Teacher Motivation.
12.There is no significant relationship between School Administration
and Inter-personal relations of Teacher Motivation.
13.There is no significant relationship between School Administration
and Student Behaviour of Teacher Motivation.
14.There is no significant relationship between School Administration
and Working condition of Teacher Motivation.
15.There is no significant relationship between School Administration
and Professional Development of Teacher Motivation.
16.There is no significant relationship between School Administration
and Personal of Teacher Motivation.
17.There is no significant relationship between Professional Pleasure
and Climate Factors of Teacher Motivation.
18.There is no significant relationship between Professional Pleasure
and Inter-personal relations of Teacher Motivation.
19.There is no significant relationship between Professional Pleasure
and Student Behaviour of Teacher Motivation.
20.There is no significant relationship between Professional Pleasure
and Working condition of Teacher Motivation.
21.There is no significant relationship between Professional Pleasure
and Professional Development of Teacher Motivation.
22.There is no significant relationship between Professional Pleasure
and Personal of Teacher Motivation.
23.There is no significant relationship between Climate Factors and

141
 Inter-personal relations of Teacher Motivation.
24.There is no significant relationship between Climate Factors and
Student Behaviour of Teacher Motivation.
25.There is no significant relationship between Climate Factors and
Working condition of Teacher Motivation.
26.There is no significant relationship between Climate Factors and
Professional Pleasure of Teacher Motivation.
27.There is no significant relationship between Climate Factors and
Personal of Teacher Motivation.
28.There is no significant relationship between Inter-personal relations
and Student Behaviour relations of Teacher Motivation.
29.There is no significant relationship between Inter-personal relations
and Working condition relations of Teacher Motivation.
30.There is no significant relationship between Inter-personal relations
and Professional Development relations of Teacher Motivation.

31.There is no significant relationship between Inter-personal relations

and Personal of Teacher Motivation.
32.There is no significant relationship between Student Behaviour and
Working condition of Teacher Motivation.
33.There is no significant relationship between Student Behaviour and
Professional Pleasure of Teacher Motivation.
34.There is no significant relationship between Student Behaviour
Personal of Teacher Motivation.
35.There is no significant relationship between Working condition and
Professional Development of Teacher Motivation.
36.There is no significant relationship between Working condition and

142
 Personal
of Teacher Motivation.
37.There is no significant relationship between Professional
Development and Personal of Teacher Motivation.
For testing these hypotheses, coefficients of correlation
between the various dimensions of Teacher Motivation, scores of
Classroom Teaching, School Administration, Professional Pleasure,
Climate Factors, Inter-Personal relations, Student Behaviour, Working
condition, Professional Development and Personal aspects are
computed. The ‘r’ values are presented in Table 5.15.

Table 5.15: Table showing Inter-correlation Matrix for

various Dimensions of Teacher Motivation
CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P TT
M
CT 1.00 0.84 0.91 0.26 0.23 0.69 0.26 0.91 0.62 0
.45
SA 1.00 0.24 0.88 0.38 0.71 0.76 0.45 0.52 0
.38
PP 1.00 0.66 0.26 0.56 0.66 0.49 0.41 0
.61
CF 1.00 0.66 0.59 0.64 0.38 0.69 0
.54
IPR 1.00 0.74 0.86 0.59 0.71 0
.63

143
 SB 1.00 0.75 0.48 0.51 0
.53
WC 1.00 0.67 0.49 0
.49
PD 1.00 0.63 0
.47
P 1.00 0
.54
TTM 1
.00

CT : Classroom Teaching SB : Student Behaviour

SA : School Administration WC: Working condition
PP : Professional Pleasure PD: Professional Development
CF : Climate Factors P : Personal
IPR: Inter-Personal Relations TTM : Total of Teacher Motivation

The data on verification of the hypothesis that ‘there is no

significant relationship between Classroom Teaching, School
Administration, Professional Pleasure, Climate Factors, Inter-Personal
Relations, Student Behaviour, Working condition, Professional
Development and Personal’ aspects in Teacher Motivation.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Classroom teaching School Administration’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.16.

Table 5.16 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Classroom

Teaching
and School Administration aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of

144
 significance
Classroom
Teaching
612 610 0.61 > 0.01
School
Administrati
on

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Classroom teaching and Professional Pleasure’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.17.
Table 5.17 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Classroom
Teaching
and Professional Pleasure aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Classroom
Teaching
612 610 0.53 > 0.01
Professional
Pleasure

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Classroom teaching and Climate Factors’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.18.

145
Table 5.18 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Classroom
Teaching
and Climate Factors aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Classroom
Teaching
612 610 0.38 > 0.01
Climate
Factors

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Classroom teaching and Inter-personal relations’ dimensions
of Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.19.
Table 5.19 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Classroom
Teaching
and Inter-personal relations aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N Df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Classroom
Teaching
612 610 0.52 > 0.01
Inter-
personal
relations

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Classroom teaching and Student Behaviour’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.20.

146
Table 5.20 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Classroom
Teaching
and Student Behaviour aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Classroom
Teaching
612 610 0.89 > 0.01
Student
Behaviour

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Classroom teaching and Working condition’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.21.
Table 5.21 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Classroom
Teaching
and Working condition aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Classroom
Teaching
612 610 0.46 > 0.01
Working
condition

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Classroom teaching and Professional Development’
dimensions of Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.22.

147
Table 5.22 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Classroom
Teaching
and Professional Development aspects of Teacher
Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Classroom
Teaching
612 610 0.56 > 0.01
Professional
Developmen
t

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Classroom teaching and Personal’ dimensions of Teacher
Motivation as presented in Table 5.23.
Table 5.23 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Classroom
Teaching and Personal aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Classroom
Teaching
612 610 0.48 > 0.01
Personal

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.

148
 The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between School Administration and Professional Pleasure’ dimensions
of Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.24.

Table 5.24 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between School

Administration
Professional Pleasure aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
School
Administrati
on 612 610 0.39 > 0.01

Professional
Pleasure

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between School Administration and Climate Factors’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.25.
Table 5.25 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between School
Administration
Climate Factors aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
School
Administrati
on 612 610 0.63 > 0.01

Climate

149
 Factors

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between School Administration and Inter-Personal relations’ dimensions
of Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.26.

Table 5.26 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between School

Administration
Inter-Personal relations aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
School
Administrati
on 612 610 0.54 > 0.01

Inter-
Personal
Relations

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between School Administration and Student Behaviour’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.27.
Table 5.27 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between School
Administration
Student Behaviour aspects of Teacher Motivation

150
 Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
School
Administrati
on 612 610 0.38 > 0.01

Student
Behaviour

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between School Administration and Working condition’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.28.

Table 5.28 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between School

Administration
Working condition aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N Df ‘r’ Level of
significance
School
Administrati
on 612 610 0.57 > 0.01

Working
condition

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between School Administration and Professional Development’

151
dimensions of Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.29.
Table 5.29 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between School
Administration
Professional Development aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
School
Administrati
on 612 610 0.46 > 0.01

Professional
Developmen
t

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between School Administration and Personal’ dimensions of Teacher
Motivation as presented in Table 5.30.

Table 5.30 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between School

Administration and Personal aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
School
Administrati
on 612 610 0.36 > 0.01

Personal

152
 The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is
rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Professional Pleasure and Climate Factors’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.31.
Table 5.31 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Professional
Pleasure Climate Factors aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Professional
Pleasure
612 610 0.49 > 0.01
Climate
Factors

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Professional Pleasure and Inter-personal relations’ dimensions
of Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.32.

Table 5.32 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Professional

Pleasure
Inter-personal relations aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Professional
Pleasure
612 610 0.68 > 0.01
Inter-
personal

153
 relations

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Professional Pleasure and Students Behaviour’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.33.
Table 5.33 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Professional
Pleasure
Students Behaviour aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Professional
Pleasure
612 610 0.58 > 0.01
Students
Behaviour

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Professional Pleasure and Working condition’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.34.

Table 5.34 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Professional

Pleasure
Working condition aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N Df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Professional

154
 Pleasure
612 610 0.63 > 0.01
Working
condition

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Professional Pleasure and Professional Development’
dimensions of Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.35.
Table 5.35 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Professional
Pleasure
Professional Development aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Professional
Pleasure
612 610 0.53 > 0.01
Professional
Developmen
t

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Professional Pleasure and Personal’ dimensions of Teacher
Motivation as presented in Table 5.36.

155
Table 5.36 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Professional
Pleasure and Personal aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Professional
Pleasure
612 610 0.49 > 0.01
Personal

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Climate Factors and Inter-Personal relations’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.37.
Table 5.37 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Climate Factors
Inter-personal relations aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Climate
Factors
612 610 0.34 > 0.01
Inter-
personal
relations

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Climate Factors and Student Behaviour’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.38.

156
Table 5.38 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Climate Factors
Student Behaviour aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Climate
Factors
612 610 0.61 > 0.01
Student
Behaviour

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Climate Factors and Student Behaviour’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.39.
Table 5.39 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Climate Factors
Working condition aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Climate
Factors
612 610 0.52 > 0.01
Working
condition

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Climate Factors and Professional Development’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.40.

157
Table 5.40 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Climate Factors
Professional Development aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Climate
Factors
612 610 0.43 > 0.01
Professional
Developmen
t

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Climate Factors and Personal’ dimensions of Teacher
Motivation as presented in Table 5.41.
Table 5.41 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Climate
Factors Personal aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Climate
Factors
612 610 0.66 > 0.01
Personal

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Inter-personal relations and Student Behaviour’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.42.

158
Table 5.42 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Inter-Personal
relations Student Behaviour aspects of Teacher
Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Inter-
personal
relations 612 610 0.58 > 0.01

Student
Behaviour

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Inter-personal relations and Working condition’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.43.
Table 5.43 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Inter-Personal
relations Working condition aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Inter-
personal
relations 612 610 0.63 > 0.01

Working
condition

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship

159
between Inter-personal relations and Professional Development’
dimensions of Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.44.

Table 5.44 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Inter-Personal

relations
Professional Development aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Inter-
personal
relations 612 610 0.45 > 0.01

Professional
Developmen
t

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Inter-personal relations and Personal’ dimensions of Teacher
Motivation as presented in Table 5.45.
Table 5.45 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Inter-Personal
relations Personal aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Inter-
personal
relations 612 610 0.39 > 0.01

Personal

160
 The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is
rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Student Behaviour and Working condition’ dimensions of
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.46.

Table 5.46 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Student

Behaviour
Working condition aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Student
Behaviour
612 610 0.56 > 0.01
Working
condition

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Student Behaviour and Professional Development’
dimensions of Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.47.
Table 5.47 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Student
Behaviour
Professional Development aspects of Teacher
Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Student
Behaviour

161
 612 610 0.63 > 0.01
Professional
Developmen
t

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Student Behaviour and Personal’ dimensions of Teacher
Motivation as presented in Table 5.48.

Table 5.48 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Student

Behaviour Personal aspects of Teacher Motivation

Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of

significance
Student
Behaviour
612 610 0.74 > 0.01
Personal

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Working condition and Professional Development’
dimensions of Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.49.
Table 5.49 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Working
condition
Professional Development aspects of Teacher
Motivation

162
 Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Working
condition
612 610 0.82 > 0.01
Professional
Developmen
t

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Working condition and Personal’ dimensions of Teacher
Motivation as presented in Table 5.50.

Table 5.50 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Working

condition Personal aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Working
condition
612 610 0.61 > 0.01
Personal

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
The verification of hypothesis, ‘there is no significant relationship
between Professional Development and Personal’ dimensions of

163
Teacher Motivation as presented in Table 5.51.
Table 5.51 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Professional
Development and Personal aspects of Teacher Motivation
Dimension N df ‘r’ Level of
significance
Professional
Developmen
t 612 610 0.48 > 0.01

Personal

The value of ‘r’ is significant and hence, the hypothesis is

rejected.
After verification of all sub-divided hypotheses, the value of ‘r’ is
found to be significant for all these hypotheses. Hence, the
hypothesis, there is no significant relationship between various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation is rejected.
A significant positive relationship between all the dimensions of
Teacher Motivation indicates that all the nine dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are independent and inter-related. Kukreti (1994) in his
findings of the study of the motivational factors of a teaching job that
there is significant relation between competent and incompetent
teachers. Similarly Camilia Anne Czubaj (1996) studied thirteen years,
kindergarten through twelfth grade, are spent by a student attain a
high school education. For thirteen years, five times a week, six hours
a day – this enormous amount of time a student remains under the
direction of a teacher. The major dynamic is motivation. It is observed
in his findings that when one understands the components involved in
the construct of motivation, one can better become and remain
motivated. When a teacher remains motivated, loving the teaching
profession, the students not only learn the content taught by the

164
teacher.
From the above results it may be inferred that teachers with high
motivation would better in respect of Classroom Teaching, School
Administration, Professional Pleasure, Climate Factors, Inter-personal
relations, Student Behaviour, Working condition, Professional
Development and Personal aspects of Teacher Motivation.
5.6 : Verification of Sixth Hypothesis of the Study:
The Sixth hypothesis of the study disclosed that there is no
significant relationship between the dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy. The hypothesis is divided into six parts for the purpose of
convenient verification as follows –
1. There is no significant relationship between Mastery experience and
Vicarious experience of Teacher Self-efficacy.
2. There is no significant relationship between Mastery experience and
Social experience of Teacher Self-efficacy.
3. There is no significant relationship between Mastery experience and
Physiological and Psychological experience of Teacher Self-efficacy.
4. There is no significant relationship between Vicarious experience
and Social experience of Teacher Self-efficacy.
5. There is no significant relationship between Vicarious experience
and Physiological and Psychological experience of Teacher Self-efficacy.
6. There is no significant relationship between Social experience and
Physiological and Psychological experience of Teacher Self-efficacy.
For testing the above hypotheses, coefficients of correlation
between the various dimensions of Teacher self-efficacy are computed
and ‘t’ values are presented in Table 5.52.
Table 5.52
Comprehensive Inter-correlation Matrix for Teacher Self-efficacy

165
 Mastery Vicarious Social Physiologica Total
experienc experienc experienc l& Teache
e e e Psychologic r
al Self-
experience efficac
y

Mastery
1.00 0.53 0.41 0.89 0.42
experience

Vicarious
1.00 0.38 0.34 0.63
experience

Social
1.00 0.71 0.49
experience

Physiologic
al &
1.00 0.53
Psychologic
al
experience

Total
Teacher 1.00
Self-efficacy

The hypothesis disclosed that ‘there is no significant relationship

between Mastery experience and Vicarious experience of Teacher Self-
efficacy’ is tested and shown in Table 5.53.
Table 5.53 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Mastery
experience
and Vicarious experience of Teacher Self-efficacy
Dimension Level of
category N df ‘r’ significance

166
 Mastery
experience

612 610 0.54 >0.01

Vicarious
experience

The value of ‘r’ is significant, hence the, hypothesis is rejected.

The data on verification of the hypothesis that ‘there is no
significant relationship between Mastery experience and Social
experience’ dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy in table 5.54.
Table 5.54 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Mastery
experience
And Social experience of Teacher Self-efficacy
Dimension Level of
category N df ‘r’ significance
Mastery
experience

612 610 0.44 >0.01

Social
experience

The value of ‘r’ is significant; hence, the hypothesis is rejected.

The data on verification of the hypothesis that ‘there is no

significant relationship between Mastery experience and Physiological
and Psychological experience’ dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy in
table 5.55.
Table 5.55 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Mastery
experience and
Physiological and Psychological experience of Teacher Self-

167
efficacy
Dimension Level of
category N df ‘r’ significance
Mastery
experience

612 610 0.59 >0.01

Physiological
and
Psychologica
l experience

The value of ‘r’ is significant; hence, the hypothesis is rejected.

The data on verification of the hypothesis that ‘there is no
significant relationship between Vicarious experience and Social
experience’ dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy in table 5.56.
Table 5.56 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Vicarious
experience
And Social experience of Teacher Self-efficacy
Dimension Level of
category N df ‘r’ significance
Vicarious
experience

612 610 0.63 >0.01

Social
experience

The value of ‘r’ is significant; hence, the hypothesis is rejected.

The data on verification of the hypothesis that ‘there is no
significant relationship between Vicarious experience and Physiological
and Psychological experience’ dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy in
table 5.57.
Table 5.57 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Vicarious
experience and
Physiological and Psychological experience of Teacher Self-

168
efficacy
Dimension Level of
category N df ‘r’ significance
Vicarious
experience

612 610 0.47 >0.01

Physiological
&
Psychologica
l experience

The value of ‘r’ is significant; hence, the hypothesis is rejected.

The data on verification of the hypothesis that ‘there is no
significant relationship between Social experience and Physiological
and Psychological experience’ dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy in
table 5.58.
Table 5.58 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between Social
experience and
Physiological and Psychological experience of Teacher Self-
efficacy
Dimension Level of
category N df ‘r’ significance
Social
experience

612 610 0.68 >0.01

Physiological
&
Psychologica
l experience

The value of ‘r’ is significant; hence, the hypothesis is rejected.

5.7: Inter and Intra Relationship between all the
Dimensions of the Variables of the Study:
Further to elevate more and transparence of this study, the

169
investigator has opted to study the inter and intra relationship between
all the dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Self-efficacy so as to understand how far each dimension
related to all other dimension of this study. The Dimensions of Teacher
Value behaviour (Work Centered; Learner Centered; Adjustment
Centered and Educational Centered), Teacher Motivation (Classroom
teaching; School Administration; Professional Pleasure; Climate Factors;
Inter-Personal relations; Student Behaviour; Working condition;
Professional Development and Personal) and Teacher Self-efficacy
(Mastery experience, Vicarious experience, Social experience and
physiological and Psychological experience) are computed. The
coefficients of correlation between all the dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy calculated and
the values of ‘r’ show in table 5.60. Inter and intra relationship
between all the dimensions of the three variables of the present study
are discussed and interpreted in the following pages. The
interpretations of ‘r’ are in accordance to the guidelines framed by
Henry, E. Garrette (1981).

170
TEACHER VALUE BEHAVIOUR
Wc = Work centered Me = Master experience
Lc = Learner centered Ve = Vicarious
experience
Pc = Professional centered Se = Social experience
Ac = Adjustment centered Ppe = Physiological
Psychological
experience
Ec = Educational Centere
TSE = Total Teacher Self-
Efficacy
TVB = Total Teacher Value Behaviour
CT = Classroom Teaching
SA = School Administration
PP = Professional Pleasure
CF = Climate Factors
IPR = Inter-personal Relations
SB = Student Behaviour
WC = Working condition
PD = Professional Development
P = Personal
TM = Total Teacher Motivation

171
Teacher Value Behaviour – Inter and Intra-relationship
with other Dimensions:
All the dimensions in Teacher Value Behaviour possessed positive
relationship with other dimensions of Teacher Motivation and Teacher
Self-efficacy.
First Dimension – Work Centered aspects:
A high positive relationship is observed between Work centered
and Learner centered aspects (0.63).
Substantial and positive Relationship is found with Learner
Centered (0.49), Educational Centered (0.59) and Total Teacher Value
Behaviour (0.45).
Slight relationships with Adjustment Centered (0.38); Classroom
Teaching (0.36), School Administration (0.22), Professional Pleasure
(0.39), Climate Factors (0.27), Inter-personal relations (0.28), Student
Behaviour (0.38), Working Condition (0.35), Professional Development
(0.25), Personal (0.22) and Total of Teacher Motivation (0.38) and
Mastery experience (0.24), Vicarious experience (0.32), Social
experience (0.21), Physiological and Psychological experience (0.25) of
Teacher Self-efficacy and Total of Teacher Self-efficacy(0.29).
Second Dimension – Learner Centered aspects:
Substantial and positive Relationship is found with Professional
Development (0.44), Adjustment Centered (0.58), Educational
Centered (0.61) and Total of Teacher Value Behaviour (0.56); and Social
experience (0.41), Physiological and Psychological experience (0.48)

172
Total of Teacher Self-efficacy (0.45).
Slight relationships with the dimensions – Classroom Teaching
(0.30), School Administration (0.34), Professional Pleasure (0.31),
Climate Factors (0.32), Inter-Personal Relations (0.35), Student
Behaviour (0.38), Working Condition (0.35), Professional Development
(0.34), Personal (0.31) of Teacher Motivation; and Mastery experience
(0.37), Vicarious experience (0.29) of Teacher Self-efficacy scale.
Third Dimension – Professional Centered:
This dimension possessed substantial relationship with the
aspects of Adjustment Centered (0.49) and Total of Teacher Value
Behaviour (0.47); and Vicarious experience (0.45) of Teacher Self-
efficacy scale.
Similarly, the dimension Professional Centered possessed slight
relationship with the dimensions of Educational Centered (0.39) of
Teacher Value Behaviour scale; Classroom Teaching (0.29), School
Administration (0.28), Professional Pleasure (0.22), Climatic Factors
(0.24), Inter-personal relations ((0.21), Student Behaviour (0.24),
Working Condition (0.20), Professional Development (0.21), Personal
(0.23) Total (0.39) of Teacher Motivation Scale (0.39); and Mastery
experience (0.28), Social experience (0.28), Physiological and
Psychological experience (0.36); Total (0.38) of Teacher Self-efficacy
Scale.
Fourth Dimension – Adjustment Centered:
This dimension possessed high and positive relationship with the
dimensions – Educational Centered (0.68), Total (0.65) of Total Teacher
Value Behaviour Scale.
Similarly, the Adjustment Centered possessed substantial and
positive relationship with the dimensions – Physiological and

173
Psychological experience (0.41) and Total (0.45) of Teacher Self-efficacy
Scale.
Further, the dimension Adjustment Centered possessed slight
relationship with the dimensions – Classroom Teaching (0.27), School
Administration (0.31), Professional Pleasure (0.0.34), Climate Factors
(0.33), Inter-personal relations (0.27), Student Behaviour (0.22),
Working Condition (0.29), Professional Development (0.32), Personal
(0.28), Total (0.35) of Teacher Motivation Scale; and Mastery
experience (0.22), Vicarious experience (0.24), Social experience
(0.36) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Fifth Dimension – Educational Centered:
The dimension – Educational Centered possessed relationship
substantively and positively with the dimensions – Total (0.59) of
Teacher Value Behaviour Scale.
Similarly, this dimension possessed substantive and positive
relationship with the dimension Mastery experience (0.41) and Total
(0.47) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
There is slight significant relationship with the dimensions
Classroom Teaching (0.34), School Administration (0.29), Professional
Pleasure (0.33), Climate Factors (0.28), Inter-personal relations (0.24),
Student Behaviour (0.35), Working Condition (0.33), Professional
Development (0.27), Personal (0.32), Total (0.27) of Teacher Motivation
Scale; and Vicarious experience (0.33), Social experience (0.22) and
Physiological and Psychological experience (0.36) of Teacher Self-
efficacy Scale.
Sixth Dimension – Total of Teacher Value Behaviour:
This dimension possessed substantive relationship with the
dimension Physiological and Psychological experience (0.43) of Teacher

174
Self-efficacy Scale.
Similarly, this dimension possessed slight and positive significant
relationship with the dimensions – Classroom Teaching (0.27), School
Administration (0.37), Professional Pleasure(0.29), Climate Factors
(0.25), Inter-personal relations (0.35), Student Behaviour (0.25),
Working Condition (0.26), Professional Development (0.34), Personal
(0.25), Total (0.29) of Total Teacher Motivation Scale; and Mastery
experience (0.28), Vicarious experience (0.31), Social experience
(0.24) and Total (0.37) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.

Teacher Motivation Inter and Intra

Relationship with other Dimensions:
First Dimension – Classroom Teaching:
The dimension Classroom Teaching possessed high and positive
relationship with the dimensions – School Administration (0.84),
Professional Pleasure (0.91), Student Behaviour (0.69), Professional
Development (0.91), Personal (0.62) of Teacher Motivation Scale.
There is substantive and positive relationship with the dimensions
– Total (0.45) of Teacher Motivation Scale; and Vicarious experience
(0.42), Total (0.41) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
There is slight and positive significant relationship between the
dimensions – Climate Factors (0.26), Inter-personal relations (0.23),
Working Condition (0.26) of Teacher Motivation Scale; and Mastery
experience (0.21), Social experience (0.27) and Physiological and
Psychological experience (0.35) of Teacher Self-efficacy scale.
Second Dimension – School Administration:
There is high significant relationship with the dimensions –
Climate Factors (0.88), Student Behaviour (0.71) and Working

175
Condition (0.76) of Teacher Motivation Scale.
There is substantive and positive relationship with the dimensions
– Professional Development (0.45), Personal (0.52) of Teacher
Motivation Scale.
There is slight and Positive relationship between the dimensions –
Professional Pleasure (0.24), Inter-personal relations (0.38), Total (0.38)
of Teacher Motivation; and Social experience (0.36) and Physiological
and Psychological experience (0.26) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Third Dimension – Professional Pleasure:
There is high significant relationship with the dimensions –
Climate Factors (0.66), Working Condition (0.66), Total (0.61) of Teacher
Motivation Scale.
Further, this dimension possessed substantive and positive
relationship with the dimensions – Student Behaviour (0.56),
Professional Development (0.49), Personal (0.41) of Teacher Motivation
Scale; and Social experience (0.44) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Similarly, this dimension is possessed slight positive significant
relationship with the dimensions – Inter-personal Relations (0.26) of
Teacher Motivation Scale; and Mastery experience (0.21), Vicarious
experience (0.39), Physiological and Psychological experience (0.35),
Total (0.39) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Fourth Dimension – Climate Factors:
The dimension Climate Factors possessed high and positive
relationship with the dimensions Inter-personal relations (0.66),
Working condition (0.64) and Personal (0.69) of Teacher Motivation
Scale.
Further, Climate Factors aspect possessed substantive and
positive relationship with the dimensions – Student Behaviour (0.59),

176
Total (0.54) of Teacher Motivation Scale; and Social experience (0.48)
of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Similarly, this dimension possessed slight and positive significant
relationship with the dimensions – Professional Development (0.38) of
Teacher Motivation Scale; and Mastery experience (0.27), Vicarious
experience (0.31), Physiological and Psychological experience (0.38),
Total (0.34) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Fifth Dimension – Inter-Personal Relations:
The Inter-personal Relations possessed high and positive
relationship with the dimensions – Student Bhaviour (0.74), Working
Condition (0.86), Personal (0.71), Total (0.63) of Teacher Motivation
Scale.

This dimension possessed substantive and positive relationship

with the dimensions – Professional Development (0.59) of Teacher
Motivation Scale; and Mastery experience (0.41), Physiological and
Psychological experience (0.45) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Similarly, the dimension Inter-personal relations possessed slight
and positive significant relationship with the dimensions – Vicarious
experience (0.23), Social experience (0.39), Total (0.37) of Teacher Self-
efficacy Scale.
Sixth Dimension – Student Behaviour:
Student Behaviour dimension possessed high significant
relationship with the dimension Working Condition (0.75) of Teacher
Motivation Scale.
Similarly, this dimension possessed substantive and positive
relationship with the dimensions – Professional Development (0.48),
Personal (0.51), Total (0.53) of Teacher Motivation Scales; and Social

177
experience (0.42) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Further, the dimension Student Behaviour possessed slight and
positive significant relationship with the dimensions – Mastery
experience (0.22), Vicarious experience (0.36), Physiological and
Psychological experience (0.38) and Total (0.31) of Teacher Self-efficacy
Scale.
Seventh Dimension – Working Condition:
The Dimension Working Condition possessed high significant
relationship with the dimension – Professional Development (0.67) of
Teacher Motivation Scale.
Further, the dimension possessed substantive and positive
relationship with the dimensions – Personal (0.49), Total (0.49) of
Teacher Motivation Scale; and Social experience (0.45) of Teacher Self-
efficacy Scale.
Similarly, this dimension possessed slight and positive significant
relationship with Mastery experience (0.26), Vicarious experience
(0.35), Physiological and Psychological experience (0.21), Total (0.36)
of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Eighth Dimension – Professional Development:
The Professional Development aspect possessed high and
positive relationship with the dimension Personal (0.63) of Teacher
Motivation Scale.
Further, this dimension possessed substantive and positive
significant relationship with the dimensions – Total (0.47) of Teacher
Motivation Scale; and Mastery experience (0.45), Social experience
(0.43), Total (0.42) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Similarly, the Professional Development aspect possessed slight
and positive relationship with the dimensions – Vicarious experience

178
(0.23), Physiological and Psychological experience (0.35) of Teacher
Self-efficacy Scale.
Ninth Dimension – Personal:
Personal Dimension possessed substantive and positive
relationship with the dimensions – Total (0.54) of Teacher Motivation
Scale; and Mastery experience (0.41) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Similarly, this dimension possessed slight and positive
relationship with the dimensions – Vicarious experience (0.35), Social
experience (0.31), Physiological and Psychological experience (0.29),
Total (0.37) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Tenth Dimension – Total:
The dimension of Total of Teacher Motivation Scale possessed
substantive and positive significant relationship with the dimensions –
Mastery experience (0.48), Total (0.49) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Further, this dimension possessed slight and positive relationship
with the dimensions – Vicarious experience (0.37), Social experience
(0.26) and Physiological and Psychological experience (0.35) of Teacher
Self-efficacy Scale.

Teacher Self-efficacy Inter and Intra

Relationship with other Dimensions:
First Dimension – Mastery Experience:
The dimension Mastery experience shows high and positive
significant relationship with the dimension of Physiological and
Psychological experience (0.89).
Further, the dimension possessed substantial and positive
significant relationship with the dimensions – Vicarious experience
(0.53), Social experience (0.41) and Total (0.42) of Teacher Self-efficacy

179
Scale.
Second Dimension – Vicarious Experience:
The dimension Vicarious experience disclosed high and positive
significant relationship with Total (0.63) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Similarly, this dimension possessed slight and positive significant
relationship with the dimensions – Social experience (0.38) and
Physiological and Psychological experience (0.34) of Teacher Self-
efficacy Scale.
Third Dimension – Social Experience:
The Social experience aspect disclosed high and positive
significant relationship with the dimension Physiological and
Psychological experience (0.71) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.
Similarly, this dimension possessed substantive and positive
significant relationship with the dimension Total (0.49) of Teacher Self-
efficacy Scale.
Fourth Dimension – Physiological & Psychological experience:
This dimension Physiological and Psychological experience
possessed substantive and positive significant relationship with the
dimension Total (0.53) of Teacher Self-efficacy Scale.

5.8: Verification of subsidiary

hypotheses and interpretation:

The first subsidiary hypothesis disclosed that the category Sex

(Male and Female) do not differ significantly in respect of their Teacher
Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy. This
hypothesis is spitted into three parts for convenience of verification of

180
each dimension presented as follows.
5.8.1: Verification of first subsidiary hypothesis and
Teacher Value Behaviour interpretation:
The first subsidiary hypothesis disclosed that the teachers
considered under different categories do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour, which were discussed
variable wise categorized for convenience of verification as follows –
(a) Sex category teachers do not differ significantly in respect
of their Teacher Value Behaviour.
(b) Locality category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Value Behaviur.
(c) Qualification category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour.
(d) Designation category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour.
(e) Teaching subject category teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour.
(f) Experience category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour.
(g) Marital Status category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour.
(h) Type of Institution category teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour.
(i) Status of Institution category teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour.
(j) Type of Management category teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour.
With reference to verification of hypothesis that Male and Female
Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Value Behaviour,

181
which is verified and presented in Table 5.60.
5.60: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Male and Female Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour
Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
Male Teachers 100.4 17.8 396
Significant at
1 5 2
0.05 level
Female Teachers 216 .18
103.8 19.0
2

The value of ‘t’ is significant and hence the hypothesis is

rejected.
Besides testing the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the
investigator is intended to observe the significance of difference
between various demographic variables in respect of dimensions of
Work Centered, Learner Centered, Professional Centered, Adjustment
Centered and Educational Centered aspects. Hence, this part discloses
the results immediately after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Male and Female teachers in respect of
dimension of Teacher Value Behaviour are tested and presented in
Table 5.62.
Verification of hypothesis ‘there is no significant difference
between Male and Female Teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Work
Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour as
presented in Table 5.61.
Table 5.61 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Male and Female
Teachers
In respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value

182
Behaviour
Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education
Centered Centered al nt al
Centered Centered Centered
Male
2.15* 2.05* 2.51* 1.49 1.67
Female

*Significant at 0.05 level.

The value of ‘t’ between Male and Female Teachers in respect of
dimension ‘Work Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is significant at
0.05 level. Further, the value of ‘t’ between Male and Female Teachers
in respect of dimension ‘Learner Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour
is significant at 0.05 level. Similarly, the value of ‘t’ between Male and
Female Teachers in respect of dimension ‘Professional Centered’ of
Teacher Value Behaviour is significant at 0.05 level. But no significant
difference is found between Male and Female Teachers in the aspects
of ‘Adjustment Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value
Behaviour.
Verification hypothesis ‘there is no significant difference between
Rural and Urban area Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour’, which
is designed and presented in Table 5.62.

Table 5.62 : Table showing the difference of means between Rural and

183
 Urban area Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Rural 101.5 18.6 411
Significant at
9 4 2
0.05 level
Urban 201 .44
97.85 17.5
2

The value of ‘t’ is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05

level.

Verification hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

between The values of ‘t’ between Rural and Urban area teachers in
respect of the dimensions – ‘Work Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’,
‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’ and ‘Educational
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour as presented in Table 5.63.
Table 5.63 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Rural and Urban
Teachers
in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour
Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education
Centered Centered al nt al
Centered Centered Centered
Rural
1.68 2.13* 1.79 1.92 1.81
Urban

*Significant at 0.05 level

The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Work Centered’ is not
significant. The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Learner Centered’
is significant at 0.05 level. The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions
‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment centered’ and ‘Educational

184
Centered’ are not significant at any level.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-Graduates and PG with M.Phil/Ph.D qualified Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.64.
Table 5.64 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and
PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour
Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significan
ce
Post- 100.46 16.98 234
Not
graduate 0.79
Significant
98.31 17.14 48 at any
level
PG with
M.Phil/
Ph.D.

The value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the

hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate and PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.65.
Table 5.65 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and
PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified Teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Post-
graduate 1.71 1.24 1.08 1.11 1.84

PG with
M.Phil/ Ph.D.

185
 The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions ‘Work Centered’,
‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’ and
‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not significant.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-Graduates and PG with B.Ed., qualified Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.66.

Table 5.66 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and
PG with B.Ed., qualified Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour
Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significan
ce
Post-graduate 100.46 16.98 234
Not
1.81
Significant
PG with B.Ed. 103.29 18.11 269 at any
level

The value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the

hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate and PG with B.Ed., qualified teachers in respect
of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table
5.67.
Table 5.67 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and
PG with B.Ed., qualified Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Post-

186
 graduate 1.54 2.04* 1.66 1.23 1.40

PG with B.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Work Centered’ of

Teacher Value Behaviour is not significant at any level. Hence, the null
hypothesis is accepted. The ‘t’ value in respect of dimension ‘Learner
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is significant at 0.05 level.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected. The ‘t’ value in respect of remaining
dimensions ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’ and
‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not significant at
any level. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.

Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

between Post-Graduates and PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.68.
Table 5.68 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and
PG
with M.Ed., qualified Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significan
ce
Post-graduate 100.46 16.98 234
Not
0.56
Significant
PG with M.Ed. 101.86 17.45 61 at any
level

The value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the

hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate and PG with M.Ed., qualified teachers in respect

187
of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table
5.69.
Table 5.69: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and
PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Post-
graduate 1.45 1.49 1.28 1.58 1.91

PG with
M.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions ‘Work Centered’,

‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’ and
‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not significant at
any level. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG with B.Ed., qualified Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.70.
Table 5.70: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.,
and PG with B.Ed., qualified Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significan
ce
PG with M.Phil/Ph.D. 98.31 17.14 48
Not
1.84
Significant
PG with B.Ed. 103.29 18.11 269 at any
level

The value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the

188
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG with B.Ed., qualified teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.71.
Table 5.71 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.
and PG with B.Ed., qualified Teachers in respect of
various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.
1.19 1.94 1.13 1.02 1.58
PG with B.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions ‘Work Centered’,

‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’ and
‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not significant at
any level. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.72.
Table 5.72 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.,
and PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significan
ce
PG with M.Phil/Ph.D. 98.31 17.14 48
Not
1.06

189
PG with M.Ed. 101.86 17.45 61 Significant
at any
level

The value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the

hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG with M.Ed., qualified teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.73.
Table 5.73 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between PG with M.Phil/Phd.
and PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers in respect of
various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.
1.22 1.43 1.26 1.54 1.83
PG with
M.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions ‘Work Centered’,

‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’ and
‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not significant at
any level. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between PG with B.Ed., and PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.74.
Table 5.74: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between PG with B.Ed., and
and PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

190
 Significan
ce
PG with B.Ed. 103.29 18.11 269
Not
0.57
Significant
PG with M.Ed. 101.86 17.45 61 at any
level

The value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the

hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between PG with B.Ed., and PG with M.Ed., qualified teachers in respect
of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table
5.75.
Table 5.75: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between PG with B.Ed., and
PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers in respect of
various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
PG with B.Ed.

1.42 2.03 1.94 1.58 1.17

PG with
M.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Work Centered’ of

Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the null
hypothesis is accepted. Further, the ‘t’ in respect of the dimension
‘Learner Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. The ‘t’ value in respect of
the dimensions ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’ and
‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not significant at
any level. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.

191
 Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Lecturers and Principals’ in their Teacher Value Behaviour’ is
verified and presented in Table 5.76.
Table 5.76: Table showing the value of ‘t’ between Lecturers and
Principals
in their Teacher Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Lecturers 98.11 17.05 552
Significant at
2.0
0.05 level
Principals 103.14 18.64 60

The value of ‘t’ is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05

level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.

Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

between Lecturers and Principals in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table 5.77.
Table 5.77: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Lecturers and
Principals
in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Lecturers
1.68 1.74 2.68 1.09 1.42

Principals

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work Centered’ and

‘Learner Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Whereas the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Professional

192
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour of the above category Teachers
is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels
respectively. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Similarly, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Teaching Sciences and Teaching Humanities Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.78.
Table 5.78: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Teaching
Sciences and Teaching humanities Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Teaching Sciences 96.87 17.42 316
Significant at
4.05
0.01 level
Teaching 103.84 17.63 153
Humanities

The value of ‘t’ is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is significant at
0.05 and 0.01 levels. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Teaching Sciences and Teaching Humanities teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.79.

193
Table 5.79: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Teaching Sciences
and
Teaching Humanities Teachers in respect of various
dimensions
of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Teaching
Sciences
1.59 1.86 1.37 1.34 1.48
Teaching
Humanities

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Work Centered’,

‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’ and
‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated
at any level. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Teaching Sciences and Teaching Language Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.80.
Table 5.80: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Teaching
Sciences and Teaching Languages Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Teaching Sciences 96.87 17.42 316
Significant at
2.56
0.05 level
Teaching 101.57 18.51 143
Languages

The obtained value of ‘t’ is more than 1.96, which is significant at

0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.

194
 Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Teaching Sciences and Teaching Language teachers in respect
of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table
5.81.
Table 5.81: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Teaching Sciences
and
Teaching Language Teachers in respect of various
dimensions
of Teacher Value Behaviour
Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education
Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Teaching
Sciences
1.99 1.16 1.42 1.61 1.54
Teaching
Languages

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Work Centered’

of Teacher Value Behaviour is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the null
hypothesis is rejected. Further, the value of ‘t’ in respect of the
dimensions ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not
corroborated. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Teaching Humanities and Teaching Language Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.82.
Table 5.82: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Teaching
Humanities and Teaching Languages Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Teaching 103.84 17.63 153
Not Significant
Humanities 1.08
at any level

195
 101.57 18.51 143
Teaching
Languages

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence,

the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Teaching Humanities and Teaching Language teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.83.
Table 5.83 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Teaching
Humanities and
Teaching Language Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour
Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education
Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Teaching
Humanities
1.06 1.14 1.59 1.34 1.45
Teaching
Languages

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’ ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 10 to 15 years of Experience Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.84.
Table 5.84: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years
and 10 to 15 years experience Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour

196
 Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
Below 10 years 95.41 17.02 111
Experience Not Significant
1.38
at any level
10 to 15 years 98.57 16.87 109
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence,

the hypothesis is accepted.

Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

between below 10 years and 10 to 15 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.85.
Table 5.85: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and
10 to 15 years Experience Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Below 10
years
Experience 1.62 1.19 1.04 0.93 1.13

10 to 15
years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’ ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not
corroborated. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 15 to 20 years of Experience Teachers in

197
their Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.86.
Table 5.86: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and
15 to 20
years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 95.41 17.02 111
Experience Not Significant
1.32
at any level
15 to 20 years 98.41 18.06 126
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is insignificant. Hence, the hypothesis is

accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 15 to 20 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.87.
Table 5.87: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and
15 to 20 years Experience Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Below 10
years
Experience 2.38 1.94 2.02 1.92 1.87

15 to 20
years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Work

198
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is significant at 0.05 level.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further, obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Learner
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the
null hypothesis is accepted.
Similarly, the obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension
‘Professional Centered’ of Teacher Value behaviour is more than 1.96,
which is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas the obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions
‘Adjustment Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value
Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.

Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

between below 10 years and 20 to 25 years of Experience Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.88.
Table 5.88: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and
20 to 25
years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 95.41 17.02 111
Experience Significant at
2.87
0.01 level
20 to 25 years 102.49 18.45 98
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is
significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the hypothesis

199
is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 20 to 25 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.89.
Table 5.89: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and
20 to 25 years Experience Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Below 10
years
Experience 1.14 1.68 1.03 1.54 2.49

20 to 25
years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’ and ‘Adjustment
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Further, obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Educational
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 25 to 30 years Experience Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.90.
Table 5.90: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and
25 to 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

200
 Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
Below 10 years 95.41 17.02 111
Experience Not Significant
1.47
at any level
25 to 30 years 99.64 18.19 59
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 25 to 30 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.91.
Table 5.91: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and
25 to 30 years Experience Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour
Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education
Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Below 10
years
Experience 1.28 0.99 0.58 0.63 1.08

25 to 30
years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’ and ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and above 30 years Experience Teachers in

201
their Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.92.
Table 5.92:Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and
above
30 years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 95.41 17.02 111
Experience Significant at
3.84
0.01 level
Above 30 years 104.56 18.37 109
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is significant at 0.01 level. Hence, the

hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and above 30 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.93.
Table 5.93 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years
and above 30 years Experience Teachers in respect
of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour
Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education
Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Below 10
years
Experience 1.54 1.89 1.16 1.43 1.37

Above 30
years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’ and ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not

202
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 - 15 years and 15 - 20 years Experience Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.94.
Table 5.94: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 - 15years and
15 - 20
years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
10 - 15 years 98.57 16.87 109
Experience Not Significant
0.07
at any level
15 - 20 years 98.41 18.06 126
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 - 15 years and 15 - 20 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.95.
Table 5.95: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 - 15 years
and 15 - 20years Experience Teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
10 - 15
years
Experience 1.63 1.44 1.01 1.58 1.78

15 - 20 years
Experience

203
 The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work
Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’ and ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 - 15 years and 20 - 25 years Experience Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.96.
Table 5.96: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 - 15years and
20 - 25
years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
10 - 15 years 98.57 16.87 109
Experience Not Significant
1.59
at any level
20 - 25 years 102.49 18.45 98
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 - 15 years and 20 - 25 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.97.
Table 5.97: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 - 15
years and 20 – 25 years Experience Teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
10 - 15
years
Experience 1.74 1.53 1.11 1.27 1.95

204
20 - 25 years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’ and ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 - 15 years and 25 - 30 years Experience Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.98.
Table 5.98: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 - 15years and
25 - 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
10 - 15 years 98.57 16.87 109
Experience Not Significant
0.02
at any level
25 - 30 years 99.64 18.19 59
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 - 15 years and 25 - 30 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.99.
Table 5.99: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 - 15
years and 25 – 30 years Experience Teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al

205
 d d Centered Centered Centered
10 - 15
years
Experience 1.38 1.32 1.14 1.05 1.93

25 - 30 years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’ and ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 - 15 years and above 30 years Experience Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.100.
Table 5.100: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 - 15years and
above
30 years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
10 - 15 years 98.57 16.87 109
Experience Significant at
2.51
0.05 level
Above 30 years 104.56 18.37 109
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the

hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 - 15 years and above 30 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.101.
Table 5.101: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 - 15
years and above 30 years Experience Teachers in

206
 respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
10 - 15
years
Experience 0.91 0.78 0.62 0.92 1.91

above 30
years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’ and ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 15 - 20 years and 20 - 25 years Experience Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.102
Table 5.102: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 – 20 years and
20 - 25
years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
15 – 20 years 98.41 18.06 126
Experience Not Significant
1.66
at any level
20 - 25 years 102.49 18.45 98
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 15 - 20 years and 20 - 25 years Experience teachers in

207
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.103.
Table 5.103: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 15 - 20
years
and 20 - 25 years Experience Teachers in respect of
various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
15 - 20
years
Experience 0.23 1.94 1.58 2.61 1.56

20 - 25 years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’ of Teacher Value
Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Adjustment Centered’ is
significant at 0.01 level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Similarly, the dimension ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value
Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 15 - 20 years and 25 - 30 years Experience Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.104.
Table 5.104: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 – 20 years and
25 - 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
15 - 20 years 98.41 18.06 126

208
 Experience 0.43 Not Significant
at any level
99.64 18.19 59
25 - 30 years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 15 - 20 years and 25 - 30 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.105.

Table 5.105: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 15 - 20

years
and 25 - 30 years Experience Teachers in respect of
various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
15 - 20
years
Experience 1.95 1.83 1.09 2.51 1.87

25 - 30 years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’ of Teacher Value

209
Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Adjustment Centered’ is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Similarly, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Educational
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 15 - 20 years and above 30 years Experience Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.106.
Table 5.106:Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 – 20 years and
above 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
15 - 20 years 98.41 18.06 126
Experience Significant at
2.58
0.01 level
Above 30 years 104.56 18.37 109
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is significant at 0.01 level. Hence, the

hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 15 - 20 years and above 30 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.107.
Table 5.107: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 15 - 20
years
and above 30 years Experience Teachers in respect of
various

210
 dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
15 - 20
years
Experience 1.84 1.57 1.18 2.29 1.74

Above 30
years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’ of Teacher Value
Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
The value value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Adjustment
Centered’ is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the null hypothesis is
rejected.
Similarly, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Educational
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 20 - 25 years and 25 - 30 years Experience Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.108.

Table 5.108:Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 – 25 years and

25 - 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

211
 Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
20 - 25 years 102.49 18.45 98
Experience Not Significant
0.94
at any level
25 - 30 years 99.64 18.19 59
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 20 - 25 years and 25 - 30 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.109.
Table 5.109: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 20 - 25
years
and 25 - 30 years Experience Teachers in respect of
various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
20 - 25
years
Experience 1.58 1.68 1.16 1.96 1.58

25 - 30 years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’ of Teacher Value
Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of other dimension ‘Adjustment
Centered’ is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the null hypothesis is
rejected.

212
 Similarly, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Educational
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 20 - 25 years and above 30 years Experience Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.110.
Table 5.110:Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 – 25 years and
above 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
20 - 25 years 102.49 18.45 98
Experience Not Significant
0.8
at any level
Above 30 years 104.56 18.37 109
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 20 - 25 years and above 30 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.111.
Table 5.111: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 20 - 25
years
and above 30 years Experience Teachers in respect of
various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
20 - 25
years

213
 Experience 1.98 1.97 0.78 0.63 1.43

Above 30
years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’ of Teacher Value behaviour is significant at 0.05 level.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Similarly, the value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Learner
Centered’, of Teacher Value behaviour is significant at 0.05 level.
Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions
‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’, ‘Educational Centered’
of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the null
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 25 - 30 years and above 30 years Experience Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.112.
Table 5.112:Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 25 – 30 years and
above 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
25 - 30 years 99.64 18.19 59
Experience Not Significant
1.67
at any level
Above 30 years 104.56 18.37 109
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not significant at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

214
between 25 - 30 years and above 30 years Experience teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.113.

Table 5.113: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 25 - 30

years
and above 30 years Experience Teachers in respect of
various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
25 - 30
years
Experience 0.54 0.68 0.74 0.85 1.44

Above 30
years
Experience

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment
Centered’, ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value behaviour is not
significant at any level. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Married and Unmarried Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.114.

215
Table 5.114 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Married and
Unmarried Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Married 103.54 17.73 540
Significant at
2.26
0.05 level
Unmarried 98.29 18.61 72

The obtained value of ‘t’ is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the

hypothesis is rejected.

Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

between Married and Unmarried teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table 5.115.
Table 5.115: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below Married
and
Unmarried Teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Married

0.78 0.98 0.59 1.89 1.99

Unmarried

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, and
‘Adjustment Centered’ of Teacher Value behaviour is not significant at
any level. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.

216
 Verification of ‘t’ value in the case of dimension ‘Educational
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is significant at 0.05 level.
Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Non-residential Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.116.

Table 5.116: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential and
Non-Residential Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Residential 98.66 18.43 96
Significant at
2.4
0.05 level
Non-Residential 103.54 17.74 516

The obtained value of ‘t’ is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the

hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Non-Residential teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table 5.117.
Table 5.117: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below Residential
and
Non-Residential Teachers in respect of various dimensions
of
Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

217
 Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Residential

2.54 1.98 1.94 1.96 2.06

Non-
Residential

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is significant at 0.05 level.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
The ‘t’ value of other dimension ‘Learner Centered’ of Teacher
Value Behaviour is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the null hypothesis
is rejected.
The ‘t’ value in respect of dimension ‘Professional Centered’ of
Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
The ‘t’ value in respect of dimension ‘Adjustment Centered’ of
Teacher Value Behaviour is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of ‘t’ value in the case of dimension ‘Educational
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is significant at 0.05 level.
Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Co-educational and Exclusively for Women Institution
Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in
Table 5.118.
Table 5.118: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-educational
and
Exclusively for Women Institution Teachers in their
Teacher
Value Behaviour

218
 Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
Co-Educational 104.56 18.65 504
Institutions
Significant at
2.75
0.01 level
Exclusively for
98.25 17.36 66
Women Institutions

The obtained value of ‘t’ is significant at 0.01 level. Hence, the

hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Co-educational and Exclusively for Women Institution
teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’
is presented in Table 5.119.

Table 5.119: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-educational

and
Exclusively for Women Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Co-
educational
Institutions
1.68 1.28 1.04 2.14 1.98

Exclusively

219
 for Women
Institutions

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’ and ‘Professional Centered’ of Teacher
Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
The ‘t’ value in respect of dimension ‘Adjustment Centered’ of
Teacher Value Behaviour is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
The ‘t’ value in respect of dimension ‘Educational Centered’ of
Teacher Value behaviour is not significant at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Co-educational and Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.120.

Table 5.120: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-educational

and
Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Co-Educational 104.56 18.65 504
Institutions
Not Significant

220
 0.65 at any level
Exclusively for Men
102.59 18.92 42
Institutions

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not corroborated. Hence, the

hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Co-educational and Exclusively for Men Institution teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.121.
Table 5.121: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-educational
and
Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Co-
educational
Institutions
1.88 1.41 1.83 1.54 0.87

Exclusively
for Men
Institutions

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Exclusively for Women and Exclusively for Men Institution
Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in
Table 5.122.

221
Table 5.122: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Exclusively for
Women
and Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers in their
Teacher
Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Exclusively for 98.25 17.36 66
Women Institutions
Not Significant
1.2
at any level
Exclusively for
102.59 18.92 42
Women Institutions

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not corroborated. Hence, the

hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Exclusively for Women and Exclusively for Men Institution
teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’
is presented in Table 5.123.
Table 5.123: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Exclusively for
Women and
Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Exclusively
for Women
Institutions
1.97 2.13 0.94 2.11 1.98

Exclusively
for Men
Institutions

222
 The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Work
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is significant at 0.05 level.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Learner
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.
The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Professional
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Adjustment
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Educational
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Aided Institution Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.124.
Table 5.124: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential and
Aided Institution Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour
Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
Residential 98.66 18.43 96
Institutions
Not Significant
0.98
at any level
95.96 18.74 89
Aided Institutions

223
 The obtained value of ‘t’ is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Aided Institution teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table
5.125.
Table 5.125: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential and
Aided
and Aided Teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Residential
Institutions

1.94 1.48 1.52 1.49 1.61

Aided
Institutions

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Government Institution Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.126.

224
Table 5.126: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential
and Government Institution Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Residential Institutions 98.66 18.43 96

Not Significant
1.77
at any level
Government Institutions 102.5 17.74 219
6

The obtained value of ‘t’ is not corroborated. Hence, the

hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Government Institution teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table
5.127.
Table 5.127: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential and
Government Teachers in respect of various dimensions
of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Residential
Institutions

1.93 1.53 1.68 2.13 1.73

Government
Institutions

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

225
Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, aspects of
Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of ‘Adjustment Centered’
aspect of Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas the obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions
‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Private Unaided Institution Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.128.
Table 5.128: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential and
Private Unaided Government Institution Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Residential Institutions 98.66 18.43 96

Significant at
2.25
0.05 level
Private Unaided 103.2 17.26 208
Institutions
1

The obtained value of ‘t’ is more than 1.96, which is significant at

0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Private Unaided Institution teachers in respect
of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table
5.129.

226
 Table 5.129: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential and
Government Teachers in respect of various dimensions
of Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Residential
Institutions

1.54 1.17 0.77 1.97 1.92

Private
Unaided
Institutions

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Work Centered’

of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis
is accepted.
The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Learner
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Professional
Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension of ‘Adjustment
Centered’ of Teacher Value behaviour is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Educational

227
Centered’ is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Aided and Government Institution teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table
5.130.

Table 5.130: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided

and Government Institution Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Aided Institutions 95.96 18.74 89

Significant at
2.85
0.01 level
Government Institutions 102.5 17.74 219
6

The obtained value of ‘t’ is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is
significant 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the hypothesis is
rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Aided and Government Institution teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table
5.131.
Table 5.131: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided and
Government Teachers in respect of various dimensions
of Teacher Value Behaviour

228
 Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education
Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Aided
Institutions

2.81 1.97 1.71 2.34 2.38

Government
Institutions

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Work

Centered’ aspect of Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96 and
2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01levels respectively. Hence,
the null hypothesis is rejected.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Learner Centered’ of
Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Professional
Centered’ aspect of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas, the obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension
‘Adjustment Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96
but less than 2.58, which is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
Similarly that the obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension
‘Educational Centered’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96,
which is significant 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Aided and Private Unaided Institution Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.132.
Table 5.132: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided and

229
 Private
Unaided Institution Teachers in their Teacher Value
Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Aided Institutions 95.96 18.74 89

Significant at
3.13
0.01 level
Private Unaided 103.2 17.26 208
Institutions
1

The obtained value of ‘t’ is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is
significant 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the hypothesis is
rejected.

Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

between Aided and Private Unaided Institution teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented in Table
5.133.
Table 5.133: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided and
Private
Unaided Teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Aided
Institutions

1.61 1.99 1.54 2.34 2.29

Private

230
 Unaided
Institutions

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Work

Centered’ aspect of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Learner Centered’ of
Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Professional
Centered’ aspect of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Whereas, the obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension –
‘Educational Centered’ is more than 1.96 but less than 2.58, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.

Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

between Government and Private Unaided Institution Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour’ is verified and presented in Table 5.134.
Table 5.134:Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Government and
Private Unaided Institution Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Government Institutions 102.5 17.74 219
6
0.38 Not Significant
at any level
Private Unaided 17.26 208
Institutions
103.2

231
 1

The obtained value of ‘t’ is no corroborated. Hence, the

hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Government and Private Unaided Institution teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour’ is presented
in Table 5.135.
Table 5.135: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Government and
Private
Unaided Teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour

Category Work Learner Profession Adjustme Education

Centere Centere al nt al
d d Centered Centered Centered
Government
Institutions

2.81 2.24 2.54 1.99 2.41

Private
Unaided
Institutions

The obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Work

Centered’ aspect of Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96 and
2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence,
the hypothesis is rejected.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Learner Centered’ of
Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Professional

232
Centered’ aspect of Teacher Value Behaviour is more than 1.96, which
is significant at level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas, the obtained value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension –
‘Educational Centered’ is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
5.8.2: Verification of first subsidiary hypothesis
and Teacher Motivation interpretation:
The first subsidiary hypothesis disclosed that the teachers do not
differ significantly in respect of their Teacher Motivation, which were
discussed variable wise presented for convenience of verification as
follows –
(a) Sex category teachers do not differ significantly in respect
of their Teacher Motivation.
(b) Locality category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Motivation.
(c) Qualification category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Motivation.
(d) Designation category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Motivation.
(e) Teaching subject category teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their Teacher Motivation.
(f) Experience category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Motivation.
(g) Marital Status category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Motivation.
(h) Type of Institution category teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their Teacher Motivation.
(i) Status of Institution category teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their Teacher Motivation.

233
 (j) Type of Management category teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their Teacher Motivation.
With reference to verification of hypothesis that Male and Female
Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Motivation, which is
verified and presented in Table 5.136.
5.136: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Male and Female Teachers in their Teacher Motivation
Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
Male Teachers 107.1 21.8 396
Significant at
5 8 2
0.05 level
Female Teachers 216 .25
102.6 24.3
9 6

The value of ‘t’ is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05

level and hence the hypothesis is rejected.
Besides testing the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the
investigator is intended to observe the significance of difference
between various demographic variables in respect of dimensions of
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’
aspects. Hence, this part discloses the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Male and Female teachers in respect of
dimensions of Teacher Motivation are tested and presented in Table
5.137.
Verification of hypothesis ‘there is no significant difference

234
between Male and Female Teachers in respect of the dimensions
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects
of Teacher Motivation as presented.
Table 5.137 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Male and Female
Teachers
in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Motivation
Catego CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
ry
Male
1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
Female .78 .96 .94 .68 .12 .99 .86 .72 .47

The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Classroom Teaching’ of

Teacher Motivation is not corroborated at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions School Administration of
Teacher Motivation is stands at 1.96, which is significant 0.05 level.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Professional Pleasure’ of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Climate Factors’ of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Inter-personal relations’
of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.

235
 The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Student Behaviour’ of
Teacher Motivation is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05 level.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Working condition’ of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Professional
Development’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not corroborated. Hence,
the hypothesis is accepted.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Further, verification of hypothesis that Rural and Urban area
Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Motivation, which is
verified and presented in Table 5.138.
5.138: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Rural and Urban area Teachers in their Teacher Motivation
Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
Rural Teachers 103.2 22.6 411
Significant at
4 3 1
0.05 level
Urban Teachers 201 .98
99.61 20.7
1

The value of ‘t’ is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05

level and hence the hypothesis is rejected.
Besides testing the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the
investigator is intended to observe the significance of difference
between various demographic variables in respect of dimensions of

236
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects
of Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part discloses the results
immediately after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Rural and Urban area teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Motivation are tested and
presented in Table 5.139.
Verification of hypothesis ‘there is no significant difference
between Rural and Urban area Teachers in respect of the dimensions
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects
of Teacher Motivation as presented in the following Table.
Table 5.139: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Rural and Urban
area
Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation
Catego CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
ry
Rural
1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
Urban .27 .64 .03 .98 .59 .38 .61 .16 .32

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated at any level. Hence, the

237
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Post-graduate and Post-graduate
with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified Teachers do not differ significantly in their
Teacher Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.140.

5.140: Table showing significance of difference of Means between

Post-graduate and Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified
Teachers in their Teacher Motivation
Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
Post-graduate 98.76 23.6 234
Not Significant
2 0
at any level
Post-graduate with 100.5 48 .56
M.Phil/Ph.D.
4 21.8
6

The value of ‘t’ is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is

accepted.
Besides testing the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the
investigator is intended to observe the significance of difference
between various demographic variables in respect of dimensions of
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects
of Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately

238
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and Post-graduate with
M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.141.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate and Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified
Teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as presented in the following Table.
Table 5.141 : Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate
and
Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified Teachers in
respect
of various dimensions of Teacher Motivation
Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Post-graduate
1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
Post-graduate
.27 .64 .03 .98 .59 .38 .61 .16 .32
with
M.Phil/Ph.D

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
It is interested to state that the value of ‘t’ in respect of
dimension ‘Climate Factors’ of Teacher Motivation is more than 1.96,
which is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further, it is observed that the ‘t’ value in respect of the
dimensions ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of

239
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Post-graduate and Post-graduate
with B.Ed., qualified Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.142.
5.142: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Post-graduate and Post-graduate with B.Ed., qualified
Teachers in their Teacher Motivation
Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
Post-graduate 98.76 23.6 234
Significant at
2 3
0.01level
Post-graduate with 105.3 269 .13
B.Ed.
8 23.7
8

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation is more than 1.96 and 2.58,
which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
Besides testing the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the
investigator is interested to observe the significance of difference
between various demographic variables in respect of dimensions of
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects
of Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and Post-graduate with
B.Ed., qualified teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.143.

240
 Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate and Post-graduate with B.Ed., qualified
Teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as presented in the following Table.
Table 5.143: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and
Post-graduate with B.Ed., qualified Teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Motivation
Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Post-graduate
1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
Post-graduate
.54 .61 .28 .98 .53 .42 .81 .92 .16
with B.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
It is interested to state that the value of ‘t’ in respect of
dimension ‘Climate Factors’ of Teacher Motivation is more than 1.96,
which is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further, it is observed that the ‘t’ value in respect of the
dimensions ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated at any level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Post-graduate and Post-graduate
with M.Ed., qualified Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.144.

241
 5.144: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Post-graduate and Post-graduate with M.Ed., qualified
Teachers in their Teacher Motivation
Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
Post-graduate 98.76 23.6 234
Not Significant
2 1
at any level
Post-graduate with 103.4 61 .43
M.Ed.
7 22.7
8

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence,

the hypothesis is accepted.
Besides testing the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the
investigator is intended to observe the significance of difference
between various demographic variables in respect of dimensions of
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects
of Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part envisaged the results
immediately after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and Post-graduate with
M.Ed., qualified teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.145.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate and Post-graduate with B.Ed., qualified
Teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher

242
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.145: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and
Post-graduate with M.Ed., qualified Teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Motivation
Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Post-graduate
0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Post-graduate
.19 .53 .33 .61 .82 .38 .93 .15 .11
with M.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Post-graduate and Post-graduate
with M.Ed., qualified Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.146.

5.146: Table showing significance of difference of Means between

Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-graduate with
B.Ed., qualified Teachers in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Post-graduate M.Phil/ 100.5 21.8 48
Not Significant
Ph.D. 4 6 0.04
at any level
269 6
Post-graduate with B.Ed. 105.3 23.7
8 8

243
 The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence,
the hypothesis is accepted.
Besides testing the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the
investigator is intended to observe the significance of difference
between various demographic variables in respect of dimensions of
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects
of Teacher Motivation among Post-graduate with M.Phil/ Ph.D., and
Post-graduate with B.Ed., qualified Teachers. Hence, this part disclosed
the results immediately after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and
Post-graduate with B.Ed., qualified teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation are tested and presented in Table
5.147.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-graduate with B.Ed.,
qualified Teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’,
‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’,
‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.147: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate
with
M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-graduate with B.Ed., qualified
Teachers
in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Post-graduate with

244
 M.Phil/Ph.D. 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
.98 .63 .59 .63 .79 .99 .62 .71 .29
Post-graduate
With B.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’ of Teacher Motivation is more than 1.96, which is significant
at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas in respect of the remaining dimensions ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
personal relations’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence,
the null hypothesis is accepted.
Further, it is interested to note that the dimension ‘Student
Behaviour’ of Teacher Motivation is more than 1.96, which is significant
at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Similarly, in respect of remaining dimensions ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher Motivation is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D.,
and Post-graduate with M.Ed., qualified Teachers do not differ
significantly in their Teacher Motivation, which is verified and
presented in Table 5.148.

5.148: Table showing significance of difference of Means between

Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-graduate with
M.Ed., qualified Teachers in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

245
 Significance
Post-graduate with 100.5 21.8 48
M.Phil/Ph.D. Not Significant
4 6 0
at any level
61 .68
Post-graduate with
M.Ed. 103.4 22.7
7 8

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence,

the hypothesis is accepted.
Besides testing the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the
investigator is intended to observe the significance of difference
between various demographic variables in respect of dimensions of
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects
of Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part envisaged the results
immediately after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and
Post-graduate with M.Ed., qualified teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation are tested and presented in Table
5.149.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate M.Phil/Ph.D. and Post-graduate with M.Ed.,
qualified Teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’,
‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’,
‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.

246
Table 5.149: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate
with
M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-graduate with M.Ed., qualified
teachers
in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Post-graduate
with
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M.Phil/Ph.D
.64 .83 .28 .72 .54 .31 .48 .91 .85
Post-graduate
with M.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Post-graduate with B.Ed., and Post-
graduate with M.Ed., qualified Teachers do not differ significantly in
their Teacher Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table
5.150.
5.150: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Post-graduate with B.Ed., and Post-graduate with M.Ed.,
qualified Teachers in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Post-graduate with 105.3 23.7 269
B.Ed. Not Significant
8 8 0
at any level
48 .58
Post-graduate with
103.4 22.7
M.Ed.
7 8

247
 The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence,
the hypothesis is accepted.
Besides testing the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the
investigator is intended to observe the significance of difference
between various demographic variables in respect of dimensions of
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects
of Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part envisaged the results
immediately after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and
Post-graduate with M.Ed., qualified teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation are tested and presented in Table
5.151.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate with B.Ed., and Post-graduate with M.Ed.,
qualified Teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’,
‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’,
‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.151: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and
Post-graduate with M.Ed., qualified Teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Motivation

248
 Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Post-graduate
with B.Ed.,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Post-graduate .78 .54 .93 .35 .67 .73 .38 .43 .89
with M.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Lecturers and Principals do not
differ significantly in their Teacher Motivation, which is verified and
presented in Table 5.152.
5.152: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Lecturers and Principals in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Lecturers 99.98 21.4 552
Not Significant
5 1
at any level
Principals 104.8 60 .58
5 22.8
6

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence,

the hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working

249
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Lecturers and Principals in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Motivation are tested and presented in
Table 5.153.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Lecturers and Principals in respect of the dimensions
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects
of Teacher Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.153: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Lecturers and
Principals of various dimensions of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Lecturers
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Principals .34 .67 .72 .47 .57 .63 .42 .17 .26

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Teaching Sciences and Teaching
Humanities Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.154.
5.154: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Teaching Sciences and Teaching Humanities teachers

250
 in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Teaching Sciences 100.3 21.8 316
Significant at
4 2 2
0.05 level
Teaching Humanities 153 .07
104.5 20.2
7 9

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05 level.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Teaching Sciences and Teaching
Humanities teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.155.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Teaching Sciences and Teaching Humanities in respect of the
dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional

251
Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student
Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and
‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher Motivation as shown in the following
Table.

Table 5.155: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Teaching Sciences
and
Teaching Humanities Teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Teaching
Sciences
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Teaching .54 .32 .42 .56 .68 .27 .89 .74 .98
Humanities

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, and ‘Professional Development’ of Teacher Motivation is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Personal’ of Teacher
value behaviour is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05 level.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.

252
 Verification of hypothesis that Teaching Sciences and Teaching
Languages Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.156.

5.156: Table showing significance of difference of Means between

Teaching Sciences and Teaching Languages teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Teaching Sciences 100.3 21.8 316
Not Significant
4 2 0
at any level
Teaching Languages 143 .82
98.51 22.3
5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working

253
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Teaching Sciences and Teaching
Languages teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.157.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Teaching Sciences and Teaching Languages in respect of the
dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional
Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student
Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and
‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher Motivation as shown in the following
Table.

Table 5.157: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Teaching Sciences
and
Teaching Languages Teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Teaching
Sciences
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Teaching .37 .99 .71 .45 .61 .29 .68 .37 .91
Languages

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.

254
 Verification of hypothesis that Teaching Humanities and Teaching
Languages Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.158.
5.158: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Teaching Humanities and Teaching Languages teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Teaching Humanities 104.5 20.2 153
Significant at
7 9 2
0.05 level
Teaching Languages 143 .44
98.51 22.3
5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05 level.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Teaching Humanities and Teaching
Languages teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher

255
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.159.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Teaching Humanities and Teaching Languages in respect of
the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’,
‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’,
‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’
and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher Motivation as shown in the following
Table.

Table 5.159: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Teaching

Humanities
and Teaching Languages Teachers of various dimensions
of
Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Teaching
Humanities
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Teaching .11 .52 .19 .06 .91 .54 .69 .41 .84
Languages

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working

256
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 years and 10 to 15 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.160.
5.160: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
below 10 years and 10 to 15 years experience teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 101.6 21.7 111
Experience Not Significant
3 6 0
at any level
109 .74
10 to 15 years
99.35 23.5
Experience
1

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.

257
 The values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and 10 to 15 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.161.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 10 to 15 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.161: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years
and
10 to 15 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Below 10
years
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
experience
.18 .52 .86 .72 .21 .53 .59 .27 .69
10 to 15 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 years and 15 to 20 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.162.

258
 5.162: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
below 10 years and 15 to 20 years experience teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 101.6 21.7 111
Experience Not Significant
3 6 0
at any level
126 .25
15 to 20 years
100.8 22.6
Experience
9 7

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and 15 to 20 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.163.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 15 to 20 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,

259
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.163: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years
and
15 – 20 years experience Teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Below 10
years
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
experience
.54 .52 .73 .26 .96 .37 .59 .61 .88
15 to 20 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’ and ‘Climate
Factors’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Further, it is observed that the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension
‘Inter-personal relations’ of Teacher Motivation is stands at 1.96, which
is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas the value of ‘t’ in respect of remaining dimensions
‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’
and ‘Personal’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 years and 20 to 25 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.164.

5.164: Table showing significance of difference of Means between

below 10 years and 20 to 25 years experience teachers

260
 in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 101.6 21.7 111
Experience Not Significant
3 6 1
at any level
98 .03
20 to 25 years
104.8 22.6
Experience
2 4

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and 20 to 25 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.165.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 20 to 25 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher

261
Motivation as shown in the following Table.

Table 5.165: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years
and
20 – 25 years experience Teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Below 10
years
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
experience
.96 .78 .29 .47 .36 .66 .45 .52 .49
20 to 25 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 years and 25 to 30 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.166.
5.166: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
below 10 years and 25 to 30 years experience teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 101.6 21.7 111
Experience Not Significant
3 6 0.2
at any level
59
25 to 30 years
102.3 23.6
Experience
7 1

262
 The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above
category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.

Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is

intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and 25 to 30 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.167.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 25 to 30 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.167: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years
and
25 – 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Below 10

263
 years 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
experience
.85 .56 .42 .87 .28 .34 .52 .43 .69
25 to 30 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 years and above 30 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.168.
5.168: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
below 10 years and above 30 years experience teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 101.6 21.7 111
Experience Not Significant
3 6 0
at any level
109 .22
Above 30 years
100.9 20.4
Experience
8 5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom

264
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and above 30 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.169.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and above 30 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.169: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years
and
above 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of
Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Below 10
years
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
experience
.52 .97 .67 .94 .72 .87 .98 .36 .08
Above 30
years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working

265
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 to 15 years and 15 - 20
years experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.170.
5.170: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
10 - 15 years and 15 - 20 years experience teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
10 - 15 years 99.35 23.5 109
Experience Not Significant
1 0.5
at any level
100.8 126
15 - 20 years
9 22.6
Experience
7

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 10 - 15 years and 15 - 20 years

266
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.171.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 - 15 years and 15 - 20 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.171: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 - 15 years and
15 - 20 years experience Teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
10 - 15 years
experience
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
15 - 20 years .46 .52 .39 .45 .03 .45 .53 .19 .33
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 to 15 years and 20 - 25
years experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.172.
5.172: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
10 - 15 years and 20 - 25 years experience teachers

267
 in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
10 - 15 years 99.35 23.5 109
Experience Not Significant
1 1.7
at any level
104.8 98
20 - 25 years
2 22.6
Experience
4

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 10 - 15 years and 20 - 25 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.173.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 - 15 years and 20 - 25 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher

268
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.173: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 - 15 years and
20 - 25 years experience Teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
10 – 15 years
experience
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 - 25 years .17 .29 .31 .54 .76 .47 .16 .07 .42
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 to 15 years and 25 - 30
years experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.174.

Table 5.174: Table showing significance of difference of Means

between
10 - 15 years and 25 - 30 years experience
teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

269
 Significance
10 - 15 years 99.35 23.5 109
Experience Not Significant
1 0
at any level
102.3 59 .79
25 - 30 years
7 23.6
Experience
1

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 10 - 15 years and 25 - 30 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.175.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 - 15 years and 25 - 30 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.

270
Table 5.175: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 - 15 years and
25 - 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
10 - 15 years
experience
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 - 30 years .96 .23 .74 .32 .85 .64 .76 .67 .39
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 to 15 years and above 30
years experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.176.
Table 5.176: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
10 - 15 years and above 30 years experience
teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
10 - 15 years 99.35 23.5 109
Experience Not Significant
1 0
at any level
100.9 109 .54
Above 30 years
8 20.4
Experience
5

271
 The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above
category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.

Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is

intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 10 - 15 years and above 30 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.177.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 - 15 years and above 30 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.177: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 - 15 years and
above 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
10 - 15 years
experience
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

272
 Above 30 .29 .82 .75 .87 .32 .54 .61 .36 .62
years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 15 to 20 years and 20 to 25
years experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.178.
Table 5.178: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
15 to 20 years and 20 to 25 years experience
teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
15 - 20 years 100.8 22.6 126
Experience Not Significant
9 7 1
at any level
98 .29
20 - 25 years
104.8 22.6
Experience
2 4

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom

273
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 15 - 20 years and 20 - 25 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.179.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 15 - 20 years and 20 - 25 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.179: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to 20 years
and
20 to 25 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
15 - 20 years
experience
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 - 25 years .54 .68 .35 .16 .32 .53 .96 .27 .46
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is

274
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 15 to 20 years and 25 to 30
years experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.180.
Table 5.180: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
15 to 20 years and 25 to 30 years experience
teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
15 - 20 years 100.8 22.6 126
Experience Not Significant
9 7 0.4
at any level
59
25 - 30 years
102.3 23.6
Experience
7 1

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 15 - 20 years and 25 - 30 years

275
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.181.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 15 - 20 years and 25 - 30 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.181: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to 20 years
and
20 to 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
15 - 20 years
experience
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 - 30 years .92 .59 .76 .62 .11 .24 .36 .67 .78
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 15 to 20 years and above 30
years experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.182.
Table 5.182: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
15 to 20 years and above 30 years experience

276
teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
15 - 20 years 100.8 22.6 126
Experience Not Significant
9 7 0
at any level
109 .03
Above 30 years
100.9 20.4
Experience
8 5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 15 - 20 years and above 30 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.183.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 15 - 20 years and above 30 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher

277
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.183: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to 20 years
and
above 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
15 - 20 years
experience
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Above 30 .63 .28 .43 .59 .73 .22 .26 .58 .72
years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 20 to 25 years and 25 to 30
years experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.184.

Table 5.184: Table showing significance of difference of Means

between
20 to 25 years and 25 to 30 years experience

278
teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
20 - 25 years 104.8 22.6 98
Experience Not Significant
2 4 0
at any level
59 .86
25 - 30 years
102.3 23.6
Experience
7 1

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 20 - 25 years and 25 - 30 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.185.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 20 - 25 years and 25 - 30 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher

279
Motivation as shown in the following Table.

Table 5.185: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 to 25 years

and
25 - 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
20 - 25 years
experience
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 - 30 years .81 .93 .26 .38 .63 .48 .53 .72 .46
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 20 to 25 years and above 30
years experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.186.
Table 5.186: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
20 to 25 years and above 30 years experience
teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
20 - 25 years 104.8 22.6 98
Experience Not Significant
2 4 1
at any level
109 .28

280
Above 30 years 100.9 20.4
Experience
8 5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.

Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is

intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 20 - 25 years and above 30 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.187.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 20 - 25 years and above 30 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.187: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 to 25 years
and
above 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

281
 Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
20 - 25 years
experience
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Above 30 .32 .54 .72 .59 .34 .28 .63 .86 .24
years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 25 to 30 years and above 30
years experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.188.
Table 5.188: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
25 to 30 years and above 30 years experience
teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
25 - 30 years 102.3 23.6 59
Experience Not Significant
7 1 0
at any level
109 .38
Above 30 years
100.9 20.4
Experience
8 5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.

282
 Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 25 - 30 years and above 30 years
experience teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.189.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 25 - 25 years and above 30 years experience teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.189: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 25 to 30 years
and
above 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
25 - 30 years
experience
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Above 30 .15 .68 .93 .33 .48 .59 .32 .64 .29
years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of all the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate

283
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Married and Unmarried Teachers
do not differ significantly in their Teacher Motivation, which is verified
and presented in Table 5.190.
Table 5.190: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Married and Unmarried teachers in their Teacher
Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Married 100.7 22.8 540
Not Significant
4 5 1
at any level
Unmarried 72 .08
103.9 23.3
1 2

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.

Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is

intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of

284
Teacher Motivation among Married and Unmarried Teachers. Hence,
this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Married and Unmarried teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Motivation are tested and
presented in Table 5.191.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Married and Unmarried teachers in respect of the dimensions
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects
of Teacher Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.191: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Married and
Unmarried
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Married
1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
Unmarried .22 .46 .98 .34 .12 .04 .48 .39 .42

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’

and ‘School Administration’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Whereas the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Professional
Pleasure’ of Teacher Motivation is more than 1.96, which is significant
at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions ‘Climate Factors’
and ‘Inter-personal relations’ of Teacher Value Behaviour is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.

285
 It is further stated that the value of ‘r’ in respect of dimension
‘Student Behaviour’ of Teacher Motivation is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions ‘Working
Condition’, Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Residential and Non-Residential
Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Motivation, which is
verified and presented in Table 5.192.
Table 5.192: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Residential and Non-Residential Institution teachers in
their
Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Residential 101.7 21.6 96
Not Significant
6 3 0.8
at any level
Non-Residential 516
103.6 22.5
9 4

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working

286
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation among Married and Unmarried Teachers. Hence,
this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Residential and Non-Residential
Institution teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.193.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Non-Residential Institution teachers in respect
of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’,
‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’,
‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’
and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher Motivation as shown in the following
Table.
Table 5.193: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential and
Non-Residential Institution Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Residential
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Non- .38 .69 .24 .68 .57 .94 .78 .23 .43
Residential

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.

287
 Verification of hypothesis that ‘Co-educational and Exclusively for
Women Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.194.
Table 5.194: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Co-educational and Exclusively for Women
Institution
teachers in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Co-educational 103.5 20.6 504
Not Significant
2 9 1
at any level
Exclusively for Women 66 .07
100.5 21.4
1 3

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation among Co-educational Exclusively for Women
Institution Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Co-educational and Exclusively for
Women Institution teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.195.

288
 Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Co-educational and Exclusively for Women Institution
teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.195: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-educational
and
Exclusively for Women Institution Teachers of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Co-
educational
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.31 .82 .79 .27 .55 .38 .43 .58 .91
Exclusively for
Women

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Co-educational and Exclusively for
Men Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.196.
Table 5.196: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Co-educational and Exclusively for Men Institution
teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

289
 Significance
Co-educational 103.5 20.6 504
Not Significant
2 9 0
at any level
Exclusively for Men 42 .51
101.6 22.3
7 4

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation among Co-educational and Exclusively for Men
Institution Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Co-educational and Exclusively for Men
Institution teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.197.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Co-educational and Exclusively for Men Institution teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher

290
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.197: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-educational
and
Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers of various
dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Co-
educational
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.58 .63 .26 .34 .51 .42 .68 .74 .47
Exclusively for
Men

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Exclusively for Women and
Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in
their Teacher Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table
5.198.
Table 5.198: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Exclusively for Women and Exclusively for Men
Institution
Teachers in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Exclusively for Women 100.5 21.4 66
Not Significant
1 3 0
at any level
Exclusively for Men 42 .26
101.6 22.3

291
 7 4

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation among Exclusively for Women and Exclusively for
Men Institution Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results
immediately after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Exclusively for Women and Exclusively
for Men Institution teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.199.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Exclusively for Women and Exclusively for Men Institution
teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.199: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Exclusively for
Women
and Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Exclusively for

292
 Women
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.49 .89 .92 .58 .43 .36 .87 .24 .91
Exclusively for
Men

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Residential and Aided Institution
Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Motivation, which is
verified and presented in Table 5.200.

Table 5.200: Table showing significance of difference of Means

Between Residential and Aided Institution
Teachers in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Residential 101.7 21.6 96
Not Significant
6 3 1
at any level
Aided 89 .04
98.54 20.1
6

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

293
category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation among Residential and Aided Institution Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Residential and Aided Institution
teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Motivation are
tested and presented in Table 5.201.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Aided Institution teachers in respect of the
dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional
Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student
Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and
‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher Motivation as shown in the following
Table.
Table 5.201: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential and
Aided
Institution Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Residential
1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Aided
.88 .58 .06 .78 .47 .98 .63 .28 .56

294
 The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’
and ‘School Administration’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
While in the case of verification of value of ‘t’ in respect of the
dimension ‘Professional Pleasure’ of Teacher Motivation is found
significant. The obtained ‘t’ value 2.06 is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions ‘Climate Factors’
and ‘Inter-personal relations’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Whereas, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Student
Behaviour’ of Teacher Motivation disclosed that the ‘t’ value is more
than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is
rejected.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of the remaining dimensions ‘Working
condition’ ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Residential and Government
Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.202.

Table 5.202: Table showing significance of difference of Means

between
Residential and Government Institution Teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Residential 101.7 21.6 96

295
 6 3 0 Not Significant
at any level
219 .49
Government
100.4 23.1
2 1

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation among Residential and Government Institution
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Residential and Government Institution
teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Motivation are
tested and presented in Table 5.203.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Government Institution teachers in respect of
the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’,
‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’,
‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’
and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher Motivation as shown in the following
Table.
Table 5.203: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential
and Government Institution Teachers of various
dimensions

296
 of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Residential
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Government
.43 .92 .37 .69 .44 .34 .58 .93 .85

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Residential and Private Unaided
Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.204.
Table 5.204: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Residential and Private Unaided Institution
Teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Residential 101.7 21.6 96
Not Significant
6 3 0
at any level
Private Unaided 208 .07
103.6 22.3
6 8

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various

297
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation among Residential and Private Unaided Institution
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Residential and Private Unaided
Institution teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.205.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Private Unaided Institution teachers in respect
of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’,
‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’,
‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’
and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher Motivation as shown in the following
Table.
Table 5.205: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential
and
Private Unaided Institution Teachers of various
dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Residential
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Private
.11 .28 .26 .32 .42 .29 .54 .23 .41
Unaided

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working

298
condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.

Verification of hypothesis that ‘Aided and Government’ Institution

Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Motivation, which is
verified and presented in Table 5.206.
Table 5.203: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between Aided and Government Institution Teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Aided 98.54 20.1 89
Not Significant
6 0
at any level
Government 100.4 219 .71
2 23.1
1

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation among Aided and Government Institution Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary

299
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Aided and Government Institution
teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Motivation are
tested and presented in Table 5.207.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Aided and Government Institution teachers in respect of the
dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional
Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student
Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and
‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher Motivation as shown in the following
Table.
Table 5.207: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided and
Government
Institution Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Aided
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Government
.94 .87 .99 .62 .16 .28 .83 .98 .28

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’

and ‘School Administration’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Further, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Professional
Pleasure’ of Teacher Motivation is more than 1.96, which is significant
at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas, the value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’ and ‘Student Behaviour’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
While in the case of value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions ‘Working

300
condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Aided and Private Unaided’
Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.208.

Table 5.208: Table showing significance of difference of Means

between
Aided and Private Unaided Institution Teachers in
their
Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Aided 98.54 20.1 89
Not Significant
6 1
at any level
Private Unaided 103.6 208 .94
6 22.3
8

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working

301
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation among Aided and Private Unaided Institution
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Aided and Private Unaided Institution
teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Motivation are
tested and presented in Table 5.209.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Aided and Private Unaided Institution teachers in respect of
the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’,
‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’,
‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’
and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher Motivation as shown in the following
Table.
Table 5.209: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided and Private
Unaided
Institution Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Aided
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Private
.53 .46 .29 .38 .47 .27 .52 .95 .29
Unaided

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ of Teacher
Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Government and Private Unaided’
Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher

302
Motivation, which is verified and presented in Table 5.207.
Table 5.210: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Government and Private Unaided Institution
Teachers
in their Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Government 100.4 23.1 219
Not Significant
2 1 1
at any level
Private Unaided 208 .47
103.6 22.3
6 8

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Motivation between the above

category teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Classroom
Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of
Teacher Motivation among Government and Private Unaided Institution
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Government and Private Unaided
Institution teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Motivation are tested and presented in Table 5.211.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Government and Private Unaided Institution teachers in

303
respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School
Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-
Personal Relation’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects of Teacher
Motivation as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.211: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Government and
Private Unaided Institution Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation

Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Government
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Private
.42 .21 .58 .37 .42 .98 .23 .99 .63
Unaided

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Classroom

Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’ and ‘Inter-personal relations’, of Teacher Motivation is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
While in the case of value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Student
Behaviour’ of Teacher Motivation is more than 1.96, which is significant
at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
With regard to value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Working
Condition’ of Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Whereas, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Professional
Development’ of Teacher Motivation is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
In the case of value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Personal’ of
Teacher Motivation is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
5.8.3: Verification of first subsidiary hypothesis

304
 and Teacher Self-efficacy interpretation:
The first subsidiary hypothesis disclosed that the teachers do not
differ significantly in respect of their Teacher Self-efficacy, which were
discussed variable wise presented for convenience of verification as
follows –
(a) Sex category teachers do not differ significantly in respect
of their Teacher Self-efficacy.
(b) Locality category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Self-efficacy.
(c) Qualification category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Self-efficacy.
(d) Designation category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Self-efficacy.
(e) Teaching subject category teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their Teacher Self-efficacy.
(f) Experience category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Self-efficacy.
(g) Marital Status category teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Self-efficacy.
(h) Type of Institution category teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their Teacher Self-efficacy.

(i) Status of Institution category teachers do not differ

significantly in respect of their Teacher Self-efficacy.
(j) Type of Management category teachers do not differ
significantly in respect of their Teacher Self-efficacy.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Male and Female’ Teachers do not

305
differ significantly in their Teacher Self-efficacy, which is verified and
presented in Table 5.212.
Table 5.212: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Male and Female Teachers in their Teacher Self-
efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Male 124.8 28.9 396
Significant at
8 9 2
0.01 level
Female 216 .62
118.5 28.4
2 9

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Male and Female

teachers is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and
0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Male and Female Teachers. Hence, this part shows the
results immediately after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Male and Female teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy are tested and presented in
Table 5.213.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Male and Female teachers in respect of the dimensions
‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and

306
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy as
shown in the following Table.
Table 5.213: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Male and Female
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Male
2.33 1.96 1.58 1.23
Female

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’

of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Similarly, the value of in respect of the dimension ‘Vicarious
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is stands at 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions ‘Social
Experience’, ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of Teacher
Self-efficacy is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Rural and Urban area’ Teachers do
not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-efficacy, which is verified
and presented in Table 5.214.

307
Table 5.214: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Rural and Urban area Teachers in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Rural area 124.6 26.5 411
Significant at
9 1 2.3
0.05 level
Urban area 201
119.5 25.5
8 1

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Male and Female

teachers is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05 level. Hence,
the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Rural and Urban area Teachers. Hence, this part shows
the results immediately after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Male and Female teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy are tested and presented in
Table 5.215.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Rural and Urban area teachers in respect of the dimensions
‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy as
shown in the following Table.

308
Table 5.215: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Rural and Urban
area
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Rural area
1.54 1.98 1.46 1.69
Urban area

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’

of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Whereas, the value of in respect of the dimension ‘Vicarious
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas, the value of ‘t’ in respect of remaining dimensions
‘Social Experience’, ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Post-graduate and PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.,’ qualified Teachers do not differ significantly in their
Teacher Self-efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.216.
Table 5.216: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Post-graduate and PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified Teachers

309
 in their Teacher Self-efficacy
Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
Post-Graduate 121.7 26.3 234
Not Significant
6 2 0
at any level
PG with M.Phil/Ph.D. 48 .18
122.5 25.9
4 3

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Post-graduate

and PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified teachers is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Post-graduate and PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and PG with M.Phil/Ph.D.,
qualified teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.217.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate and PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.217: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate
and
PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified Teachers of various

310
dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Post-graduate
1.33 1.24 1.51 1.17
PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Post-graduate and PG with B.Ed.,’
qualified Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.218.
Table 5.218: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Post-graduate and PG with B.Ed., qualified Teachers in
their
Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Post-Graduate 121.7 26.3 234
Significant at
6 2 5.5
0.01 level
PG with B.Ed., 269
134.9 27.6
7 4

311
 The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Post-graduate
and PG with B.Ed., qualified teachers is more than 1.96 and 2.58,
which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Post-graduate and PG with B.Ed., qualified Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.

The values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and PG with B.Ed.,

qualified teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.219.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate and PG with B.Ed., qualified teachers in respect
of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social
experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.219: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate
and
PG with B.Ed., qualified Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &

312
 ce e ce Psychological
experience
Post-graduate
2.11 1.96 1.98 1.42
PG with B.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’

of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Similarly, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Vicarious
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is stands at 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas the value of ‘t’ in respect of remaining dimensions
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological & Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.

Verification of hypothesis that ‘Post-graduate and PG with M.Ed.,’

qualified Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.220.
Table 5.220: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Post-graduate and PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers in
their
Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Post-Graduate 121.7 26.3 234
Significant at
6 2 2
0.05 level

313
PG with M.Ed., 61 .09
130.1 28.5
9 4

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Post-graduate

and PG with M.Ed., qualified teachers is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Post-graduate and PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate and PG with M.Ed.,
qualified teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.221.

Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

between Post-graduate and PG with M.Ed., qualified teachers in respect
of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social
experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.221: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate
and
PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

314
 Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological
Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Post-graduate
1.98 1.46 1.48 2.08
PG with M.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’

of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimensions ‘Vicarious
experience’ and ‘Social experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not
corroborated at any level. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
While in the case of the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension
‘Physiological & Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is
more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Post-graduate M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG
with B.Ed.,’ qualified Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Self-efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.222.

Table 5.222: Table showing significance of difference of Means between

Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D. and PG with B.Ed., qualified
Teachers in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., 122.5 25.9 48
Significant at
4 3 3
0.01 level

315
PG with B.Ed., 269 .03
134.9 27.6
7 4

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Post-graduate

with M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG with B.Ed., qualified teachers is more than
1.96 and 2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG with B.Ed.,
qualified Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG with
B.Ed., qualified teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Self-efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.223.

Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

between Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG with B.Ed., qualified
teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious

316
experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.223: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate
with
M.Phil/Ph.D.,and PG with B.Ed., qualified Teachers of
various
dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D. 1.94 1.89 1.84 1.78

PG with B.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Post-graduate M.Phil/Ph.D., and
PG with M.Ed.,’ qualified Teachers do not differ significantly in their
Teacher Self-efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.224.
Table 5.224: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D. and PG with M.Ed.,
qualified
Teachers in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
PG with M.Phil/Ph.D., 122.5 25.9 48
Not Significant
4 3 1
at any level
PG with M.Ed., 61 .46
130.1 28.5
9 4

317
 The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Post-graduate
with M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG with M.Ed., qualified teachers is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG with M.Ed.,
qualified Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate M.Phil/Ph.D. and PG with
M.Ed., qualified teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Self-efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.225.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG with M.Ed., qualified
teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious
experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.225: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate
with
M.Phil/Ph.D.,and PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers of
various
dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D. 1.53 1.92 1.76 1.89

318
 PG with M.Ed.

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Post-graduate M.Phil/Ph.D., and PG
with M.Ed.,’ qualified Teachers do not differ significantly in their
Teacher Self-efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.226.
Table 5.226: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Post-graduate with B.Ed., and PG with M.Ed., qualified
Teachers in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
PG with B.Ed., 134.9 27.6 269
Not Significant
7 4 1
at any level
PG with M.Ed., 61 .18
130.1 28.5
9 4

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Post-graduate

with B.Ed., and PG with M.Ed., qualified teachers is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-

319
efficacy among Post-graduate with B.Ed., and PG with M.Ed., qualified
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.

The values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate M.Phil/Ph.D. and PG with

M.Ed., qualified teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Self-efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.227.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Post-graduate with B.Ed., and PG with M.Ed., qualified
teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious
experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.227: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate
with
B.Ed., and PG with M.Ed., qualified Teachers of various
dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
PG with B.Ed.,
1.11 1.12 1.06 1.23
PG with M.Ed.,

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Lecturers and Principals’ do not
differ significantly in their Teacher Self-efficacy, which is verified and

320
presented in Table 5.228.

Table 5.228: Table showing significance of difference of Means between

Lecturers and Principals in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Lecturers 119.8 24.4 552
Significant at
6 5 3
0.01level
Principals 60 .18
130.7 25.3
5 1

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Lecturers and

Principals is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Principals and Lecturers. Hence, this part shows the
results immediately after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Principals and Lecturers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy are tested and presented in
Table 5.229.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

321
between Lecturers and Principals in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy as
shown in the following Table.

Table 5.229: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate

with
Lecturers and Principals of various dimensions of
Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Lecturers
1.94 1.85 1.84 1.88
Principals

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Teaching Sciences and Teaching
Humanities’ Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.230.
Table 5.230: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
‘Teaching Sciences’ and ‘Teaching Humanities’ Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

322
 Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
Teaching Sciences 119.6 23.5 316
Significant at
6 2 4
0.01level
Teaching Humanities 153 .54
130.8 25.7
4 1

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between ‘Teaching

Sciences’ and ‘Teaching Humanities’ Teachers is more than 1.96 and
2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence,
the hypothesis is rejected.

Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is

intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among ‘Teaching Sciences’ and ‘Teaching Humanities’
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Principals and Lecturers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy are tested and presented in
Table 5.231.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between ‘Teaching Sciences’ and ‘Teaching Humanities’ Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,

323
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.231: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate
with
Teaching Sciences and Teaching Humanities of various
dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Teaching Sciences
1.58 1.43 1.68 1.75
Teaching
Humanities

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.

Verification of hypothesis that ‘Teaching Sciences and Teaching

Languages’ Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.232.
Table 5.232: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
‘Teaching Sciences’ and ‘Teaching Languages’ Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Teaching Sciences 119.6 23.5 316
Significant at
6 2 2
0.05level

324
Teaching Languages 143 .13
124.4 21.7
5 6

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between ‘Teaching

Sciences’ and ‘Teaching Languages’ Teachers is more than 1.96, which
is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among ‘Teaching Sciences’ and ‘Teaching Languages’
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between ‘Teaching Sciences’ and ‘Teaching
Languages’ Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.233.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between ‘Teaching Sciences’ and ‘Teaching Languages’ Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.233: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate
with
Teaching Sciences and Teaching Languages Teachers of
various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience

325
Teaching Sciences
1.32 1.16 1.21 1.53
Teaching
Languages

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘Teaching Humanities and Teaching
Languages’ Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.234.
Table 5.234: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
‘Teaching Humanities’ and ‘Teaching Languages’ Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Teaching Humanities 130.8 25.7 153
Significant at
4 1 2
0.05 level
Teaching Languages 143 .31
124.4 21.7
5 6

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between ‘Teaching

Sciences’ and ‘Teaching Languages’ Teachers is significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among ‘Teaching Humanities’ and ‘Teaching Languages’

326
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between ‘Teaching Humanities’ and ‘Teaching
Languages’ Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.235.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between ‘Teaching Humanities’ and ‘Teaching Languages’ Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.235: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-graduate
with
Teaching Humanities and Teaching Languages Teachers of
various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Teaching
Humanities 1.17 1.24 1.35 1.21

Teaching
Languages

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.

327
 Verification of hypothesis that below 10 years and 10 to 15 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.236.
Table 5.236: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Below 10 years and 10 to 15 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 118.9 22.4 111
experience Not Significant
3 1 1
at any level
109 .27
10 – 15 years
122.7 21.8
experience
2 5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between below 10 years

and 10 to 15 years experience Teachers is not corroborated. Hence,
the hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among below 10 years and 10 to 15 years experience
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and 10 to 15 years
experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.237.

328
 Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 10 – 15 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.237: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years
and
10 to 15 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Below 10 years
experience
1.28 1.32 1.19 1.42
10 – 15 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 years and 15 to 20 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.238.

329
Table 5.238: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Below 10 years and 15 to 20 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 118.9 22.4 111
experience Not Significant
3 1 0
at any level
126 .53
15 – 20 years
120.5 23.4
experience
1 7

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between below 10 years

and 15 to 20 years experience Teachers is not corroborated. Hence,
the hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among below 10 years and 15 to 20 years experience
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and 15 to 20 years
experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.239.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 15 – 20 years experience Teachers in

330
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.239: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years
and
15 to 20 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Below 10 years
experience
1.35 1.49 1.56 1.29
15 – 20 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 years and 20 to 25 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.240.
Table 5.240: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Below 10 years and 20 to 25 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 118.9 22.4 111
experience Significant at
3 1 3
0.01 level
98 .28
20 – 25 years
129.6 24.4
experience

331
 4 8

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between below 10 years

and 20 to 25 years experience Teachers is more than 1.96 and 2.58,
which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.

Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is

intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among below 10 years and 20 to 25 years experience
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and 20 to 25 years
experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.241.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 20 – 25 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.241: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years
and
20 to 25 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &

332
 ce e ce Psychological
experience
Below 10 years
experience
1.16 1.54 1.26 1.43
20 – 25 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 years and 25 to 30 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.242.
Table 5.242: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
Below 10 years and 25 to 30 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 118.9 22.4 111
experience Not Significant
3 1 1
at any level
59 .54
25 – 30 years
124.8 24.5
experience
5 6

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between below 10 years

and 25 to 30 years experience Teachers is not corroborated. Hence,
the hypothesis is accepted.

333
 Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among below 10 years and 25 to 30 years experience
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.

The values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and 25 to 30 years

experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.243.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and 25 – 30 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.243: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years
and
25 to 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Below 10 years
experience
1.59 1.52 1.24 1.38
25 – 30 years
experience

334
 The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’,
‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that below 10 years and above 30 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.244.

Table 5.244: Table showing significance of difference of Means between

Below 10 years and above 30 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Below 10 years 118.9 22.4 111
experience Significant at
3 1 2
0.01 level
109 .58
Above 30 years
126.5 21.6
experience
9 5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between below 10 years

and above 30 years experience Teachers is more than 1.96 and 2.58,
which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery

335
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among below 10 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between below 10 years and above 30 years
experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.245.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between below 10 years and above 30 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.

Table 5.245: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between below 10 years
and
above 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Below 10 years
experience
1.86 1.91 1.87 1.23
Above 30 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.

336
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that 10 to 15 years and 15 to 20 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.246.
Table 5.246: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
10 to 15 years and 15 to 20 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
10 - 15 years 122.7 21.8 109
experience Not Significant
2 5 0
at any level
126 .74
15 - 20 years
120.5 23.4
experience
1 7

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between 10 - 15 years and

15 – 20 years experience Teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among 10 to 15 years and 15 - 20 years experience Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 10 to 15 years and 15 to 20 years
experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.247.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

337
between 10 to 15 years and 15 to 20 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.247: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to 15 years
and
15 to 20 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
10 - 15 years
experience
1.91 1.89 1.98 1.34
15 - 20 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’

and ‘Vicarious experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Whereas, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Social
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Physiological &
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that 10 to 15 years and 20 to 25 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.248.
Table 5.248: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
10 to 15 years and 20 to 25 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

338
 Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of
Significance
10 - 15 years 122.7 21.8 109
experience Significant at
2 5 2
0.05 level
98 .14
20 - 25 years
129.6 24.4
experience
4 8

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between 10 - 15 years and

20 – 25 years experience Teachers is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among 10 to 15 years and 20 - 25 years experience Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.

The values of ‘t’ between 10 to 15 years and 20 to 25 years

experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.249.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 to 15 years and 20 to 25 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of

339
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.249: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to 15 years
and
20 to 25 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
10 - 15 years
experience
1.46 1.82 1.73 1.89
20 - 25 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’

and ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that 10 to 15 years and 25 to 30 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.250.

Table 5.250: Table showing significance of difference of Means between

10 to 15 years and 25 to 30 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
10 - 15 years 122.7 21.8 109
experience Not Significant
2 5 0
at any level

340
 59 .55
25 – 30 years
124.8 24.5
experience
5 6

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between 10 - 15 years and

25 – 30 years experience Teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among 10 to 15 years and 25 - 30 years experience Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 10 to 15 years and 25 to 30 years
experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.251.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 to 15 years and 25 to 30 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.

Table 5.251: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to 15 years

and
25 to 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

341
 Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
10 - 15 years
experience
1.38 1.59 1.42 1.61
25 - 30 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’

and ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that 10 to 15 years and above 30 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.252.
Table 5.252: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
10 to 15 years and above 30 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
10 - 15 years 122.7 21.8 109
experience Not Significant
2 5 1
at any level
109 .31
Above 30 years
126.5 21.6
experience
9 5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between 10 - 15 years and

25 – 30 years experience Teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery

342
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among 10 to 15 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 10 to 15 years and above 30 years
experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.253.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 10 to 15 years and above 30 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.253: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to 15 years
and
above 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
10 – 15 years
experience
1.26 1.45 1.37 1.53
Above 30 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’

and ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.

343
 Verification of hypothesis that 15 to 20 years and 20 to 25 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.254.
Table 5.254: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
15 to 20 years and 20 to 25 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
15 - 20 years 120.5 23.4 126
experience Significant at
1 7 2
0.05 level
98 .82
20 - 25 years
129.6 24.4
experience
4 8

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between 15 - 20 years and

20 – 25 years experience Teachers is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is
significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the hypothesis
is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among 15 to 20 years and 20 to 25 years experience Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 15 to 20 years and 20 to 25 years
experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.255.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference

344
between 15 to 20 years and 20 to 25 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.255: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to 20 years
and
20 to 25 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
15 to 20 years
experience
1.41 1.55 1.29 1.43
20 to 25 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’

and ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that 15 to 20 years and 25 to 30 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.256.
Table 5.256: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
15 to 20 years and 25 to 30 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
15 - 20 years 120.5 23.4 126
experience Not Significant
1 7 1
at any level
59 .13
25 - 30 years

345
experience 124.8 24.5
5 6

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between 15 - 20 years and

25 – 30 years experience Teachers is corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among 15 to 20 years and 25 to 30 years experience Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 15 to 20 years and 25 to 30 years
experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.257.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 15 to 20 years and 25 to 30 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.257: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to 20 years
and
25 to 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
15 to 20 years

346
 experience
1.09 1.43 1.29 1.16
25 to 30 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’

and ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.

Verification of hypothesis that 15 to 20 years and above 30 years

experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.258.
Table 5.258: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
15 to 20 years and above 30 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
15 - 20 years 120.5 23.4 126
experience Significant at
1 7 2
0.05 level
109 .06
Above 30 years
126.5 21.6
experience
9 5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between 15 - 20 years and

above 30 years experience Teachers is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-

347
efficacy among 15 to 20 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 15 to 20 years and above 30 years
experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.259.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 15 to 20 years and above 30 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.259: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to 20 years
and
above 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
15 to 20 years
experience
1.36 1.42 1.21 1.25
Above 30 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’

and ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that 20 to 25 years and 25 to 30 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.260.

348
Table 5.260: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
20 to 25 years and 25 to 30 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
20 - 25 years 129.6 24.4 98
experience Not Significant
4 8 1
at any level
59 .18
25 - 30 years
124.8 24.5
experience
5 6

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between 20 - 25 years and

25 - 30 years experience Teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among 20 to 25 years and 25 to 30 years experience Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 20 to 25 years and 25 to 30 years
experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.261.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 20 to 25 years and 25 to 30 years experience Teachers in

349
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.261: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 to 25 years
and
25 to 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
20 to 25 years
experience
1.07 1.18 1.16 1.11
25 to 30 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’

and ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that 20 to 25 years and above 30 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.262.
Table 5.262: Table showing significance of difference of Means between
20 to 25 years and above 30 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
20 - 25 years 129.6 24.4 98
experience Not Significant
4 8 0
at any level
109 .94
Above 30 years
126.5 21.6
experience

350
 9 5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between 20 - 25 years and

above 30 years experience Teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among 20 to 25 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.

The values of ‘t’ between 20 to 25 years and above 30 years

experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.263.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 20 to 25 years and above 30 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.263: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 to 25 years
and
above 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

351
 Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
20 to 25 years
experience
1.31 1.21 1.39 1.28
Above 30 years
experience

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’

and ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that 25 to 30 years and above 30 years
experience Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.264.

Table 5.264: Table showing significance of difference of Means between

25 to 30 years and above 30 years Experience Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
25 - 30 years 124.8 24.5 59
experience Not Significant
5 6 0
at any level
109 .44
Above 30 years
126.5 21.6
experience
9 5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between 25 - 30 years and

above 30 years experience Teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.

352
 Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among 25 to 30 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between 25 to 30 years and above 30 years
experience Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.265.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between 25 to 30 years and above 30 years experience Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.

Table 5.265: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 25 to 30 years

and
above 30 years experience Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
25 to 30 years
experience
1.81 1.72 1.42 1.64
Above 30 years
experience

353
 The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’
and ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that - Married and Unmarried Teachers
do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-efficacy, which is verified
and presented in Table 5.266.
Table 5.266: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Married and Unmarried Teachers in their Teacher Self-
efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Married 130.6 23.5 540
Significant at
1 2 3
0.01 level
Unmarried 72 .59
119.6 24.3
7 5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Married and

Unmarried Teachers is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is significant at
0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.

Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is

intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Married and Unmarried Teachers. Hence, this part

354
shows the results immediately after each subsidiary hypothesis is
tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Married and Unmarried Teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy are tested and
presented in Table 5.267.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Married and Unmarried Teachers in respect of the dimensions
‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy as
shown in the following Table.
Table 5.267: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Married and
Unmarried
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Married

1.96 1.74 1.65 1.78

Unmarried

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’

of Teacher Self-efficacy is stands at 1.96, which is significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.

Whereas, the value of ‘t’ in respect of remaining dimensions

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.

355
 Verification of hypothesis that – Residential and Non-Residential
Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.268.
Table 5.268: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Residential and Non-Residential Institution Teachers in
their
Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Residential 131.6 23.5 96
Significant at
5 4 4
0.01 level
Non-Residential 516 .26
120.4 24.1
8 6

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Residential and

Non-Residential Institution Teachers is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which
is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Residential and Non-Residential Institution Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Residential and Non-Residential
Institution Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.269.

356
 Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Non-Residential Institution Teachers in respect
of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social
experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.269: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential and
Non-Residential Institution Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Residential

2.07 1.83 2.26 1.98

Non-Residential

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’

of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Vicarious
experience’, of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.
Further, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension of ‘Social
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
While in the case of value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is
more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.

357
 Verification of hypothesis that Co-educational and Exclusively for
Women Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher
Self-efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.270.
Table 5.270: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Co-educational and Exclusively for Women Institution
Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Co-educational 133.5 22.6 504
Significant at
9 7 4
0.01 level
Exclusively for Women 66 .44
119.7 23.9
6 5

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Co-educational

and Exclusively for Women Institution Teachers is more than 1.96 and
2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence,
the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Co-educational and Exclusively for Women Institution
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.

358
 The values of ‘t’ between Co-educational and Exclusively for
Women Institution Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Self-efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.271.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Co-educational and Exclusively for Women Institution
Teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious
experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.271: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-educational
and
Exclusively for Women Institution Teachers of various
dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Co-educational

1.63 1.69 1.72 1.54

Exclusively for
Women

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Co-educational and Exclusively for
Men Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.272.
Table 5.272: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Co-educational and Exclusively for Men Institution

359
Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Co-educational 133.5 22.6 504
Significant at
9 7 2
0.01 level
Exclusively for Men 42 .84
123.5 21.9
8 3

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Co-educational

and Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers is more than 1.96 and
2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence,
the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Co-educational and Exclusively for Men Institution
Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each
subsidiary hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Co-educational and Exclusively for
Women Institution Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher
Self-efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.273.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Co-educational and Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,

360
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.273: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-educational
and
Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers of various
dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy
Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological
Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Co-educational

1.63 1.69 1.72 1.54

Exclusively for Men

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Exclusively for Women and
Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in
their Teacher Self-efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table
5.274.
Table 5.274: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Exclusively for Women and Exclusively for Men
Institution
Teachers in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Exclusively for Women 119.7 23.9 66
Not Significant
6 5 0
at any level
Exclusively for Men 42 .85

361
 123.5 21.9
8 3

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Co-educational

and Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers is not corroborated. Hence,
the hypothesis is accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Exclusively for Women and Exclusively for Men
Institution Teachers. Hence, this part shows the results immediately
after each subsidiary hypothesis is tested.

The values of ‘t’ between Exclusively for Women and Exclusively

for Women Institution Teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Self-efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.275.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Exclusively for Women and Exclusively for Men Institution
Teachers in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious
experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.275: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Exclusively for
Women
and Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers of various

362
dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy
Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological
Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Exclusively for
Women
1.73 1.67 1.59 1.36

Exclusively for Men

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Residential and Aided Institution
Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-efficacy, which
is verified and presented in Table 5.276.

Table 5.276: Table showing significance of difference of Means

between
Residential and Aided Institution Teachers in their
Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Residential 131.6 23.5 96
Not Significant
5 4 1
at any level

363
Aided 89 .73
125.7 22.8
4 1

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Residential and

Aided Institution Teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
accepted.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Residential and Aided Institution Teachers. Hence, this
part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary hypothesis is
tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Residential and Aided Institution
Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy are
tested and presented in Table 5.277.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Aided Institution Teachers in respect of the
dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social
experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.

Table 5.277: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential and
Aided
Institution Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher Self-

364
efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Residential

1.95 1.92 1.54 1.69

Aided

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Residential and Government
Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.278.
Table 5.278: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Residential and Government Institution Teachers in their
Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Residential 131.6 23.5 96
Significant at
5 4 4
0.01 level
Government 219 .48
118.5 24.6
6 2

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Residential and

Government Institution Teachers is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is
significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the hypothesis

365
is rejected.

Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is

intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Residential and Government Institution Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Residential and Government Institution
Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy are
tested and presented in Table 5.279.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Government Institution Teachers in respect of
the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social
experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.279: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential and
Government Institution Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Residential

2.13 1.97 1.99 1.86

Government

366
 The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’
of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is significant at 0.05
level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Similarly, the value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Vicarious
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Social
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Whereas, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Physiological
and Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not
corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that Residential and Private Unaided
Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.280.
Table 5.280: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Residential and Private Unaided Institution Teachers in
their
Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Residential 131.6 23.5 96
Not Significant
5 4 1.1
at any level
Private Unaided 208
134.8 24.6
9 7

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Residential and

Private Unaided Institution Teachers is not corroborated. Hence, the
hypothesis is accepted.

367
 Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Residential and Private Unaided Institution Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Residential and Private Unaided
Institution Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.281.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Residential and Private Unaided Institution Teachers in respect
of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social
experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.281: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Residential and
Private Unaided Institution Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Residential

1.19 1.54 1.88 1.91

Private Unaided

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.

368
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that - Aided and Government Institution
Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-efficacy, which
is verified and presented in Table 5.282.

Table 5.282: Table showing significance of difference of Means

between
Aided and Government Institution Teachers in their
Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Aided 125.7 22.8 89
Significant at
4 1 2
0.05 level
Government 219 .45
118.5 24.6
6 2

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Aided and

Government Institution Teachers is more than 1.96, which is significant
at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Aided and Government Institution Teachers. Hence,
this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary

369
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Aided and Government Institution
Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy are
tested and presented in Table 5.283.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Aided and Government Institution Teachers in respect of the
dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social
experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.

Table 5.283: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided and
Government
Institution Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Aided

1.16 1.58 1.45 1.36

Government

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,

‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is not corroborated.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.
Verification of hypothesis that - Aided and Private Unaided
Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-

370
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.284.
Table 5.284: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Aided and Private Unaided Institution Teachers in their
Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Aided 125.7 22.8 89
Significant at
4 1 3.1
0.01 level
Private Unaided 208
134.8 24.6
9 7

The value of ‘t’ (3.1) of Teacher Self-efficacy between Aided and

Private Unaided Institution Teachers is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which
is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. The mean value
(134.89) obtained by the Private Unaide Teachers is greater than the
mean value (125.74) obtained by the Aided Teachers. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Aided and Private Unaided Institution Teachers. Hence,
this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Aided and Private Unaided Institution
Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy are
tested and presented in Table 5.285.

371
 Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Aided and Private Unaided Institution Teachers in respect of
the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social
experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.285: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided and
Private Unaided
Institution Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Aided

2.13 2.71 1.99 2.56

Private Unaided

The value of ‘t’ (2.13) in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery

experience’, of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Similarly, the value of ‘t’ (2.71) in respect of the dimension
‘Vicarious experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96 and
2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence,
the hypothesis is rejected.
Further, the value of ‘t’ (1.99) in respect of dimension ‘Social
experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
And the value of ‘t’ (2.56) in respect of dimension ‘Physiological
and Psychological experience’ of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than
1.96 but less than 2.58, which is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the

372
hypothesis is rejected.
Verification of hypothesis that - Government and Private Unaided
Institution Teachers do not differ significantly in their Teacher Self-
efficacy, which is verified and presented in Table 5.286.
Table 5.286: Table showing significance of difference of Means
between
Government and Private Unaided Institution Teachers
in their Teacher Self-efficacy

Category A.M S.D N ‘t’ Level of

Significance
Government 118.5 24.6 219
Significant at
6 2 6
0.01 level
Private Unaided 208 .86
134.8 24.6
9 7

The value of ‘t’ of Teacher Self-efficacy between Government and

Private Unaided Institution Teachers is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which
is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the
hypothesis is rejected.
Further the subsidiary hypotheses of the study, the investigator is
intended to observe the significance of difference between various
demographic variables in respect of dimensions of ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects of Teacher Self-
efficacy among Government and Private Unaided Institution Teachers.
Hence, this part shows the results immediately after each subsidiary
hypothesis is tested.
The values of ‘t’ between Government and Private Unaided
Institution Teachers in respect of various dimensions of Teacher Self-

373
efficacy are tested and presented in Table 5.287.
Verification of hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between Aided and Government Unaided Institution Teachers in
respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy as shown in the following Table.
Table 5.287: Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Government and
Private Unaided Institution Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy

Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological

Category experien experienc experien &
ce e ce Psychological
experience
Government

2.48 2.22 2.19 2.37

Private Unaided

The value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’

(2.48), of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is significant at
0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Similarly, the value of ‘t’ in respect of the dimension ‘Vicarious
experience’ (2.22) of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
Further, the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Social
experience’ (2.19) of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96, which is
significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
And the value of ‘t’ in respect of dimension ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’ (2.37) of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than
1.96, which is significant at 0.05 level. Hence, the hypothesis is
rejected.

374
5.9.0:Verification of Subsidiary Hypotheses
pertaining to High and Low groups:
Out of thirty eight subsidiary hypotheses of the present study,
three hypothesis are pertaining to significance of difference of
difference of means between high and low groups of Teacher Value
Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy. Teachers,
whose score is more than the mean value of Teacher Value Behaviour,
Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy are classified into high
group, and those whose score is less than the mean value are included
in low group. For verifying these hypotheses, significance of difference
of means between high and low groups of Teacher Value Behaviour in
rest of Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy; high and low
groups of Teacher Motivation in respect of Teacher Value Behaviour and
Teacher Self-efficacy and high and low groups of Teacher Self-efficacy
in respect of Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher Motivation are
computed. The results of High and Low of these three categories are
verified with reference to the statistical reports. In this part subsidiary
hypotheses eleven, twelve and thirteen pertaining to high and low
groups are verified.
5.9.1: Verification of Subsidiary hypothesis and
interpretation of Teacher Value Behaviour
Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy:
The subsidiary hypothesis of this study disclosed that there is no
significant difference between high and low Teacher Value Behaviour in
respect of Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy. This
hypotheses are categorized into three parts for the purpose of
convenience and verification as follows –

375
 (1) There is no significant difference between High and Low
Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of Teacher Motivation.
(2) There is no significant difference between High and Low
Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of Teacher Self-efficacy.
(3) There is no significant difference between High and Low
Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
Verification of first hypothesis that ‘there is no significant difference
between high and low Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of Teacher
Motivation’ is verified and presented in Table 5.288.
Table 5.288 Table showing the difference of means in between high
and low
Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of Teacher Motivation

Category A.M S.D N df ‘t’ Level of

significan
ce
High Teacher
Value Behaviour 201.1 26.19 31
6 6 Significan
55 5 t at 0.01
Low Teacher 0 .88 level
Value Behaviour 29.43
186.9 23
8 6

The value of ‘t’ (5.88) is found to be highly significant. The

obtained ‘t’ value 5.88 is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is significant
at 0.05 and 0.01 levels. The mean value (201.16) of Higher Teacher
Value Behaviour is greater than the mean value (186.98) of Low
Teacher Value Behaviour. Hence, the hypotheis is rejected.
Further, it can be stated that the teachers with high Value
Behaviour aspect do differ significantly from Low Value Behaviour
aspect in respect of Teacher Motivation. An interesting observation
disclosed that Teachers with high Teacher Value Behaviour are more

376
motivated than Teachers with low Value Behaviour.
Tesides testing the hypothesis, the researcher is intended to find
out the difference between high and Low Teacher Value Behaviour in
respect of all the dimensions of Teacher Motivation.
Verification of the value of ‘t’ between High and Low Teacher
Value Behaviour in respect of all dimensions of Teacher Motivation
presented in Table 5.289.
Table 5.289: Table showing ‘t’ value between High ald Low Teacher
Value
Behaviour in respect of all the Dimensions of Teacher
Motivation
Category CT SA PP CF IPR SB WC PD P
Higher Teacher
Value Behaviour

4 2 4 3 1 5 2 4 3
.99 .64 .97 .68 .98 .63 .09 .72 .58
Low Teacher
Value Behaviour

The above table discloses that the value of ‘t’ between high and
low Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of all the dimensions of i.e.,
Classroom Teaching (CT = 4.99), School Administration (SA = 2.64),
Professional Pleasure (PP = 4.97), Climate Factors (CF = 3.68), Inter-
Personal Relations (IPR = 1.98), Student Behaviour (SB = 4.72) and
Personal (P = 3.58) are highly significant in respect of Teacher
Motivatioindicates that teachers with high Teacher Value Behaviour do
differ significantly in respect of all the dimensions of Teacher
Motivation. The obtained ‘t’ value of High and Low Teacher Value
Behaviour in relation to all dimensions of Teacher Motivation is more
than 1.96 and 2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels
respectively. Hence, the hypothesis rejected.

377
 Verification is Second hypothesis that ‘t’ there is no significant
difference between high and low Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of
Teacher Self-efficacy’ presented in Table 5.290.
Table 5.290 Table showing significance of difference of means in
between
High and Low Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of
Teacher
Self-efficacy
Category A.M. S.D. N df ‘t’ Level of
Significance
High Teacher
Value Behaviour 200.8 26.5 34
5 8 8 Significant at
570 10.4 0.01 level
Low Teacher 2
Value Behaviour
178.3 24.3 22
4 9 4

The value of ‘t’ (10.42) is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is
significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the
nullhypothesis is rejected.
The above table clearly indicates that teachers with High Teacher
Value Behaviour (200.85) do differ from Teachers with Low Teacher
Value Behaviour (178.34). It is further stated that the teahers with
High Teacher Value Behaviour have more Teacher Efficacy than that of
Low Teacher Value Behaviour. The obtained ‘t’ value 10.42 is more
tham 1.96 and 2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels.
Verification of hypothesis that the significance of difference of
means between high and low Teacher Value Behaviour in relation with
all the dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy presented in Table 5.291.

378
Table 5.291 Table showing ‘t’ values between high and low Teacher
Value
Behaviour in respect of all the dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy
Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological
Category experienc experienc experien &
e e ce Psychologica
l experience
High Teacher Value
Behaviour
3.49 2.28 1.89 4.68
Low Teacher Value
Behaviour

The above table discloses that the ‘t’ values of high and low
Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of the dimensions ‘Mastery
experience (3.49), Vicarious experience (2.28) and Physiological and
Psychological experience (4.68) of Teacher Self-efficacy is more than
1.96 and 2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected. Whereas the High and Low Teacher
Value Behaviour in respect of dimension Social experience (1.89) of
Teacher Efficacy is not corroborated. Hence, the hypothesis is
retained.
This shows that the Teachers are significantly differed with high
and low Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of dimensions ‘Master
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological experience’. It is further observed that Teachers of high

379
and low Teacher Value Behaviour have more favourable towards the
dimensions ‘Master experience’, Vicarious experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ when compared with
Teachers of Low Teacher Value Behaviour. Whereas no significant
difference is found between the High and Low Teacher Value Behaviour
in respect of the dimensions ‘Social experience’ of Teacher Self-
sefficacy.
Verification of third hypothesis that ‘there is no significant
difference between high and low Teacher Motivation in respect of
Teacher Self-efficacy’ presented in Table 5.292.
Table 5.292 Table showing significance of difference of means
in between High and Low Teacher Motivation in
respect of Teacher Self-efficacy
Category A.M S.D N df ‘t’ Level of
significan
ce
High Teacher 254.3 29.6 29
Motivation 8 5 6 Significan
58 10.8 t at 0.01
8 3 level

Low Teacher 229.6 24.5 26

Motivation 7 2 4

The value of ‘t’ (10.83) of High and Low Teacher Motivaton in

relation to Teacher Self-efficacy is more than 1.96 and 2.5, which is
significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the hypothesis
is rejected.
The above table clearly indicates that teachers with High Teacher
Motivation (254.38) do differ from teachers with Low Teaher Mtivation
(229.67). It is further stated that the teachers with High Teacher
Motivation have more Teacher Self-efficacy than the Teachers of Low
Teacher Self-efficacy.

380
 Verification of significance of difference of means between High
and Low Teacher Motivation in relation with all the dimensions of
Teacher Self-efficacy presented in Table 5.293.
Table 5.293 Table showing ‘t’ values between High and Low Teacher
Motivation In respect of all the dimensions of Teacher
Efficacy
Category Mastery Vicarious Social Physiological
experien experien experien &
ce ce ce Psychologica
l experience
High Teacher
Motivation 3.69 4.53 5.38 4.92

Low Teacher
Motivation

The above table shows that the ‘t’ values of High and Low
Teacher Motivation in respect of dimensions ‘Master experience’ (3.69),
‘Vicarious experience’ (4.53), ‘Social experience’ (5.38) and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ (4.92) of Teacher Self-
efficacy is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and
0.01 levels respectively. Hence, the hypothesis is rejected.
This disclosed that the Teahers with High Motivation do differ
significantly from teachers with Low Teachers Motivation in respect of
dimensions of ‘Mastery Experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social
experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’ of
Teacher Self-efficacy. Further, it is observed that Teachers of High
Motivation have more favourable towards all dimensions of Teacher
Self-efficacy when compared with Teachers of Low Teacher Motivation.

381
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The aim of the present study is to make an investigation into the
relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Self-efficacy among the Teacher of Junior Colleges in
Vizianagaram District of Andhra Pradesh. After reviewing earlier
investigations it is found that research on Teacher Value Behaviour,
Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy has not received much
attention. Hence, the present investigation is an attempt to
understand the relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher
Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
In the present study, the first tool is to measure Teacher Value
Behaviour with four dimensions viz., Mastery experience, Vicarious
experience, Social experience and Physiological and Psychological
experience. Similarly, second tool Teacher Motivation scale consists of

382
nine dimensions viz., Classroom Teaching, School Administration,
Professional Pleasure, Climate Factors, Inter-Personal Relations, Student
Behaviour, Working condition, Professional Development and Personal.
The Third tool Teacher Self-efficacy, was constructed and standardized
by the present investigator for the purpose of present research study.
The Teacher Self-efficacy is designed with four dimensions viz., Mastery
experience, Vicarious experience, Social experience and Physiological
and Psychological experience.
Objectives:
(1) To Develop and standardize the Teacher Value Behaviour of
Dr.VSR, Pakalapati (2004) to be used by Teacher himself.
(2) To develop and standardize the Teacher Motivation Scale of
Dr.U.L.Narayana (1986) to be used by teacher himself.
(3) To develop and standardize the Nimma’s Teacher Self-efficacy
constructed by the present investigator is used.
(4) To find the relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour and
Teacher Motivation.
(5) To find the relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour and
Teacher Self-efficacy.
(6) To find the relationship between Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Self-efficacy.
(7) To find out the significant difference between different
categories of demographic variables in respect of Teacher
Value Behaviour Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(8) To find out significant difference between high and low Teacher
Value Behaviour in respect of Teacher Motivation and Teacher
Self-efficacy.
(9) To find out significant difference between high and low Teacher

383
 Motivation in respect of Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher
Self-efficacy.
(10) To find out significant difference between high and low Teacher
Self-efficacy in respect of Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher
Motivation.
Hypotheses:
(1) There is no significant relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Motivation.
(2) There is no significant relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(3) There is no significant relationship between Teacher Motivation
and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(4) There is no significant relationship between dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-
efficacy.
(5) There is no significant relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Motivation.
(6) There is no significant relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(7) There is no significant Inter and Intra-relationship between
Teacher Value Behaviour, Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(8) There is no significant relationship between various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour and with other
dimensions of Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(9) Thee is no significant relationship between various dimensions
of Teacher Motivation and with other dimensions of Teacher
Value Behaviour and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(10) There is no significant relationship between various

384
 dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy and with other dimensions
of Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher Motivation.
(11) Male and Female Teachers do not differ significantly in respect
of their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and
Teacher Self-efficacy.
(12) Rural and Urban locality Teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation
and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(13) Post-graduates, Post-graduate with MlPhil/Ph.D., Post-graduate
with B.Ed., and Post-graduate with M.Ed., qualified Teachers do
not differ significantly in respect of their Teacher Value
Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(14) Lecturers and Principals do not differ significantly in respect of
their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher
Self-efficacy.
(15) Teaching Sciences, Teaching Humanities and Teaching
Language Teachers do not differ significantly in respect of their
Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-
efficacy.
(16) Experience with below 10 years, 10 to 15 years, 15 to 20
years, 20 to 25 years, 25 to 30 years and above 30 years
Teachers do not differ significantly in respect of their Teacher
Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(17) Married and Unmarried Teachers do not differ significantly in
respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation
and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(18) Residential Non-residential Teachers do not differ significantly
in respect of their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation

385
 and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(19) Co-educational, exclusively for Women and exclusively for Men
Institution’s Teachers do not differ significantly in respect of
their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher
Self-efficacy.
(20) Residential, Aided, Government and Private Unaided Institution
Teachers do not differ significantly in respect of their Teacher
Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(21) There is no significant difference between high and low in
respect of Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of Teacher
Motivation.
(22) There is no significant difference between high and low in
respect of Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(23) There is no significant difference between high and low
Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy.
Procedure (Tools Used):
In order to test the hypotheses the investigation has been carried
as follows –

(1) In order to measure Teacher Value Behaviour of Pakalapati’s

Teacher Value Behaviour Scale is developed by the
investigator. Likert’s five point rating technique is used to
reconstruct the scale. Items are prepared to measure Work
Centered, Learner Centered, Professional Centered,
Adjustment Centered and Educational Centered aspects of
Teacher Value Behaviour that can be measured through these
dimensions.
(2) In order to measure Teacher Motivation, the scale developed

386
 by Dr.U.L.Narayana wad adopted by the investigator. Likert’s
five point rating scale is used to prepare the scale. Items are
prepared to measure the aspects Classroom Teaching, School
Administration, Professional Pleasure, Climate Factors, Inter-
Personal Relations, Student Behaviour, Working condition,
Professional Development and Personal of Teacher Motivation
is measure.
(3) While the third tool Nimma’s Teacher Self-efficacy Scale is
constructed and standardized by the Investigator. Likert’s five
point rating scale is adopted to measure the Self-efficacy
among the selected sample of teachers. This tool consists of
four dimensions viz., Master experience, Vicarious experience,
Social experience and Physiological and Psychological
experience.
All the three tools are standardized on a tryout sample of 150
teachers working in different Junior Colleges in Vizianagaram and
surroundings.
Sample:
The sample selected for the investigation consists of 612
teachers of different Junior Colleges in Vizianagaram District of
Andhra Pradesh. The researcher has adopted the random sampling
technique to obtain the data from the selected sample.
Analysis of Data:
The following statistical techniques are followed to analyze the
data of the present investigation.
(1) Means and Standard Deviations for all the distributions are
calculated.
(2) Pearson’s Product Moment Correlations are calculated for Even

387
 and Odd items of rating scales and their reliability indices are
computed by using Spearman Brown Prophecy formula.
(3) To find out the relationship between (i) Teacher Value
Behaviour, (ii)Teacher Motivation, (iii) Teacher Self-efficacy, ‘r’
values are computed extensively. Co-efficient of correlations
are also calculated for all the dimensions.
(4) Critical Ratios are calculated for item analysis and to test the
subsidiary hypotheses.
Within the limits of the results obtained in the present study
the following conclusions are arrived at.
C O N C L U S I O N S:
Major Hypotheses:
The research study conducted to pursue the relationship between
the major hypotheses viz., relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy of Teachers
working in selected Junior Colleges in Vizianagaram District of Andhra
Pradesh are presented hereunder.
(1) There is significant relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Motivation.
(2) There is significant relationship between Teacher Value
Behaviour and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(3) There is significant relationship between Teacher Motivation
and Teacher Self-efficacy.
(4) There is significant relationship between various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour. Similarly, there is an inter-
relationship between all the dimensions of Teacher Value
Behaviour.
(5) There is significant relationship between various dimensions of

388
 Teacher Motivation. Similarly, there is an inter-relationship
between all the dimensions of Teacher Motivation.
(6) There is significant relationship between various dimensions of
Teacher Self-efficacy. Similarly, there is an inter-relationship
between all the dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy.
(7) There is significant relationship between inter and intra
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation
and Teacher Self-efficacy.
Subsidiary Hypotheses:
The research study is concluded on the sample of selected Junior
College Lecturers in Vizianagaram District of Andhra Pradesh taking the
demographic variables into consideration for the purpose of measuring
their Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-
efficacy and the variables wise conclusions are presented hereunder.
TEACHER VALUE BEHAVIOUR:
There is significant difference between Male and Female
Teachers.
There is significant difference between Male and Female Teachers
in respect of the dimensions ‘Work Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’ and
‘Professional Centered’ aspects. There is no significant difference
between Male and Female Teaches in respect of the dimensions
‘Professional Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ aspects.
There is significant difference between Rural and Urban area
Teachers.
There is significant difference between Rural and area teachers in
respect of dimensions ‘Learner Centered’ and ‘Adjustment Centered’
aspects.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduates, Post-

389
graduates with M.Phil/Ph.D.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduates and
Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., in respect of all dimensions.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduates and
Post-graduates with B.Ed.
There is significant difference between Post-graduates and Post-
graduates with B.Ed., in respect of dimension ‘Learner Centered’ and
no significant difference is found in respect of dimensions ‘Work
Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’ and
‘Educational Centered’.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduates and
post-graduates with M.Ed.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduate and
Post-graduate with M.Ed., in respect of all dimensions.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduate with
M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-graduate with B.Ed. There is no significant
difference between these categories in respect of all dimensions.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduate with
M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-graduate with M.Ed. And no significant of
difference is found between these category teachers in respect of
dimensions.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduate with
B.Ed., and Post-graduate with M.Ed. There is significant difference
between these category teachers in respect of dimension ‘Learner
Centered’ and no significant difference is found in respect of
dimensions ‘Work Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’.
There is significant difference between Lecturers and Principals.

390
There is significant difference in respect of dimension ‘Professional
Centered and no significant difference is found in respect of
dimensions ‘Work Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Adjustment
Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’.
There is significant difference between the Lecturers Teaching
Sciences and Teaching Humanities. No significant difference is found
in respect of the dimensions.
There is significant difference between the Lecturers Teaching
Sciences and Teaching Languages. There is significant difference in
respect of Dimension ‘Work Centered’ and no significance is found in
respect of dimensions ‘Work Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’,
‘Professional Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’
and ‘Educational Centered’. There is significant difference between
Teachers and Principals.
There is significant difference between Teachers and Principals in
respect of the dimension ‘Professional Centered’ and no significant
difference is found in respect of ‘Work Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’,
‘Adjustment Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered’ aspects.
There is significant difference between the Teachers Teaching
Sciences and Teaching Humanities. Whereas no significant difference
is found in respect of ‘Work Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional
Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered aspects.
There is significant difference between the Teachers Teaching
Sciences and Teaching Languages. Similarly, there is significant
difference in respect of the dimension ‘Work Centered’ and no
significant difference is found in respect of ‘Learner Centered’,
‘Professional Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’ and ‘Educational
Centered’ aspects.

391
 There is no significant difference between the Teachers Teaching
Humanities and Teaching Languages and also o significant difference is
found in respect of all dimensions.
In respect of experience category, there is no significant
difference between below 10 years and 10 to 15 years, below 10 years
and 15 to 20 years and below 10 years and 25 to 30 years. There is
significant difference between below 10 years and 20 to 25 years,
below 10 years and above 30 years. In respect of dimensions, there is
no significant difference between below 10 years and 10-15 years,
below 10 years and 25 to 30 years and below 10 years and above 30
years. Whereas, significant difference is found between below 10
years and 15 to 20 years in respect of ‘Work Centered’ and
‘Professional Centered’ aspects. Similarly, there is significant
difference between below 10 years and 20 to 25 years in respect of the
dimension ‘Educational Centered’.
There is no significant difference between 10 to 15 years and 15
to 20 years, 10 to 15 years and 20 to 25 years, 10 to 15 years and 25
to 30 years. There is significant difference between 10 to 15 years and
above 30 years, where no significant difference is found in respect of
all dimensions.
There is no significant difference between 15 to 20 years and 20
to 25 years, 15 to 20 years and 25 to 30 years. There is significant
difference between 15 to 20 years and above 30 years. In respect of
dimensions there is significant difference is found between 15 to 20
years and 20 to 25 years towards ‘Adjustment Centered’ aspect; 15 to
20 years and 25 to 30 years towards ‘Adjustment Centered’ aspect;
and there is significant difference between 15 to 20 years and above
30 years experience in respect of ‘Adjustment Centered’ aspect.

392
 There is no significant difference between 20 to 25 years and 25
to 30 years; 20 to 25 years and above 30 years experience. In respect
of dimensions that there is significant difference between 20 to 25
years and 25 to 30 years towards ‘Adjustment Centered’; 20 to 25
years and above 30 years in respect of ‘Work Centered’ and
‘Adjustment Centered’ aspects respectively.
There is no significant difference between 25 to 30 years and
above 30 years and similarly in respect of dimensions no significant
difference is found in this regard.
In respect of marital status category, there is significant
difference between Married and Unmarried Teachers. There is
significant difference between these categories in respect of dimension
‘Educational Centered’.
There is significant difference between Residential and Non-
residential Institutions. Similarly, there is significant difference
between Residential and Non-residential Institutions in respect of ‘Work
Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, and ‘Adjustment Centered’ aspects.
In respect of Type of Institution, there is no significant difference
between Co-Educational and Exclusively for Women Institutions; Co-
educational and Exclusively for Men Institutions; and Exclusively for
Women and Exclusively for Men Institutions. In respect of dimensions,
there is significant difference between Co-Educational and Exclusively
for Women Institutions in respect of ‘Adjustment Centered’ and
‘Educational Centered’ aspects. In respect of Dimensions no significant
difference is found between Co-educational and Exclusively for Men
Institutions. Whereas, significant difference is found between
Exclusively for Women and Exclusively for Men Institutions in respect of
‘Work Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered’ and

393
‘Educational Centered’ aspects.
In respect of Type of Management category there is no significant
difference between Residential and Aided Institution Teachers.
Similarly, no significant difference is found in respect of all dimensions.
There is no significant difference between Residential and
Government Institution Teachers. In respect of dimensions, no
significant difference is found between these Institution category
teachers in respect of dimensions of ‘Work Centered’, ‘Learner
Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered aspects.
But there is significant difference in respect of ‘Adjustment Centered’
aspect.
There is significant difference between Residential and Private
Unaided Institution Teaches. In respect of dimensions significant
difference is found in ‘Adjustment Centered’ aspect. There is
significant difference between Aided and Government Institution
Teachers. In respect of dimensions, significant difference is found in
respect of ‘Work Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Adjustment Centered
and ‘Educational Centered’ aspects. But no significant difference is
found in respect of the dimension ‘Professional Centered’.
There is significant difference between Aided and Private Unaided
Institution Teachers. In respect of dimensions, there is no significant
difference in respect of ‘Work Centered’. There is significant difference
in respect of ‘Learner Centered’ aspect. There is no significant
difference in respect of ‘Professional Centered’ aspect. There is
significant difference between ‘Adjustment Centered’ and ‘Educational
Centered’ aspects.
There is no significant difference between Government and
Private Unaided Institution Teachers. But it is interesting to note that

394
there is significant difference in respect of all dimensions.
TEACHER MOTIVATION:
There is significant difference between Male and Female
Teachers. In respect of dimensions, there is no significant difference in
respect of ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional
Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects. There is no significant difference
in respect of ‘School Administration’ and ‘Student Behaviour’ aspects.
There is significant difference between Rural and Urban areas
Teachers. In respect of dimensions, no significant difference is found in
respect of ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional
Pleasure, ‘Inter-Personal relations’, ‘Student Behavour’, ‘Working
condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects. There is
significant difference in respect of ‘Climate Factors’.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduates and
Post-graduates with M.Phil/Ph.D., qualified teachers. Similarly in
respect of all dimensions, no significant difference is found between
the above category teachers.
There is significant difference between Post-graduates and Post-
graduates with M.Ed. Further, in respect all dimensions no significant
difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduates and
Post-graduates and M.Ed. Further, in respect of all dimensions no
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between post-graduates with
M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-graduates with B.Ed. Further, there is significant
differnce in respect of ‘Classroom Teaching’ and ‘Student Behaviour’
and there is no significant difference in respect of remaining

395
dimensions i.e., ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-personal relations’, ‘Working Condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduates with
M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-graduates with M.Ed. Further, in respect of all
dimensions no significant difference is found.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduates with
B.Ed., and Post-graduates with M.Ed. Similarly, in respect of
dimensions no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between Lecturers and
Principals. Similarly, in respect of dimensions no significant difference
is found between the above category teachers.
There is significant difference between the Teachers Teaching
Sciences and Teaching Humanities. And, there is significant difference
between these two category teachers in respect of ‘Personal’ aspect.
While in case of all other dimensions no significant difference is found
among the Teachers Teaching Sciences and Teaching Humanities.
There is no significant difference between the Teachers Teaching
Sciences and Teaching Languages. Similarly, in respect of all other
dimensions no significant difference is found.
There is significant difference between the Teachers Teaching
Humanities and Teaching Languages. While in the case of all other
dimensions there is no significant difference between the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between below 10 years and 10
to 15 years experience teachers. Similarly in respect of all dimensions
there is no significant difference between the above category teachers.

396
 There is no significant difference between below 10 years and 15
to 20 years experience teachers. In respect of dimension ‘Inter-
personal relations’ there is significant difference. Whereas, no
significant difference is found in respect of remaining dimensions i.e.,
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional
Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects.
There is no significant difference between below 10 years and 20
to 25 years experience teachers. Similarly in respect of all dimensions,
no significant difference is found among the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between below 10 years and 25
to 30 years experience teachers. Similarly in respect of all dimensions,
no significant difference is found among the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between below 10 years and
above 30 years experience teachers. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions, no significant difference is found among the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 10 to 15 years and 15
to 20 years experience teachers. Similarly in respect of all dimensions,
no significant difference is found among the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 10 to 15 years and 20
to 25 years of experience teachers. Similarly, no significant difference
is found among the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 10 to 15 years and 25
to 30 years of experience teachers. Similarly, no significant difference
is found among the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 10 to 15 years and 20
to 25 years of experience teachers. And in respect of all dimensions,
no significant difference is found among the above category teachers.

397
 There is no significant difference between 15 to 20 years and 20
to 25 years of experience teachers. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions, no significant difference is found among the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 15 to 20 years and 20
to 25 years of experience teachers. Similarly, in respect of all
dimensions, no significant difference is found among the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 15 to 20 years and 20
to 25 years of experience teachers. Further in respect of all
dimensions, no significant difference is found among the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 15 to 20 years and
above 30 years of experience teachers. Similarly, in respect of all
dimensions, there is no significant difference in respect of above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 20 to 25 years and 25
to 30 years of experience teachers. In respect of all dimensions, there
is no significant difference between the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 20 to 25 years and 25
to 30 years of experience teachers. Similarly, in respect of all
dimensions, there is no significant difference between the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 20 to 25 years and
above 30 years of experience teachers. Similarly, in respect of all
dimensions, there is no significant difference between the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 25 to 30 years and

398
above 30 years of experience teachers. Similarly, in respect of all
dimensions, there is no significant difference between the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between Married and Unmarried
Teaches. In respect of dimensions ‘Professional Pleasure’, there is
significant difference between the above category teachers. Whereas
no significant difference is found in the case of remaining dimensions
namely ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working
Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects.
There is no significant difference between Residential and Non-
residential Institution Teachers. Similarly in respect of all dimensions,
no significant difference is found between the above category
teachers.
There is no significant difference between Co-educational and
Exclusively for Women Institution Teachers. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions, no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between Co-educational and
Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions, no significant different is found between the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between Exclusively for Women
and Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions, no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between Residential and Aided
Institution Teachers. In respect of dimension ‘Professional Pleasure’

399
and ‘Student Behaviour’, there is significant difference between the
above two category teachers. While in the case of remaining
dimensions viz., ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Climate
Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relations’, ‘Working condition’, ‘Professional
Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects, no significant difference is found
among the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between Residential and
Government Institution Teachers. Similarly in respect of all dimensions
no significant difference is found between the above category
teachers.
There is no significant difference between Residential and Private
Unaided Institution Teachers. Similarly in respect all dimensions, no
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between Aided and Government
Institution Teachers. It is interesting to note that in respect of the
dimension ‘Professional Development’, there is significant difference
between the above category teachers. While no significant difference
is found among the above category teachers in the case of remaining
dimensions viz., ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’,
‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relations’,
‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working Condition’ and ‘Personal’ aspects.
There is no significant difference between Aided and Private
Unaided Institution Teachers. Similarly in respect of dimensions, no
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between Government and
Private Unaided Institution Teachers. There is significant difference
among the above category teachers in the case of dimensions ‘Student
Behaviour’ and ‘Professional Development’ aspects. Whereas no

400
significant difference is found between the above category teachers in
the case of dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’,
‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relations’,
‘Working condition’ and ‘Personal’ aspects.
TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY:
There is significant difference between Male and Female
Teachers. Similarly significant difference is found between these
category teachers in respect of dimension ‘Mastery experience’. While
no significant difference is found between the above category teachers
in respect of remaining dimensions viz., ‘Vicarious experience, Social
experience and Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects.
There is significant difference between Rural and Urban area
teachers. Similarly, there is significant difference between the above
category teachers in respect of the dimension ‘Vicarious experience’.
Whereas no significant difference is found between the above category
teachers in respect of remaining dimensions viz., ‘Mastery experience,
Social experience, Physiological and Psychological experience’ aspects.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduates and
Post-graduates with M.Phil/Ph.D. Similarly in respect of all dimensions,
no significant difference is found between the above category
teachers.
There is significant difference between Post-graduates and Post-
graduates with B.Ed. In respect of dimensions ‘Mastery experience’
and ‘Social experience’, there is significant difference between the
above category teachers. While in the case of remaining dimensions
viz., ‘Vicarious experience’ and Physiological and Psychological
experience aspects, no significant difference is found among the above
category teachers.

401
 There is significant difference between Post-graduates and Post-
graduates with M.Ed. In respect of dimensions ‘Mastery experience’
and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’, there is significant
difference between the above category teachers. While in the case of
remaining dimensions ‘Vicarious experience’ and ‘Social experience’,
no significant difference is found between the above category
teachers.
There is significant difference between Post-graduates with
M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-graduates with B.Ed. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduates with
M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-graduates with M.Ed. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between Post-graduates with
B.Ed., and Post-graduates with M.Ed. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.
There is significant difference between Lecturers and Principals.
In respect of all dimensions no significant difference is found between
the above category teachers.
There is significant difference between the teachers teaching
Sciences and teaching Humanities. In respect of all dimensions no
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is significant difference between the teachers teaching
Sciences and teaching Languages. In respect of all dimensions no
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.

402
 There is significant difference between the teachers teaching
Humanities and Languages. In respect of all dimensions no significant
difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is significant difference between below 10 years and 10 to
15 years of experience teachers. Similarly in respect of all dimensions
no significant difference is found between the above category
teachers.
There is no significant difference between below 10 years and 15
to 20 years of experience teachers. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.
There is significant difference between below 10 years and 20 to
25 years of experience teachers. In respect of all dimensions no
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between below 10 years and 25
to 30 years of experience teachers. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.
There is significant difference between below 10 years and above
30 years of experience teaches. In respect of all dimensions no
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 10 to 15 years and 15
to 20 years of experience teachers. Further in respect of the
dimension ‘Social experience’, there is significant difference between
the above category teachers. While in the case of remaining
dimensions viz., ‘Mastery experience, Vicarious experience and
Physiological and Psychological experience’ no significant difference is
found between the above category teachers.

403
 There is significant difference between 10 to 15 years and 20 to
25 years of experience teachers. In respect of all dimensions no
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 10 to 15 years and 25
to 30 years of experience. Similarly in respect of all dimensions no
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 10 to 15 years and
above 30 years of experience teachers. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.
There is significant difference between 15 to 20 years and 20 to
25 years of experience teachers. In respect of all dimensions no
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 15 to 20 years and 25
to 30 years of experience teachers. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.
There is significant difference between 15 to 20 years and above
30 years of experience teachers. In respect of all dimensions no
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 20 to 25 years and 25
to 30 years of experience teachers. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.
There is no significant difference between 25 to 30 years and
above 30 years of experience teaches. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.

404
 There is significant difference between Married and Unmarried
Teachers. Similarly in respect of the dimension ‘Mastery experience’,
there is significant difference between the above category teachers.
While in case of remaining dimensions viz., ‘Vicarious experience’,
‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological experience’
aspects, no significant difference is found among the above category
teachers.
There is significant difference between Residential and Non-
residential institution teachers. In the case of dimensions ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Social experience’ and ‘Physiological and Psychological
experience’ the difference is found significant. Whereas for the
dimension ‘Vicarious experience’ has no significant difference is found
among the above category teachers.
There is significant difference between Co-educational and
Exclusively for Women Institution Teachers. In respect of all dimensions
no significant difference is found between the above category
teachers.
There is significant difference between Co-educational and
Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers. In respect of all dimensions
no significant difference is found between the above category
teachers.
There is no significant difference between Exclusively for Women
and Exclusively for Men Institution Teachers. Similarly in respect of all
dimensions no significant difference is found between the above
category teachers.
There is significant difference between Residential and
Government Institution Teachers. Similarly in respect of dimensions
‘Mastery experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’ and ‘Social experience’

405
aspects, there is significant difference between the above category
teachers. While in the case of dimension ‘Physiological and
psychological experience’ aspect, no significant difference is found
between the above category teachers.
There is no significant difference between Residential and Private
Unaided Institution Teachers. Similarly in respect of all dimensions, no
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is significant difference between Aided and Government
Institution Teachers. While in the case of all dimensions, no significant
difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is significant difference between Aided and Private Unaided
Institution Teachers. Similarly in respect of all dimensions, significant
difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is significant difference between Government and Private
Unaided Institution Teachers. Similarly in respect of all dimensions,
significant difference is found between the above category teachers.
There is significant difference between the teachers of high and
low Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of their Teacher Motivation.
Similarly, there is significant difference between teachers of high and
low Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of all the dimensions of Teacher
Motivation.
There is significant difference between the teachers of high and
low Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of their Teacher Self-efficacy.
Similarly, there is significant difference between Teachers of high and
low Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of all the dimensions of Teacher
Self-efficacy.
There is significant difference between the teachers of high and
low Teacher Motivation in respect of their Teacher Self-efficacy.

406
Similarly, there is significant difference between teachers of high and
low Teacher Motivation in respect of all the dimensions of Teacher Self-
efficacy.
Research Limitations:
This is limited to only Teachers of different category Junior
Colleges situated in different areas under different management in
Vizianagaram District of Andhra Pradesh.
This study is made on the Teachers Teaching alone and the
supporting staff like Physical Education, Craft, Librarians etc., are not
taken into consideration while administering the questionnaire.
Of many dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour, the dimensions
‘Work Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’,
‘Adjustment Centered’, and ‘Educational Centered’, aspects are only
taken into consideration for the purpose of present research.
Of many dimensions of Teacher Motivation, the dimensions
‘Classroom Teaching’, ‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’,
‘Climate Factors’, ‘Inter-Personal Relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’,
‘Working Condition’, ‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects
are only taken into consideration for the present research study.
Similarly, of many dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy, the
investigator confined to the dimensions of ‘Mastery Experience’,
‘Vicarious Experience’, ‘Social Experience’ and ‘Physiological and
Psychological Experience’ aspects are only considered in the present
study.
Suggestions for further Research:
This study may be extended to higher education i.e., Degree
Colleges, Professional Colleges and University Departments.
Relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher

407
Competency and Teacher Attitude may be studied.
Similarly, an investigation is needed to study the relationship
between Teacher Self-efficacy, Work Orientation as its impact on
academic achievement.
An analytical study of relationship between Teacher Motivation,
Teacher Effectiveness and its impact on Classroom Climate may be
undertaken.
Educational Implications of the Study:
The role of Teacher is pivotal in any educational agency. This
study reveals Teacher Value Behaviour played a predominant role in
teaching learning process. The dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour
‘Work Centered’, ‘Learner Centered’, ‘Professional Centered’,
‘Adjustment Centered’ and ‘Educational Centered aspects, which
influence the teaching. The teacher in order to develop his Value
Behaviour he has to concentrate his attention towards these aspects.
Hence, Value Behaviour played pivotal role in the teaching learning
process.
Another major educational implication of the study is that the
Teacher Motivation is considered as an important factor, which in turn
motivate better in the classroom teaching. This study disclosed that
the Teacher Motivation covered with dimensions ‘Classroom Teaching’,
‘School Administration’, ‘Professional Pleasure’, ‘Climate Factors’,
‘Inter-Personal Relations’, ‘Student Behaviour’, ‘Working condition’,
‘Professional Development’ and ‘Personal’ aspects, which influence
teacher better motivated and maintain cordial relations with students
and staff in all academic activities of the institution.
Further, another major implication of the study is that Teacher
Self-efficacy also a factor to reckon to improve effectiveness in Teacher.

408
The Teacher Self-efficacy consists of four dimensions viz., ‘Mastery
experience’, ‘Vicarious experience’, ‘Social experience’ and
‘Physiological and Psychological experience’, which in turn influence on
teacher to develop his teacher characteristics and his various
experiences helped him becoming an effective teacher in the society.
Thus the study envisages that there is significant relationship
between Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-
efficacy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agarwala, Surila (1999_, ‘Relative Efficacy of Word-supply and
Sentence repeat method in the modification of oral reading errors’,
Psycho-Lingua, Vol.29 (2), 97-100 (IEA, Vol.1, January, 2001).

Albert Bandura, ‘Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, ‘Social Cognitive

Theory: An Agentic Perspective’, Asian Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol.2, 1999.

Albert Bandura, ‘Cultivate Self-efficacy for Personal and Organizational

Effectiveness’, in Edwin A.Locke (Ed.), ‘The Blackwell Handbook of
Principles of Organizational Behaviour, Blackwell, Oxford, U.K., 2000,
p.120.

409
Albert Bandura, Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency’, American
Psychologist, Vol.137, 1982, p.122.

Alexander, D.Stajkovic and Fred Luthans, ‘Social Cognitive Theory and

Self-efficacy: Going Beyond Traditional Motivational and Behavioural
Approaches’, Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 1998, p.66.

Allson Soutter (2008), ‘Teachers’ Strategies for promoting Student

Wellbeing and Preventing bullying in Steiner Schools’,
http://www.Wellbeing, australia.com.au/All%20about.html/Wellbeing
Australia, 23.02.2008.

Amita Pandy Bhardwaj, ‘Interactive Classroom Behaviour Patterns of

Secondary School Science Teachers’, Anweshika Indian Journal of
Teacher Education’, NCTE, New Delhi, Vol.Nov.2, Dec.2004.

Anand, S.P. (1996), ‘Development of a motivational package to

promote Teacher Effectiveness at Primary level’, an Independent Study,
Bhubaneswar: Regional Institute of Education, DPEP Study, IEA, 5, July,
1998.

Anand, S.P. (1998), ‘A Study of Motivation for Teacher Effectiveness at

Primary Level’ (IER, Vol.33, (1), January, 1998.

Anbarasu, M. (1992), ‘Value orientation in English Language Textbooks

of Upper Primary Schools’, M.Phil., Edn., Alagappa University, V –
Survey of Education Research, 1997).

Andre’ Brouwer and Welko Tomic (2000), ‘A longitudinal study of

teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom
management’, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University,
P.O.Box.2960, NL-6401, DL Heerlen, Netherlands.

A.N.Kluger and A.DeNisi, ‘The Effects of Feedback Interventions on

Performance: A Historical Review, A Meta-Analysis, and a Preliminary
Feedback Intervention Theory’, Psychological Bulletin, Vl.119, 1996,
pp.254-284.

Ashum Gupta & Bikkar S. Randhawa (2000), ‘Efficacy within a common

410
Intrinsic Structure’, University f Delhi, Canadian Journal of School
Psychology, Vol.15, No.2, 51-66 (2000), DOI: 10.1177/
082957350001500205, © 2000, SAGE Publications.

Balasubrahmanian (1995), ‘Analyzed Teaching Behaviour of Class XI

English Teachers and its Effect on pupils’ achievement in English’ (VI
Survey of Educational Research, 2006).

Bandura, ‘Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change,

psychological Review, 84, 191-215, 1977.

Barbara Marshall Mathews (2005), ‘The Chinese Value Survey: An

interpretation of value scales and consideration of some preliminary
results’, Flinders University, School of Education, Inter National
Educational Journal, China, 2005.

Bhattacharya (2000) ‘Intrinsic Motivation is essential for elevating level

of teaching competence and improving attitude towards teaching
profession of primary teachers’, VI Survey of Educational Research,
1991.

Camilla Anna Czubaj (1996), ‘Maintaining Teacher Motivation’, Journal

Article, Questia Journal Articles, Vol.116, 1996.

C.Lee and P.Bobko (1994), ‘Self-efficacy Beliefs: Comparison of Five

Measures’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.79, 1994, pp.364 – 369
(China)

Clemont Barnabeacute & Mildred Burns (1994), ‘Teacher’s Job

Characteristics and Motivation’, Department of Administration and
Policy Studies in Education, McGill University, Quebec, Canada H3A
1Y3, Published in: Jounral of Educational Research, Volume 36, Issue 2,
Summer, 1994, pp.171 – 185, UK.

Campbell, W.J.(2008), ‘The Teacher’s view of Teaching Behaviour’,

http:www.jstor.org/jstor/gifcvtdir/sp001213/00208566/sp06007106x034
1c_1/1gof?cpmf///.23/2/2008.

Chacon (2005), ‘Self-perceived efficacy of a group of 100 EFL Middle

School Teachers in Venezuela and how this related to their self-reported

411
English proficiency, using the short version of the Teacher Sense of
Efficacy Scale based on Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy (2001), and
two other subscales – Self-report proficiency and pedagogical
strategies (e-Journal, 2005).

D.Cervone(1997), ‘Social-Cognitive Mechanisms and Personality Co-

herence: Self-Knowledge, Situational Beliefs, and Cross-Situational
Coherence in Perceived Self-Efficacy’, Psychological Science, Vol.8,
1997, pp.43 – 50.

Daniel Cervone (2000), ‘Thinking abut Self-efficacy’, Behaviour

Modification, VI.24, No.1, 2000, p.33 (also Bandura, ‘Self-efficacy: The
Exercise of Control, op.cit).

Dayakara Reddy, V. (2006) ‘Value-Oriented Education’, (Edited by

V.Dayakara Reddy and Digumarti Bhaskara Rao), New Delhi, Discovery,
2006, xii, 415 p., tables, $55.ISBN 81-8356-051-2).

D.Eden, and Y.Zuk (1995) ‘Seasickness as a Self-fulfilling Prophecy:

Raising Self-efficacy to Boost Performance at Sea’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol.80, 1995, pp.628 – 635.

Den Brok, Perry; Fisher, Darrell and Scott, Rowena (2005), ‘The
Importance of Teacher Inter-Personal Behaviour for Student Attitudes in
Brunei Primary Science Classes’, International Journal of Science
Education, Routledge, Part of the Taylor & Francis Group, Volume 27,
No.7, 3 June, 2005, pp.765-779(15), Australia.

Dennis, M.Mcinerney (2005), ‘Educational Psychology – Theory,

Research and Teaching: A25-year retrospective, Educational
Psychology, Volume 25, pp.585 – 589, 6.12.2005, University of Western
Sydney, Australia.

D.Jones (2001), ‘Firms Spend Billions to Fire up Workers – with Little

Luck’, USA Today, May 10, 2001, p.1A.

Denzine, Gypsy, M. Cooney; John, B; Meckenzie, Rita (2005),

‘Confirmatory factor analysis of the Teacher Efficacy Scale for
prospective teachers’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.75,
No.4, pp.689 – 708 (20), December, 2005.

D.Mc.Gregor(1960), ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’.

412
Donald, G.Gardner and Jon L.Pierce (1998), ‘Self-esteem and Self-
efficacy within the Organizational Context’, Group and Organization
Management, Vol.23, No.1, 1998, pp.48 – 70.

Dorothee Doerfel-Baasen (2006), ‘Parents and Teachers of Young

children under conditions of Socio-Political Change’, University of
Potsdam, Hellogard Raugh, Germany.

Dubey, Ramjee (1992), ‘A Critical study of the Concept and

Implementationof Value Education in India at school level since 1947 to
1986’, Ph.D., Edu., Patna University, V – Survey of Educational
Research, 1997.

Editorial (2005), ‘Self-efficacy, Stress and Academic Scuccess in

College’, Journal of Research in Higher Educatio, Publisher-Springer
Netherlands, Issue Volume 46, No.6, Sept.2005, DOI 10.1007/s11162-
004-4139-z, p.677-706, Thursday, August 18, 2005, Denmark.

Editorial (2007), ‘Influences of Job Type, Job Status and Gender on

Achievement Motivation’, Journal Current Psychology, Springer New
York, Vol.14, No.2, June, 1995, Subject Collection Behavioural Science,
Denmark.

Education Commission, 1964-66, Government of India.

Fifth Survey of Educational Research, 1988-92, NCERT, New Delhi,

1997.

F.Herzberg, B.Mausner and B.Snyderman, ‘The Motivation to Work’,

New York: Wiley, 1959.

Foster, R.(2000), ‘Becoming a Secondary Teachers in France: a trainee

perspective on recent developments in initial teacher training’ (Source:
Educational Studies, Vol.26, No.1, 1 March 2000, pp.5-17(13),
Publisher: Routledge, Part of the Taylor & Francis Group, France.

Gakiroglue, E.(2005), ‘Teacher Efficacy and Academic Performance’,

Academic Exchange Quarterly, ISSN: 1096-1453, December, 2005,
USA.

Ghaith and Shaaban (1999) ‘How Teaching Experience, Gender, and

413
Grade level Taught correlate with personal and general Teacher
Efficacy and Perceptions of Teaching concerns among 292 Lebanese
Teachers from different school backgrounds using Gibson and Dembo’s
(1984) 16-item teaching efficacy scale, in addition to a 28-item
measure that addressed teaching concerns of Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997b.

Gibson, Sherri; Dembo, Myron, H.(1984), ‘Teacher Efficacy: A Construct

Validation; Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.75, No.4, p.569 – 82,
August, 1984, EJ-306050.

Ginns, Ian S.; Watters, James, J. (1996), ‘Experiences of Novice

Teachers: Changes in Self-efficacy and their Belief about Teaching’,
Descriptors: Beginning Teacher Induction; Beginning ?Teachers;
Elementary Education, Elementary School Science; Foreign Countries;
Science Instruction; Science Teachers; Self-Efficacy; Teacher
Effectiveness; Teacher Motivation in Australia.

Goker (2006), ‘The impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and

instructional skills of EFL pre-service Teachers in Northern Cyprus’
using Bandura’s (1995) General Self-Efficacy Scale.

Green, J; Nelson, G; Mortin, A.J and Marsh, H.(2008), ‘The Casual

Ordering of Self-concept and Academic Motivation and its effect on
Academic Achievement’, The Internal Educational Journal: Comparative
Prospectives, New Zealand, 2008.

Gupta and Pande (1999) ‘Commitment level of Polytechnic Teachers

and Strategies to enhance it’, VI Survey of Educational Research,
NCERT, 2006.

Hasan and Paragariha (1995), ‘Whether Extreme Response Style serves

as an indicator of (Jenkins) type ‘A’ Behaviour Pattern of Male Primary
School Teachers’, VI Survey of Educational Research, 2006.

Henry, E.Garrete (1981), ‘Statistics in Psychology and Education’,

Vakils, Feffer and Simons Pvt., Ltd., Bombay, 1981.

I.Harpaz (1990), ‘The importance of Work Goals: An International

Perspective’, Journal of International Business Studies, First Quarter,
1990, pp.75-93.

414
Jack Campbell (1996), ‘A Comparison of Teacher Efficacy for pre and in-
service teachers in Scotland and America’, http://www.Questia
.com/Google Scholar, qst; jsessionid, 18.2.2008.

Jayanthi & Reena Agarwal (2006), ‘Relationship between Teachers’

Values and Socio-emotional Climate of the Classroom’, Journal of Indian
Education, NCERT, Vol.XXXII, No.2, Aug.2006.

Jeffery, Gorrell & Earl W.Captron (1988) ‘Effects of Instructional Type

and Feedback on Prospective Teachers’ Self Efficacy Beliefs’, Journal of
Experimental Education, Vo.56, (Southeastern Louisiana University),
USA (http://www.Questia. Com./google Scholar.Qst?docld=95139552,
18.2.2008).

Jonathan Bayley and others (2008), ‘Teaches 2001 Project: The

Canadian Study of Teacher Satisfaction, Motivation and Health’,
Teacher 2000 Project: An International Study of Teacher Satisfaction,
Motivation and Health, The New Zealand Report, Canada.

Josephine M.Shireen Desouza (2004), ‘A Study of Science Teaching Self-

efficacy and outcome expectancy beliers of Teachers in India’, Dept. of
B.Biology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306-0440, USA, 2004.

Kapani, Madhu (1990), ‘Education in Human Values: Concept and

practical implications’, Ph.D., Edu., Sri Satya Sai Institute of Higher
Learning, V- Survey of Educational Research, 1997.

Kaul, S.(1977), ’Personality Factors, Values and Interests among the

most accepted and least accepted Secondary School Female Teachers
in Mathura District, Ph.D., Psychology, Agra University, 1977.

Kerry Barnett & John McCormick (2003), ‘Vision, relationships and

Teacher Motivation: A Case Study’, Journal of Educational
Administration, Year: 2003, Vol.41, Issue-1, pp.55-73, 10.11.2008,
Australia.

Kevin, D.Finson (2001), ‘Investigating Pre-service Elementary

Teachers’, Self-efficacy Relative to Self-image as a Science Teacher’,
Journal of Elementary Education, Vol.13, Questia Media, America, 2001
(Questia.com/Google Scholar, Qst).

415
Klukohn (1975) ‘A Value is a preference as well as the Conception of
the Preferable’ (Unpublished Dissertation.

Kukreti (1994) ‘Motivational Factors of Teaching Job, Which are

correlated of Competent Teaching, and which differentiate competent
and incompetent Teachers’ (VI Survey of Educational Research, NCERT,
2006).

Lesley Mandel Morrow & John Young Rutgers (1997), ‘A Family Literacy
Program connecting school and Home: Effects on Attitude, Motivation
and Literacy Achievement’ Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.89,
1997, USA.

Li-Ling Hsu, RN (2006), ‘An Analysis of Clinical Teacher Behaviour in a

Nursing Practicum in Taiwan’, Journal of Clinical Nursing, Volume 15,
Issue 5, Pp.619 – 628, May, 2006, China.

Magdalena Kubanyiova (206), ‘Developing a Motivational Teaching

Practice in EFL Teaches in Slovakia: Challenges of Promoting Teacher
Change in EFL Contexts’, University of Nottingham, Journal of TESL-EJ,
Vol.10, Nov.2006, UK.

Martin, V.Cogington (1981), ‘Reactions to Achievement Behaviour from

a Teacher and Student Perspective : A Developmental Analysis’,
American Educational Research Association, Vol.18, No.1, Pp.15 – 28,
USA.

McClelland, D.C., ‘The Achieving Society’, Van Nostrand Reinhold,

1961, USA.

Mei-Mei Changa (2005), ‘Modern Foreign Languages’, National

Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, Journal
Computer Assisted Language Learning, Volume 18, Issue 3 July 2005,
Pp.217 – 230, China.

Mittal, Jai Prakash (1992), ‘An Exploratory Study of Teachers’

Motivation to work and some factors associated with high and low
Work Motivation of Teachers’, Ph.D., Edu., Meerut University, V –
Survey Educational Research, NCERT, 1997.

416
Mohan Raju (1992) ‘A Study of Factors contribute to stimulate and
sustain the commitment of Senior Secondary School Teachers of Delhi
to the Teaching Profession’, Ph.D., Edu., University of Delhi, VI Survey
of Education Research, NCERT, 2006.

Murugudu Srihari (2007) investigated into ‘Values of Prospective

Teachers’, Discovery Publishing House, 2007, X, 124, $18.ISBN 81-
8356-328-7 E-Journal.

Mutha, D.N. (1980) ‘An Attitudinal and Personality Study of Effective

Teachers’, Ph.D., Psy., Jodhpur University, III Survey of Educational
Research, NCERT, 1986.

New Education Policy, Government of India, 1986.

Paula, A. Deforest & Jan N.Hughes (1992) ‘Effect of Teacher

Involvement and Teacher Self-Efficacy on Ratings of Consultant
Effectiveness and Intervention Acceptability’, Journal of Educational
and Psychological Consultation, Vol.3,
Questia.com/google.scholar.qst?docld=77034071.

Ramachandra Reddy, B (2007), ‘Teaching Behaviour of High School

Teachers’, New Delhi, Discovery Publishing House, 2007, XVI, 510,
$55.ISBN 81-8356-325-2.

Reddy, B.S. Kumar and Srinivas, P.B. (1997), ‘Efficacy of behavioural

programme in managing teacher stress and improving teacher
effectiveness’ in Teacher Empowerment and School Effectiveness at
Primary Stage: International Perspective, National Council of
Educational Research and Training, IEA, 6, January, 1999, New Delhi.

Report of University Education Commission, 1949, Government of

India, New Delhi.

Richards G. (2001), ‘Gandhi’s Philosophy of Education’, Oxford

University Press.

Rokeach (1973)) defined value as ‘An Enduring belief, a specific mode

of conduct’, Unpublished Dissertation.

Sally Thomas (2007), ‘Self-efficacy, Perceptions of barriers, Vocational

417
identity, and the career exploration behaviour of Latino, high school
students’, Career Development Quarterly, ISSN:0899-4019, USA
Jun.2006

Scanian, Kolone, RL (2006), ‘Self-efficacy, Perceptions of Barriers,

Vocational Identity and the Career exploration Behaviour of Latino/a
high school students’, Career Development Quarterly, ISSN:0889-4019,
USA, June, 2006.

Schmitz, G.S., & Schwarzer, R (2000), ‘Self-efficacy of Teachers in

Germany’, Questia.com/google.Scholar, 2000.

Seah W.T. (2002), ‘The Perception of, and Interaction with, Value
Differences by Immigrant Teachers of Mathematics in Two Australian
Secondary Classrooms’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, Volume 23,
No.2, August 1, 2002, Pp.189 – 210(22), Publisher: Routledge, Part of
the Taylor & Francis Group, Japan.

Selaledid, K.(2008), ‘Teacher Efficacy in the Free State Province of

South Africa’, Department of Education, Vista University, Welkom
Campus, PB:1881, Welkom, 9460, AFRIQUE DU SUD, France.

Sharma, Meenu (1992), ‘A Study of Teachers Socio-economic Status

and Values with reference to their Attitude towards Nation’, Ph.D., Edu.,
Agra University, V – Survey of Educational Research, NCERT, New Delhi,
1997.

Shaver (1976), ‘Values and Standards and Principles for Judging worth
from the above views, that values are inherent, conduct behaviour’
(Unpublished Dissertation).

Sheela (1988), ‘Change in Teaching Behaviour as a Function of

Inculcation of Values Predicting Teachers’ Effectiveness’, Ph.D., Edu.,
Punjab University, V - Survey of Research in Education, NCERT, New
Delhi.

Singhal, Sushila and Sharma, Rita (1996), ‘Teacher Self-efficacy and

Competence for improving Quality of Primary Schooling’, Studies on
Classroom Process and School Effectiveness at Primary Stage, NCERT,
IEA, 6, January, 1999.

418
Sixth Survey of Educational Research, NCERT, New Delhi, 2006.

Srivastava, Y.V. (1995), ‘Efficacy of concept attainment model in the

Teaching of English Grammar’, Psycho-Lingua, Vol.25 (1&2), Pp.69 – 72.

Srivastava, Vinodini (1990), ‘A Study of Change-Proneness and Job

Satisfaction among Teacher with reference to Teacher Values’, Ph.D.,
Edu., Agra University, V – Survey of Educational Research, NCERT, New
Delhi, 1997.

Singh (1997), ‘The Relationship between Non-verbal Creative Thinking

and Behaviour Ratios of Science Teachers trained through
Microteaching Technique’, VI Survey of Educational Research, NCERT,
New Delhi, 2006.

Stajkovic and Luthans, ‘Self-efficacy and Work-related Performance : A

Meta Analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.124, No.2, 1998, Pp.244.

Stem (1967), ‘The Acquisition Problem solving strategies in Young

children and its relation to Verbalization’, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 58, Pp.245 – 252, USA.

Trifinger(1973), ‘The Power of Creative Behaviour’, 1973-74, Pp.8, 20 –

29, USA.

T.R.Mitchell (1997), ‘Mitching Motivational Strategies with

Organizational Contexts’, in L.L.Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds.),
Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol.19, Greenwich, CT:JAI Press,
1997, Pp.60-62.

Wee Tiong Seah (2008), ‘The Professional Socialization of Teachers in

Transition: A Values Perspective’, Monash University, Australia (e-
journal).

Yu,Weihua (2005), ‘Promoting in quality in China’s Higher Educaton by

Motivating Students Attending the British Culture Survey Course’,
Customer Services for Taylor & Francis Group Journals, 325, Chestnut
Street, Sinte 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106:1.11.2005.

Zohresh, R.Eslami (2008), ‘Teachers’ Sense of Self-efficacy, English

Proficiency, and Instructional Strategies: A Study of Nonnative EFL

419
Teachers in Iran’, Azizullah Fatahi Tarbiat Modarres University, Iran.

Appendix – I

VSR Pakalapati’s Teacher Value Behaviour Scale

Dear respected Teacher,

I expect your valuable and hearty cooperation in my present
educational research. I assure that your ideas expressed are used only
to my research and also kept confidential. Hence, I request you to
kindly extend your cooperation in this regard.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Ch.Satya Rao
Personal Data
Please fill in the blanks hereunder with proper details relating to
you before you answer the questionnaire.
1.Name :
2.Sex : Male/Female

420
 3.Locality : Rural/Urban
4.Designation : Graduate/Post-graduate/PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.
5.Subject of Teaching : Sciences/Humanities/Languages
6.Professional Experience: (in years)
7.Marital Status : Married/Unmarried
8.Type of Institution : Residential/Non-Residential
9.Status of the Institution: Co-educational/Exclusively for Men/
Exclusively for Women
10.Type of Management :
Residential/Aided/Government/Zillah Parishad
Minority/Municipality/Private Unaided

VSR Pakalapati’s Teacher Value Behaviour Scale

Instruction: In this booklet some situations relating to you are given

in the sentence form. The following five kinds of opinions are provided
against each statement. Please read carefully and indicate the opinion
according to your choice, which you agreed to by putting ‘X’ mark
against each statement.
SA : Strongly Agree
A : Agree
N : Neutral
DA : Disagree
SDA : Strongly Disagree
S.No. Description of the Item SA A N D SDA
A
1 I have strong opinion while doing job
2 I am dedicated towards my profession

421
3 I maintain timings in duty
4 I prefer to better performance
5 I am attending to the Institution regularly
without any deviation
6 I am interested in giving priority to my
professional interests
7 I am obeying towards my colleagues
8 I am interested to prepare the school
time-table
9 I have kindness to others difficulties
10 I am interested to associate with my
colleagues in their activities
11 I appreciate the (good) opinions
expressed by the pupils
12 I encourage the (good) ideas of the
students
13 I maintain equally all the students without
discrimination
14 I develop the sincerity among students

:: 2nd page ::
S.No. Description of the Item SA A N D SDA
A
15 I am encouraging the pupils to be better
in the classroom
16 I have maintained integrity among
students
17 I am encouraging the unity among pupils
18 I am positively responded on the doubts
of pupils
19 I have special interest to obtain better
responses from students
20 I have patience and acceptance towards
pupils
21 I concentrate depth studies to obtain
knowledge related to my profession
22 I am giving weightage to the thoughts of

422
 my colleages
23 I am obedient to the administrators
related to my profession
24 I have the professional self-discipline
25 I have no disparity in relation to my
professions
26 I am interested to associate with the
activities of my colleagues
27 I have responsibility towards my
profession
28 I extend cooperation to the head-teacher
29 I have an innovative ideals
30 I am striving hard to become better
teacher in the society
31 I am maintaining cordial relations with my
colleagues
32 I am sincere in conducting examinations
33 I develop the students with the resources
available in school
34 I have cooperative mindedness with my
colleagues
35 I have no gender discrimination

:: 3rd page ::
S.No. Description of the Item SA A N D SDA
A
36 I am interested specially in extra-
curricular activities in addition to my work
37 I am doing my job in classroom within the
class timings
38 I am sharing with the problems of
students
39 I have no individual discrimination
40 I am always in positive attitude
41 I am with the existing advancement

423
 schemes
42 I am preparing the information in addition
to classroom work
43 I am respecting each every individual
44 I am confined to the lesson in classroom
teaching
45 I am always sincere
46 I am eager to obtain new concepts related
to my profession
47 I am devoted my country
48 I am looking the environments clean
49 I am concentrating the problem solving in
respect of syllabus content
methodological issues.
50 I prefer to self-cleanliness

Appendix – II

ULN’s Teacher Motivation Scale

Dear respected Teacher,

I expect your valuable and hearty cooperation in my present
educational research. I assure that your ideas expressed are used only
to my research and also kept confidential. Hence, I request you to
kindly extend your cooperation in this regard.

424
 Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Ch.Satya Rao
Personal Data

Please fill in the blanks hereunder with proper details relating to

you before you answer the questionnaire.
1.Name :

2.Sex : Male/Female
3.Locality : Rural/Urban
4.Designation : Graduate/Post-graduate/PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.
5.Subject of Teaching : Sciences/Humanities/Languages
6.Professional Experience: (in years)
7.Marital Status : Married/Unmarried
8.Type of Institution : Residential/Non-Residential
9.Status of the Institution: Co-educational/Exclusively for Men/
Exclusively for Women
10.Type of Management :
Residential/Aided/Government/Zillah Parishad
Minority/Municipality/Private Unaided

ULN’s Teacher Motivation Scale

Instruction: In this booklet some situations relating to you are given

in the sentence form. The following five kinds of opinions are provided
against each statement. Please read carefully and indicate the opinion
according to your choice, which you agreed to by putting ‘X’ mark
against each statement.

425
SA : Strongly Agree
A : Agree
N : Neutral
DA : Disagree
SDA : Strongly Disagree
S.No Description of the Item SA A N D SD
. A A
1 Adequate preparation makes my classroom
teaching easy and effective
2 I used to adopt innovative techniques to make
teaching effective
3 I use to introduce other than curriculum aspects
4 I go through resource material for my classroom
teaching
5 Using suitable method inspires my classroom
teaching
6 Teachers need not strive hard to make classroom
teaching effective
7 I am sensitive while teaching in classroom
8 Head teacher’s attitude do not influence my
functioning
9 I am negative to the policies, which are not
suited for classroom teaching
10 I am obeying the instructions of the head-
teacher
11 My work in the school, however good is not
appreciated by my authorities
12 I am satisfied with my colleagues who helped in
my teaching

:: 2nd Page ::
S.No Description of Item S A N D SD
. A A A
13 Head teacher gave opportunity to
participate in decision making

426
14 I am not happy when I am fail in teaching
lesson
15 I feel difficult to carry out the policies as
assigned
16 I derive pleasure in teaching
17 I love my profession because it develops
my personality
18 I am trying at my level best to do best
19 I feel happy by the appreciation of students
20 I derive pleasure in guiding students
21 I am satisfied with the school environment
22 Instead of complaining about lack of
facilities I use the available resources
23 I am satisfied with the classroom
environment
24 Unhealthy school surroundings insights my
professional interests
25 I make my classrooms more stimulating
26 I have the better relations with my
colleagues
27 Indifferent attitude of parents hinders
school activity
28 I maintain cardiac relations with students
29 I maintain good relations with higher
authorities
30 Creativity in children enriching my reaching
31 I feel teaching a tedious task because of
students indiscipline
32 I am unable tolerate the indiscipline
behaviour of the pupils in classroom
33 I feel happily in making students actively
involved in different activities
34 I feel that I am also responsible for the
indiscipline behaviour of my students

:: 3rd Page ::

427
S.No. Description of Item SA A N D SD
A A
35 I am interested to encourage pupils to
develop their ideas
36 I encourage students to express their
views
37 I need to work even after school hours
38 I am satisfied with salary I get for the
job
39 I am facing hardship while teaching
lessons
40 I prefer to stay in the place of my work
41 I am happy with the existing
advancement schemes
42 In-service Training Programmes enables
to develop my teaching techniques
43 I am interested to introduce new topics
44 I wish to improve my academic
qualifications
45 I am interested to contact the experts
to develop professional skills
46 Innovative veracities are not
acceptable for implementations
47 Experimental teaching in the classroom
given me satisfaction
48 My home conditions make my
profession joyfully
49 I am trying to overcome the academic
problems
50 My place of work happens the future of
my children
51 Success of my children’s performance
make me happy
52 I am sensitive in performing my duties
effectively
53 I forget all my burdens before entering
the classroom

Appendix – III

428
 Nimma’s Teacher Self-efficacy Scale

Dear respected Teacher,

I expect your valuable and hearty cooperation in my present
educational research. I assure that your ideas expressed are used only
to my research and also kept confidential. Hence, I request you to
kindly extend your cooperation in this regard.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Ch.Satya Rao
Personal Data

Please fill in the blanks hereunder with proper details relating to

you before you answer the questionnaire.
1.Name :

2.Sex : Male/Female
3.Locality : Rural/Urban
4.Designation : Graduate/Post-graduate/PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.
5.Subject of Teaching : Sciences/Humanities/Languages
6.Professional Experience: (in years)
7.Marital Status : Married/Unmarried
8.Type of Institution : Residential/Non-Residential
9.Status of the Institution: Co-educational/Exclusively for Men/
Exclusively for Women
10.Type of Management :
Residential/Aided/Government/Zillah Parishad
Minority/Municipality/Private Unaided

429
 Nimma’s Teacher Self-efficacy Scale

Instruction: In this booklet some situations relating to you are given

in the sentence form. The following five kinds of opinions are provided
against each statement. Please read carefully and indicate the opinion
according to your choice, which you agreed to by putting ‘X’ mark
against each statement.
SA : Strongly Agree
A : Agree
N : Neutral
DA : Disagree
SDA : Strongly Disagree
S.No Description of the Item SA A N D SD
. A A
1 Teacher should develop his skills to mould
himself better in classroom teaching
2 Teacher should be innovative in improving the
knowledge to enrich his classroom teaching
3 Teacher should introduce new ideas to enhance
etter classroom teaching
4 Teacher should use new teaching techniques to
awaken innate powers of the students
5 Teacher should prefer to keep the class active for
effective classroom teaching
6 Teacher should always using the ideas of his
colleague teachers in classroom teaching
7 Teacher should restrict his personal problems to
perform better in the classroom teaching
8 Teacher has need to perform better in his
teaching to create interest among the students
9 Teacher should develop his teaching skills to
guide his colleagues for their better teaching
10 Teacher should avoid the escaping mentality to
clear the doubts expressed by the pupils

430
 :: 2nd Page ::

S.No Description of the Item S A N D SD

. A A A
11 Teacher should control his emotions to perform
successfully in the guidance of classroom
teaching
12 Teacher should feel proud and happy about his
profession when he does his job in all aspects
successfully
13 Teacher should share with experiences of his
colleagues to implement their ideas in his
teaching
14 Teacher should respect the new teaching
techniques of his colleagues for his better
classroom teaching
15 Teacher should collect the useful material from
various books and journals to enhance his
professional skills and knowledge
16 Teacher should participate in the academic
activities like seminars, workshops, conferences
etc., to inspire his colleagues to participate in
these activities
17 Teacher should accept the expressions of his
pupils in the classroom
18 Teacher should feel happy in the classroom when
he successfully clear the doubts of the students
in the lesson taught by him
19 Teacher should maintain professional behaviour
so as to be a model to his colleagues
20 Teacher should concentrate on the habit of
reading books and journals etc., so as to
influence his colleagues to do so
21 Teacher should have commitment towards his
profession to influence his colleagues to mould
better classroom structure
22 Teacher should cooperate with his colleagues
and students to promote co-curricular and extra
curricular activities
23 Teacher should be accountable towards his
profession to make his colleagues become

431
 effective teachers
24 Teacher should involve and encourage the pupils
in co-curricular and extra curricular activities

:: 3rd Page ::
S.No Description of the Item S A N D SD
. A A A
25 Teacher should be cordial with his colleagues
and head teacher in maintaining better
academic situation in the school complex
26 Teacher should be cooperative with the parents
in giving suggestions to improve their children’s
education
27 Teacher should be cooperative with the officials
and accept their suggestions in maintaining
effective classroom teaching
28 Teacher should maintain better relations with
eminent scholars to conduct the meetings on
academic affairs for the benefit of the staff and
students
29 Teacher should participate in the social activities
to encourage the colleagues and students to
participate interestingly
30 Teacher should influence his colleagues in the
achievement of the aims and objectives of the
head teacher in the interest of establishing
better school complex
31 Teacher should express candid opinions on
academic aspects, which in turn influence the
colleagues to expose their concurrent ideas on
school complex
32 Teacher should oppose certain activities in the
school complex
33 Teacher should always strive hard to mould the
students to be better future citizens, which in
turn influence his colleagues to meet the tasks
34 Teacher should discourage the violence and
anti-social activities with the help of his
colleagues and his students so as to establish a

432
 better society
35 Teacher should evaluate himself to be better,
which in turn influence his colleagues to be
better-motivated and moral teachers.
36 Good habit of a teacher will influence the other
colleagues to make themselves to be better
teachers

:: 4th Page ::
S.No Description of the Item S A N DA SD
. A A
37 Teacher should participate in Physical exercises
and Yoga activities that influence the other
teachers and students to inspire themselves to
participate
38 Teacher’s “less talk and work more’ principle
will influence on other colleagues and students
39 Teacher should participate in the Institutional
physical activities to encourage his colleagues
and students to do so
40 Teacher should be dynamic in teaching, with all
his personal experiences and techniques, which
in turn share with his colleagues
41 Teacher should always be peaceful while
entering in the classroom, which in turn
influence his colleagues to follow him
accordingly
42 Teacher must be generous and always be joyful
while entering the classroom
43 Teacher thoughts should always convince the
students, which in turn provoke his colleagues
to develop the same in their profession
44 Teacher’s behaviour is to be appreciated by the
students, which in turn will influence the
colleagues to perform better
45 Teacher should express his innovative ideals to
promote better situations in the school

433
46 Teacher’s creativity and interest in his
profession will meet the challenged tasks in
academic aspects.

Appendix – I

VSR Pakalapati’s Teacher Value Behaviour Scale

Dear respected Teacher,

I expect your valuable and hearty cooperation in my present
educational research. I assure that your ideas expressed are used only
to my research and also kept confidential. Hence, I request you to
kindly extend your cooperation in this regard.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Ch.Satya Rao
Personal Data
Please fill in the blanks hereunder with proper details relating to
you before you answer the questionnaire.
1.Name :
2.Sex : Male/Female
3.Locality : Rural/Urban
4.Designation : Graduate/Post-graduate/PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.
5.Subject of Teaching : Sciences/Humanities/Languages
6.Professional Experience: (in years)

434
 7.Marital Status : Married/Unmarried
8.Type of Institution : Residential/Non-Residential
9.Status of the Institution: Co-educational/Exclusively for Men/
Exclusively for Women
10.Type of Management :
Residential/Aided/Government/Zillah Parishad
Minority/Municipality/Private Unaided

VSR Pakalapati’s Teacher Value Behaviour Scale

(Final Test)
Instruction: In this booklet some situations relating to you are given
in the sentence form. The following five kinds of opinions are provided
against each statement. Please read carefully and indicate the opinion
according to your choice, which you agreed to by putting ‘X’ mark
against each statement.
SA : Strongly Agree
A : Agree
N : Neutral
DA : Disagree
SDA : Strongly Disagree
S.No. Description of the Item SA A N D SDA
A
1 I have strong opinion while doing job
2 I am dedicated towards my profession
3 I maintain timings in duty
4 I am attending to the Institution regularly
without any deviation
5 I am obeying towards my colleagues
6 I have kindness to others difficulties
7 I appreciate the (good) opinions
expressed by the pupils
8 I encourage the (good) ideas of the

435
 students
9 I maintain equally all the students without
discrimination
10 I develop the sincerity among students
S.No. Description of the Item SA A N D SDA
A
11 I have maintained integrity among
students
12 I have patience and acceptance towards
pupils
13 I concentrate depth studies to obtain
knowledge related to my profession
14 I am obedient to the administrators
related to my profession
15 I have the professional self-discipline

:: 3rd page ::
S.No. Description of the Item SA A N D SDA
A
16 I have no disparity in relation to my
professions
17 I have responsibility towards my
profession
18 I have an innovative ideals
19 I am maintaining cordial relations with my
colleagues
20 I develop the students with the resources
available in school
21 I have no gender discrimination
22 I am sharing with the problems of
students
23 I have no individual discrimination
24 I am always in positive attitude
25 I am with the existing advancement
schemes
26 I am respecting each every individual
27 I am always sincere

436
28 I am devoted my country
29 I am looking the environments clean
30 I prefer to self-cleanliness

Appendix – II

ULN’s Teacher Motivation Scale

Dear respected Teacher,

I expect your valuable and hearty cooperation in my present
educational research. I assure that your ideas expressed are used only
to my research and also kept confidential. Hence, I request you to
kindly extend your cooperation in this regard.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Ch.Satya Rao
Personal Data

437
 Please fill in the blanks hereunder with proper details relating to
you before you answer the questionnaire.
1.Name :

2.Sex : Male/Female
3.Locality : Rural/Urban
4.Designation : Graduate/Post-graduate/PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.
5.Subject of Teaching : Sciences/Humanities/Languages
6.Professional Experience: (in years)
7.Marital Status : Married/Unmarried
8.Type of Institution : Residential/Non-Residential
9.Status of the Institution: Co-educational/Exclusively for Men/
Exclusively for Women
10.Type of Management :
Residential/Aided/Government/Zillah Parishad
Minority/Municipality/Private Unaided

ULN’s Teacher Motivation Scale

(Final Test)
Instruction: In this booklet some situations relating to you are given
in the sentence form. The following five kinds of opinions are provided
against each statement. Please read carefully and indicate the opinion
according to your choice, which you agreed to by putting ‘X’ mark
against each statement.
SA : Strongly Agree
A : Agree
N : Neutral
DA : Disagree
SDA : Strongly Disagree

438
S.No. Description of the Item SA A N DA SD
A
1 Adequate preparation makes my classroom
teaching easy and effective
2 I used to adopt innovative techniques to
make teaching effective
3 I go through resource material for my
classroom teaching
4 Using suitable method inspires my classroom
teaching
5 Teachers need not strive hard to make
classroom teaching effective
6 Head teacher’s attitude do not influence my
functioning
7 My work in the school, however good is not
appreciated by my authorities
8 Head teacher gave opportunity to participate
in decision making
9 I feel difficult to carry out the policies as
assigned
10 I derive pleasure in teaching
11 I love my profession because it develops my
personality
12 I feel happy by the appreciation of students SA A N DA SD
A
13 I derive pleasure in guiding students
14 Instead of complaining about lack of facilities
I use the available resources
15 Unhealthy school surroundings insights my
professional interests
16 I make my classrooms more stimulating
17 Indifferent attitude of parents hinders school
activity
18 I maintain cardiac relations with students
19 I maintain good relations with higher
authorities
20 Creativity in children enriching my reaching
21 I feel teaching a tedious task because of
students indiscipline
22 I feel happily in making students actively
involved in different activities

439
23 I feel that I am also responsible for the
indiscipline behaviour of my students
24 I encourage students to express their views
25 I am satisfied with salary I get for the job
26 I prefer to stay in the place of my work
27 I am happy with the existing advancement
schemes
28 In-service Training Programmes enables to
develop my teaching techniques
29 I wish to improve my academic qualifications
30 Innovative veracities are not acceptable for
implementations
31 Experimental teaching in the classroom given
me satisfaction
32 My home conditions make my profession
joyfully
33 My place of work happens the future of my
children
34 Success of my children’s performance make
me happy
35 I forget all my burdens before entering the
classroom

Appendix – III

Nimma’s Teacher Self-efficacy Scale

Dear respected Teacher,

I expect your valuable and hearty cooperation in my present
educational research. I assure that your ideas expressed are used only
to my research and also kept confidential. Hence, I request you to
kindly extend your cooperation in this regard.
Thanking you,

440
 Yours faithfully,
Ch.Satya Rao
Personal Data

Please fill in the blanks hereunder with proper details relating to

you before you answer the questionnaire.
1.Name :

2.Sex : Male/Female
3.Locality : Rural/Urban
4.Designation : Graduate/Post-graduate/PG with
M.Phil/Ph.D.
5.Subject of Teaching : Sciences/Humanities/Languages
6.Professional Experience: (in years)
7.Marital Status : Married/Unmarried
8.Type of Institution : Residential/Non-Residential
9.Status of the Institution: Co-educational/Exclusively for Men/
Exclusively for Women
10.Type of Management :
Residential/Aided/Government/Zillah Parishad
Minority/Municipality/Private Unaided

Nimma’s Teacher Self-efficacy Scale

(Final Test)
Instruction: In this booklet some situations relating to you are given
in the sentence form. The following five kinds of opinions are provided
against each statement. Please read carefully and indicate the opinion
according to your choice, which you agreed to by putting ‘X’ mark
against each statement.
SA : Strongly Agree

441
A : Agree
N : Neutral
DA : Disagree
SDA : Strongly Disagree
S.No Description of the Item SA A N DA SDA
.
1 Teacher should develop his skills to mould
himself better in classroom teaching
2 Teacher should be innovative in improving the
knowledge to enrich his classroom teaching
3 Teacher should introduce new ideas to enhance
better classroom teaching
4 Teacher should use new teaching techniques to
awaken innate powers of the students
5 Teacher should prefer to keep the class active
for effective classroom teaching
6 Teacher should restrict his personal problems to
perform better in the classroom teaching
7 Teacher has need to perform better in his
teaching to create interest among the students
8 Teacher should develop his teaching skills to
guide his colleagues for their better teaching
9 Teacher should control his emotions to perform
successfully in the guidance of classroom
teaching
10 Teacher should feel proud and happy about his
profession when he does his job in all aspects
successfully
11 Teacher should share with experiences of his
colleagues to implement their ideas in his
teaching
12 Teacher should respect the new teaching
techniques of his colleagues for his better
classroom teaching
13 Teacher should collect the useful material from
various books and journals to enhance his
professional skills and knowledge
14 Teacher should participate in the academic
activities like seminars, workshops, conferences
etc., to inspire his colleagues to participate in
these activities
15 Teacher should feel happy in the classroom

442
 when he successfully clear the doubts of the
students in the lesson taught by him
16 Teacher should maintain professional behaviour
so as to be a model to his colleagues
17 Teacher should concentrate on the habit of
reading books and journals etc., so as to
influence his colleagues to do so
18 Teacher should have commitment towards his
profession to influence his colleagues to mould
better classroom structure
19 Teacher should cooperate with his colleagues
and students to promote co-curricular and extra
curricular activities
20 Teacher should be accountable towards his
profession to make his colleagues become
effective teachers
21 Teacher should be cordial with his colleagues
and head teacher in maintaining better
academic situation in the school complex
22 Teacher should be cooperative with the parents
in giving suggestions to improve their children’s
education
23 Teacher should be cooperative with the officials
and accept their suggestions in maintaining
effective classroom teaching
24 Teacher should maintain better relations with
eminent scholars to conduct the meetings on
academic affairs for the benefit of the staff and
students
25 Teacher should participate in the social activities
to encourage the colleagues and students to
participate interestingly
26 Teacher should influence his colleagues in the
achievement of the aims and objectives of the
head teacher in the interest of establishing
better school complex
27 Teacher should express candid opinions on
academic aspects, which in turn influence the
colleagues to expose their concurrent ideas on
school complex
28 Teacher should always strive hard to mould the
students to be better future citizens, which in

443
 turn influence his colleagues to meet the tasks
29 Teacher should discourage the violence and
anti-social activities with the help of his
colleagues and his students so as to establish a
better society
30 Teacher should evaluate himself to be better,
which in turn influence his colleagues to be
better-motivated and moral teachers.
31 Good habit of a teacher will influence the other
colleagues to make themselves to be better
teachers
32 Teacher should participate in Physical exercises
and Yoga activities that influence the other
teachers and students to inspire themselves to
participate
33 Teacher’s “less talk and work more’ principle
will influence on other colleagues and students
34 Teacher should participate in the Institutional
physical activities to encourage his colleagues
and students to do so
35 Teacher should be dynamic in teaching, with all
his personal experiences and techniques, which
in turn share with his colleagues
36 Teacher should always be peaceful while
entering in the classroom, which in turn
influence his colleagues to follow him
accordingly
37 Teacher thoughts should always convince the
students, which in turn provoke his colleagues
to develop the same in their profession
38 Teacher’s behaviour is to be appreciated by the
students, which in turn will influence the
colleagues to perform better
39 Teacher should express his innovative ideals to
promote better situations in the school
40 Teacher’s creativity and interest in his
profession will meet the challenged tasks in
academic aspects.

444
 Appendix –VII
Gist of Selected Junior Colleges
S Name of the Institution Place of the Sample of
.No Institution Teachers
1 A.P.S.W. Residential Junior College Kopperla 6
2 A.P.S.W. Residential Junior College Garugubilli 5
(Girls)
3 A.P.S.W. Residential Junior College Komarada 7
(Girls)
4 A.P.S.W. Residential Junior College Salur 9
5 A.P.S.W. Residential Junior College Badangi 8
6 A.P.S.W. Residential Junior College Cheepurupalli 11
(Girls)
7 A.P.S.W. Residential Junior College Nellimarla 9
8 A.P.S.W. Residential Junior College Tatipudi 9
(Girls)
9 A.P.S.W. Residential Junior College Vepada 10
9 R.R.S.K.R.Junior College Bobbili 14
10 Shri Durga Sharif Junior College Shreeramnagar 16
11 Maharajah’s Junior College Vizianagaram 18
12 Lakshmi Devi Gupta Junior College Dharmapuri 11
13 Maharajah’s Junior College for Vizianagaram 16
Women
14 Government Junior College Gantyada 11
15 Government Junior College Nellimarla 10
16 A.P.S.W. Residential Junior College Vepada 7
17 Government Junior College Pusapatirega 8
18 Government Junior College Denkada 7
19 Government Junior College Salur 13
20 Government Junior College Seethanagaram 12
21 Government Junior College Gurla 10
22 Government Junior College Parvathipuram 18
23 Government Junior College Gajapathinagara 12
m
24 Government Junior College S.Kota 10
25 Government Junior College (Girls) Gajapathinagara 8
m
26 St.Joseph’s Junior College (Girls) Vizianagaram 15
27 S.V.J.Junior College Bheemasingi 10
28 S.B.G.N.M.Junior College Vizianagaram 11
29 A.P.S.P.B.Junior College Chinthalavalasa 13

445
30 R.S.S.R.B.V.K.Junior College Vizianagaram 14

S.No Name of the Institution Place of the Sample of

. Institution Teachers
31 Best Junior College Vizianagaram 8
32 Narayana Junior College Vizianagaram 14
33 Gayathri Junior College Vizianagaram 12
34 Srinivasa Junior College Vizianagaram 9
35 M.S.N.Junior College Vizianagaram 7
36 R.K.Junior College Vizianagaram 7
37 Sri B.Krishna Junior College Vizianagaram 6
38 Vivekavardhini Junior College Vizianagaram 9
39 A.G.L.Junior College Vizianagaram 10
40 Sri Chaithanya Junior College Vizianagaram 7
41 Vivekananda Junior College S.Kota 6
42 K.P.N. Junior College Gantyada 8
43 K.A.N. Junior College Gajapathinagara 7
m
44 Y.K.M. Junior College Parvathipuram 8
45 G.M.R. Junior College Rajam 11
46 Government Junior College Rajam 9
47 Government Junior College Rajam 8
(Girls)
48 Government Junior College Palakonda 7
49 Government Junior College Ranasthalam 9
50 A.P.S.W. Residential Junior G.L.Puram 12
College
51 Government Junior College Kurupam 10
52 Government Junior College Balijipeta 13
53 S.V. Junior College Parvathipuram 14
54 Government Junior College Kothavalasa 10
55 Government Junior College Araku Valley 11
56 Government Junior College Paderu 10
57 Government Junior College Sabbavaram 10
58 Government Junior College Chodavaram 10
59 A.P.S.W. Residential Junior Seethampeta 12
College

446
60 Punyagiri Junior College S.Kota 9
a)Residential Junior Colleges 96
b)Aided Junior Colleges 89
c)Government Junior Colleges 219
d)Private Unaided Junior 208
Colleges 612
e)Total Sample of Teachers

A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER VALUE

BEHAVIOUR, TEACHER MOTIVATION AND TEACHER SELF-
EFFICACY AMONG JUNIOR COLLEGE LECTURERS IN
VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Submitted by
Ch.Satya Rao
M.A.M.Ed.
INVESTIGATOR

Under the Research Directorship of

Prof.Nimma Venkata Rao
M.A.M.Ed.Ph.D.,
Department of Education
Andhra University
Visakhapatnam

A.U.
Emblem

THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE ANDHRA UNIVESITY, VISAKHAPATNAM

447
 FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN EDUCATION
2008

DECLARATION BY THE RESEARCHER

I hereby declare that this Thesis entitled ‘A Study of

relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation

and Teacher Self-efficacy among Junior College Lecturers in

Vizianagaram District of Andhra Pradesh’ is my own work except

where specifically stated to the contrary and that it is not

substantially the same as any thesis, which has been submitted

to any other University.

Visakhapatnam

Dated: (CH.SATYA RAO)

448
 ANDHRA UNIVERSITY, VISAKHAPATNAM

Department of Education

Prof.Nimma Venkata Rao

M.A.M.Ed.,Ph.D

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Thesis entitled, ‘A Study of

relationship between Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation
and Teacher Self-efficacy among Junior College Lecturers in
Vizianagaram District of Andhra Pradesh’ submitted by Ch.Satya
Rao, is a record of research work and work done by the candidate
during the period of study under my supervision and that the
dissertation has not previously formed the basis for the award to
the candidate of any degree.

Visakhapatnam,
Dt:

449
 (Dr.P.V.Sitarama Raju) (Prof.Nimma Venkata
Rao)
Joint Research Director RESEARCH
DIRECTOR

Acknowledgement
I deem it a great privilege to work under Prof.Nimma Venkata
Rao, Department of Education, Andhra University,
Visakhapatnam. I owe my success to a great extent to his
sympathetic, sincere and skillful guidance. He has been
brotherly-hood in his affection reflected in the course of guidance
and supervision. I am expressing deep and immense sense
gratitude to him.
I express my sincere and heartfelt thanks to my Joint
Research Director Dr.P.V.Sitarama Raju, Head, Department Social
Studies and Research Director in Education, M.R.College of
Education, Vizianagaram for his enlightening thought provoking
and able guidance. I am indebted to him for advising,
encouraging me to complete this research study.
My thanks are due to Dr.U.Nageswara Rao, Reader in
Educaton, M.Ed., Section, M.R.College of Education, Vizianagaram,
Dr.A.V.Raghavendra Rao, Principal (Retired), Dr.K.Ganeswara Rao,
Head, Department of Mathematics and Dr.D.Tirupathi Reddy,

450
Lecturer in Library Science of M.R.College of Education,
Vizianagaram for their valuable suggestions and ready help
throughout the research study.
I express my sincere thanks to all the Faculty Members,
Department of Education, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam for
their kind suggestions and ready help in successful completion of
this research study.
I express my sincere thanks to my beloved parents and to
my wife and children for their cooperation and encouragement
extended to me throughout the study.
It is my duty to express my sincere thanks to the
Management of Gayathri College of Education, Gotlam for their
ready cooperation in this regard.
I also express my special thanks to the Principals and Faculty
Members of selected Junior Colleges in Vizianagaram District for
their kind cooperation and active participation in successful
administration of the research tools.
My thanks are due to Sri G.M.S.S.Sarma, M.A.B.Ed., Senior
Assistant, M.R.College of Education, Vizianagaram for his constant
cooperation to shape to this research study within a recod time.
I express my thanks to my friends and my students who
have helped me in this regard.
CH.SATYA RAO

451
 CONTENTS

Chapter Description Page Nos.

No.
I Significance of the Study 01 – 04
II Conceptual Foundations 05 – 43
III Review of Related Literature 44 – 85
IV Methodology 86 – 118
V Analysis and Interpretation of Data 119 – 349
VI Summary and Conclusions 350 – 373
Suggestions for further Research 373 – 374
Bibliography 375 – 384
Appendices 385 – 409

452
 List of Tables
Table Description of the Table Page
No. No.
4.1 Table showing the Items and Percentages of
items in Provisional Teacher Value Behaviour 98
4.2 Table showing the Value of CR’s of items in
Teacher Value Behaviour 100
4.3 Table showing the No.of items and
Percentage of items retained under five
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour 102
4.4 Table showing the value of ‘t’ between
Teachers with high and low Teacher Value 103
Behaviour
4.5 Table showing the items in provisional
teacher Motivation Scale 105
4.6 Table showing the Values of CR’s of items of
Teacher Motivation Scale 107
4.7 Table showing the No.of items and
percentages of items retained under nine
dimensions of Teacher Motivation Scale 108
4.8 Table showing the value of ‘t’ between high
and low Teacher Motivation 109
4.9 Table showing the No.of items and
Percentages of items in Provisional Teacher 110
Self-Efficacy Scale
4.10 Table showing the Value of CR’s of items of
Teacher Self-efficacy 112
4.11 Table showing the No.of items and
percentage of final test items of Teacher Self- 113
efficacy
4.12 Table showing the Value of ‘t’ between
Teachers with high and low Teacher Self- 114
efficacy
4.13 Table showing the Distribution of the Sample

453
 of Teachers category wise 115
5.1 Table showing the Significance of ‘r’ between
Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher 120
Motivation
5.2 Table showing the Significance of ‘r’ between
Teacher Value Behaviour and Teacher Self- 121
efficacy

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.3 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Teacher Motivation and Teacher Self-efficacy 122
5.4 Table showing the Inter Correlation Matrix for
various dimensions of Teacher Value 124
Behaviour
5.5 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Work Centered and Learner Centered
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour 124
5.6 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Work Centered Professional Centered
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour 125
5.7 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Work Centered and Adjustment Centered of
Teacher Value Behaviour 125
5.8 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Work Centered and Educational Centered of
Teacher Value Behaviour 126
5.9 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Learner Centered and Professional Centered
of Teacher Value Behaviour 126
5.10 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Learner Centered and Adjustment Centered
of Teacher Value Behaviour 127
5.11 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Learner Centered and Educational Centered
of Teacher Value Behaviour 127
5.12 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between

454
 Professional Centered and Adjustment
Centered of Teacher Value Behaviour 128
5.13 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Professional Centered and Educational
Centered of Teacher Value Behaviour 128
5.14 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Professional Centered and Educational
Centered of Teacher Value Behaviour 129
5.15 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Adjustment Centered and Educational
Centered of Teacher Value Behaviour 133
Table Description of the Table Page
No. No.
5.16 Table showing Inter-Correlation Matrix for
various Dimensions of Teacher Motivation 134
5.17 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Classroom Teaching and School
Administration aspects of Teacher Motivation 134
5.18 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Classroom Teaching and Climate Factors
aspects of Teacher Motivation 135
5.19 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Classroom Teaching and Inter-Personal
Relations aspects of Teacher Motivation 135
5.20 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Classroom Teaching and Student Behaviour
aspects of Teacher Motivation 136
5.21 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Classroom Teaching and Working condition
aspects of Teacher Motivation 136
5.22 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Classroom Teaching and Professional
Development aspects of Teacher Motivation 137
5.23 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Classroom Teaching and Personal aspects of
Teacher Motivation 137
5.24 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
School Administration and Professional
Pleasure aspects of Teacher Motivation 138
5.25 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
School Administration and Climate Factors

455
 aspects of Teacher Motivation 138
5.26 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
School Administration and Inter-Personal
Relations aspects of Teacher Motivation 139
5.27 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
School Administration and Student Behaviour
aspects of Teacher Motivation 139
5.28 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
School Administration and Working condition
aspects of Teacher Motivation 140

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.29 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
School Administration and Professional
Development aspects of Teacher Motivation 140
5.30 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
School Administration and Personal aspects
of Teacher Motivation 141
5.31 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Professional Pleasure and Climate Factors
aspects of Teacher Motivation 141
5.32 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Professional Pleasure and Inter-Personal
Relations aspects of Teacher Motivation 142
5.33 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Professional Pleasure and Students Behaviour
aspects of Teacher Motivation 142
5.34 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Professional Pleasure and Working condition
aspects of Teacher Motivation 143
5.35 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Professional Pleasure and Professional
Development aspects of Teacher Motivation 143
5.36 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Professional Pleasure and Personal aspects of
Teacher Motivation 144
5.37 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Climate Factors and Inter-Personal Relations
aspects of Teacher Motivation 144
5.38 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between

456
 Climate Factors and Student Behaviour
aspects of Teacher Motivation 145
5.39 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Climate Factors and Working condition
aspects of Teacher Motivation 145
5.40 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Climate Factors and Professional
Development aspects of Teacher Motivation 146
5.41 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Climate Factors and Personal aspects of 146
Teacher Motivation
Table Description of the Table Page
No. No.
5.42 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Inter-Personal Relations and Student
Behaviour aspects of Teacher Motivation 147
5.43 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Inter-Personal Relations and Working
condition aspects of Teacher Motivation 147
5.44 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Inter-Personal Relations and Professional
Development aspects of Teacher Motivation 148
5.45 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Inter-Personal Relations and Personal aspects
of Teacher Motivation 148
5.46 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Student Behaviour and Working condition
aspects of Teacher Motivation 149
5.47 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Student Behaviour and Professional
Development aspects of Teacher Motivation 149
5.48 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Student Behaviour and Personal aspects of
Teacher Motivation 150
5.49 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Working condition and Professional
Development aspects of Teacher Motivation 150
5.50 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between
Working condition and Personal aspects of
Teacher Motivation 151
5.51 Table showing the significant of ‘r’ between

457
 Professional Development and Personal
aspects of Teacher Motivation 151
5.52 Table showing Inter-correlation Matrix for
Teacher Self-efficacy 153
5.53 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between
Mastery experience and Vicarious experience
of Teacher Self-efficacy 154
5.54 Table showing significance of ‘r’ between
Mastery experience and Social experience of
Teacher Self-efficacy 154

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.55 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Mastery experience and Physiological and
Psychological experience of Teacher Self- 155
efficacy
5.56 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Vicarious experience and Social experience of
Teacher Self-efficacy 155
5.57 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Vicarious experience and Physiological and
Psychological experience of Teacher Self- 156
efficacy
5.58 Table showing the significance of ‘r’ between
Social experience and Physiological and
Psychological experience of Teacher Self- 156
efficacy
5.59 Table showing the comprehensive Inter-
Correlation Matrix for all the Dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation
and Teacher Self-efficacy 157
5.60 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Male and Female Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour 168
5.61 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Male
and Female Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour 169
5.62 Table showing significance of difference of

458
 Means between Rural and Urban Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour 170
5.63 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Rural
and Urban Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour 170
5.64 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Post-graduate Teachers Post-
graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour 171
5.65 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate Teachers Post-graduate with
M.Phil/Ph.D., Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour 171

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.66 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Post-graduate Teachers Post-
graduate with B.Ed., Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour 172
5.67 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate Teachers Post-graduate with B.Ed.,
Teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 172
5.68 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Post-graduate Teachers Post-
graduate with M.Ed., Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour 173
5.69 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate Teachers Post-graduate with M.Ed.,
Teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 173
5.70 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Post-graduate with
M.Phil/Ph.D., Teachers and Post-graduate with
B.Ed., Teachers in their Teacher Value 174
Behaviour
5.71 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-

459
 graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., Teachers and
Post-graduate with B.Ed., in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value 174
Behaviour
5.72 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Post-graduate with
M.Phil/Ph.D., Teachers and Post-graduate with
M.Ed., Teachers in their Teacher Value 175
Behaviour
5.73 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., Teachers and
Post-graduate with M.Ed., in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value 175
Behaviour

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.74 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Post-graduate with B.Ed.,
Teachers and Post-graduate with M.Ed.,
Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour 176
5.75 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate with B.Ed. Teachers and Post-
graduate with M.Ed., in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour 176
5.76 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Lecturers and Principals in
their Teacher Value Behaviour 177
5.77 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Lecturers and Principals in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour 177
5.78 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Teaching Sciences and
Teaching Humanities Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour 178
5.79 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Teaching Sciences and Teaching Humanities

460
 Teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 179
5.80 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Teaching Sciences and
Teaching Language Teachers in their Teacher 179
Value Behaviour
5.81 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Teaching Sciences and Teaching Language
Teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 180
5.82 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Teaching Humanities and
Teaching Language Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour 180
5.83 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Teaching Humanities and Teaching Language
Teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 181

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.84 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and 10 to 15 years
experience Teachers in their Teacher Value 181
Behaviour
5.85 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10
years and 10 to 15 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of 182
Teacher Value Behaviour
5.86 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and 15 to 20 years
experience Teachers in their Teacher Value 182
Behaviour
5.87 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10
years and 15 to 20 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of 183
Teacher Value Behaviour
5.88 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and 20 to 25 years
experience Teachers in their Teacher Value 184
Behaviour

461
 5.89 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10
years and 20 to 25 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of 184
Teacher Value Behaviour
5.90 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and 25 to 30 years
experience Teachers in their Teacher Value 185
Behaviour
5.91 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10
years and 25 to 30 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of 185
Teacher Value Behaviour
5.92 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and above 30 years
experience Teachers in their Teacher Value 186
Behaviour
5.93 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10
years and above 30 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of 186
Teacher Value Behaviour
5.94 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and 15 to 20 years experience
Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour 187
5.95 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and 15 to 20 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 187

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.96 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and 20 to 25 years experience
Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour 188
5.97 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and 20 to 25 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 188
5.98 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and 25 to 30 years experience
Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour 189
5.99 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to

462
 15 years and 25 to 30 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 189
5.100 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour 190
5.101 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and above 30 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 190
5.102 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to
20 years and 20 - 25 years experience
Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour 191
5.103 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to
20 years and 20 - 25 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 191
5.104 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to
20 years and 25 - 30 years experience
Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour 192
5.105 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to
20 years and 25 - 30 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 193

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.106 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to
20 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour 193
5.107 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to
20 years and above 30 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 194
5.108 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 to
25 years and 25 to 30 years experience

463
 Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour 195
5.109 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 to
25 years and 25 to 30 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 195
5.110 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 to
25 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour 196
5.111 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 to
25 years and above 30 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 196
5.112 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 25 to
30 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers in their Teacher Value Behaviour 197
5.113 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 25 to
30 years and above 30 years experience
teachers in respect of various dimensions of
Teacher Value Behaviour 198
5.114 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Married and Unmarried Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour 198
5.115 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Married and Unmarried teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value 199
Behaviour

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.116 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Non-Residential Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour 200
5.117 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Non-Residential teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher 200
Value Behaviour
5.118 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-

464
 educational and Exclusively for women
Institution Teachers in their Teacher Value 201
Behaviour
5.119 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-
educational and Exclusively for Women
Institution teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour 202
5.120 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-
educational and Exclusively for Men
Institution Teachers in their Teacher Value 203
Behaviour
5.121 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-
educational and Exclusively for Men
Institution teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour 203
5.122 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Exclusively for Women and Exclusively for
Men Institution Teachers in their Teacher 204
Value Behaviour
5.123 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Exclusively for Women and Exclusively for
Men Institution teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Value Behaviour 204
5.124 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Aided Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour 205
5.125 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Aided teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value 206
Behaviour

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.126 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential Government Teachers in their
Teacher Value Behaviour 207
5.127 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Government teachers in

465
 respect of various dimensions of Teacher 207
Value Behaviour
5.128 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Private Unaided Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour 208
5.129 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Private Unaided teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher 209
Value Behaviour
5.130 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided
and Government Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour 210
5.131 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided
and Government teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value 210
Behaviour
5.132 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided
and Private Unaided Teachers in their Teacher
Value Behaviour 211
5.133 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided
and Private Unaided teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Value 212
Behaviour
5.134 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Government and Private Unaided Teachers in
their Teacher Value Behaviour 213
5.135 Table showing the value of ‘t’ between
Government and Private Unaided Teachers in
respect of various dimensions of Teacher 213
Teacher Value Behaviour

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.

466
5.136 Table showing significance of means between
Male and Female Teachers in their Teacher 215
Motivation
5.137 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Male
and Female Teaches in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation 216
5.138 Table showing significance of means between
Rural and Urban Teachers in their Teacher 217
Motivation
5.139 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Rural
and Urban Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation 218
5.140 Table showing significance of means between
Post-graduate and Post-graduate with
M.Phil/Ph.D., Teachers in their Teacher 219
Motivation
5.141 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate and Post-graduate with
M.Phil/Ph.D., Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation 220
5.142 Table showing significance of means between
Post-graduate and Post-graduate with B.Ed.,
Teachers in their Teacher Motivation 220
5.143 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate and Post-graduate with B.Ed.,
Teachers in respect of various dimensions of 221
Teacher Motivation
5.144 Table showing significance of means between
Post-graduate and Post-graduate with M.Ed.,
Teachers in their Teacher Motivation 222
5.145 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate and Post-graduate with M.Ed.,
Teachers in respect of various dimensions of 223
Teacher Motivation
5.146 Table showing significance of means between
Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-
graduate with B.Ed., Teachers in their 224
Teacher Motivation
5.147 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-
graduate with B.Ed., Teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Motivation 225

467
Table Description of the Table Page
No. No.
5.148 Table showing significance of means between
Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-
graduate with M.Ed., Teachers in their 226
Teacher Motivation
5.149 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-
graduate with M.Ed., Teachers in respect of
various dimensions of Teacher Motivation 227
5.150 Table showing significance of means between
Post-graduate with B.Ed., and Post-graduate
with M.Ed., Teachers in their Teacher 227
Motivation
5.151 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate with B.Ed., and Post-graduate with
M.Ed., Teachers in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation 228
5.152 Table showing significance of means between
Lecturers and Principals in their Teacher 229
Motivation
5.153 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Lecturers and Principals in respect of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation 230
5.154 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Teachers teaching sciences
and teaching humanities in their Teacher 230
Motivation
5.155 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
teachers teaching sciences and teaching
humanities of various dimensions of Teacher 232
Motivation
5.156 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Teachers teaching sciences
and teaching Languages in their Teacher 233
Motivation
5.157 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
teachers teaching sciences and teaching

468
 Languages of various dimensions of Teacher 234
Motivation
5.158 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Teachers teaching
humanities and Teaching Languages in their 234
Teacher Motivation
5.159 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
teachers teaching humanities and Teaching
Languages of various dimensions of Teacher 236
Motivation

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.160 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between below 10 years and 10 to 15
years experience teachers in their Teacher 236
Motivation
5.161 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and 15 to 20 years
experience teachers of various dimensions of 236
Teacher Motivation
5.162 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between below 10 years and 15 to 20
years experience teachers in their Teacher 238
Motivation
5.163 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and 15 to 20 years
experience teachers of various dimensions of 239
Teacher Motivation
5.164 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between below 10 years and 20 to 25
years experience teachers in their Teacher 240
Motivation
5.165 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and 20 to 25 years
experience teachers of various dimensions of 241
Teacher Motivation
5.166 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between below 10 years and 25 to 30
years experience teachers in their Teacher 241
Motivation

469
 5.167 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and 25 to 30 years
experience teachers of various dimensions of 242
Teacher Motivation
5.168 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between below 10 years and above 30
years experience teachers in their Teacher 243
Motivation
5.169 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and above 30 years
experience teachers of various dimensions of 244
Teacher Motivation
5.170 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 10 to 15 years and 15 to 20
years experience teachers in their Teacher 244
Motivation
5.171 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and 15 to 20 years experience
teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 245
Motivation

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.172 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 10 to 15 years and 20 to 25
years experience teachers in their Teacher 246
Motivation
5.173 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and 20 to 25 years experience
teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 247
Motivation
5.174 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 10 to 15 years and 25 to 30
years experience teachers in their Teacher 248
Motivation
5.175 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and 25 to 30 years experience
teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 249
Motivation
5.176 Table showing significance of difference of

470
 Means between 10 to 15 years and above 30
years experience teachers in their Teacher 249
Motivation
5.177 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and above 30 years experience
teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 250
Motivation
5.178 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 15 to 20 years and 20 to 25
years experience teachers in their Teacher 251
Motivation
5.179 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to
20 years and 20 to 25 years experience
teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 252
Motivation
5.180 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 15 to 20 years and 25 to 30
years experience teachers in their Teacher 252
Motivation
5.181 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to
20 years and 25 to 30 years experience
teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 253
Motivation
5.182 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 15 to 20 years and above 30
years experience teachers in their Teacher 254
Motivation
5.183 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to
20 years and above 30 years experience
teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 255
Motivation

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.184 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 20 to 25 years and 25 to 30
years experience teachers in their Teacher 256
Motivation
5.185 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 to

471
 25 years and 25 to 30 years experience
teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 257
Motivation
5.186 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 20 to 25 years and above 30
years experience teachers in their Teacher 257
Motivation
5.187 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 to
25 years and above 30 years experience
teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 258
Motivation
5.188 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 25 to 30 years and above 30
years experience teachers in their Teacher 259
Motivation
5.189 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 25 to
30 years and above 30 years experience
teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 260
Motivation
5.190 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Married and Unmarried
teachers in their Teacher Motivation 260
5.191 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Married and Unmarried teachers of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation 261
5.192 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Residential and Non-
Residential teachers in their Teacher 262
Motivation
5.193 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Non-Residential teachers of
various dimensions of Teacher Motivation 263
5.194 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Co-educational and
Exclusively for Women Institution teachers in 264
their Teacher Motivation
5.195 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-
educational and Exclusively for Women
Institution teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Motivation 265
Table Description of the Table Page

472
No. No.
5.196 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Co-educational and
Exclusively for Men Institution teachers in 265
their Teacher Motivation
5.197 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-
educational and Exclusively for Men
Institution teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Motivation 266
5.198 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Exclusively for Women and
Exclusively Men Institution teachers in their 267
Teacher Motivation
5.199 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Exclusively for Women and Exclusively for
Men Institution teachers of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation 268
5.200 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Residenial and Aided
teachers in their Teacher Motivation 269
5.201 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Aided teachers of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation 270
5.202 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Residenial and Government
teachers in their Teacher Motivation 271
5.203 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Government teachers of
various dimensions of Teacher Motivation 272
5.204 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Residenial and Private
Unaided teachers in their Teacher Motivation 272
5.205 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Private Unaided teachers of
various dimensions of Teacher Motivation 273
5.206 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Aided and Government
teachers in their Teacher Motivation 274
5.207 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided
and Government teachers of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation 275

473
Table Description of the Table Page
No. No.
5.208 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Aided and Private Unaided
teachers in their Teacher Motivation 276
5.209 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided
and Private Unaided teachers of various
dimensions of Teacher Motivation 277
5.210 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Government and Private
Unaided teachers in their Teacher Motivation 277
5.211 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Government and Private Unaided teachers of
various dimensions of Teacher Motivation 278
5.212 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Male and Female Teachers in
their Teacher Self-efficacy 280
5.213 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Male
and Female Teachers of various dimensions
of Teacher Self-efficacy 281
5.214 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Rural and Urban area
Teachers in their Teacher Self-efficacy 282
5.215 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Rural
and Urban area Teachers of various
dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy 283
5.216 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Post-graduate and Post-
graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., Teachers in their 283
Teacher Self-efficacy
5.217 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
grudate and Post-graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D.
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher
Self-efficacy 284
5.218 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Post-graduate and Post-
graduate with B.Ed., Teachers in their Teacher 285
Self-efficacy
5.219 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate and Post-graduate with B.Ed.,

474
 Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 286
Self-efficacy

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.220 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Post-graduate and Post-
graduate with M.Ed., Teachers in their 287
Teacher Self-efficacy
5.221 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate and Post-graduate with M.Ed.,
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 288
Self-efficacy
5.222 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Post-graduate with
M.Phil/Ph.D. and Post-graduate with B.Ed.,
Teachers in their Teacher Self-efficacy 289
5.223 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D., and Post-
graduate with B.Ed., Teachers of various
dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy 290
5.224 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Post-graduate with
M.Phil/Ph.D and Post-graduate with M.Ed.,
Teachers in their Teacher Self-efficacy 290
5.225 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate with M.Phil/Ph.D. and Post-graduate
with M.Ed., Teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Self-efficacy 291
5.226 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Post-graduate with B.Ed.,
and Post-graduate with M.Ed., Teachers in
their Teacher Self-efficacy 292
5.227 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Post-
graduate with B.Ed., and Post-graduate with
M.Ed., Teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Self-efficacy 293
5.228 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Lecturers and Principals in

475
 their Teacher Self-efficacy 294
5.229 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Lecturers and Principals of various
dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy 295

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.230 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Teaching Science and
Teaching Humanities Teachers in their 295
Teacher Self-efficacy
5.231 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Teaching Science and Teaching Humanities
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 296
Self-efficacy
5.232 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Teaching Science and
Teaching Languages Teachers in their Teacher 297
Self-efficacy
5.233 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Teaching Science and Teaching Languages
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 298
Self-efficacy
5.234 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between Teaching Humanities and
Teaching Language Teachers in their Teacher 298
Self-efficacy
5.235 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Teaching Humanities and Teaching Language
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 299
Self-efficacy
5.236 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between below 10 years and 10 to 15
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 300
Self-efficacy
5.237 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and 10 to 15 years
experience Teachers of various dimensions of 301

476
 Teacher Self-efficacy
5.238 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between below 10 years and 15 to 20
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 302
Self-efficacy
5.239 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and 15 to 20 years
experience Teachers of various dimensions of 303
Teacher Self-efficacy

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.240 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between below 10 years and 20 to 25
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 303
Self-efficacy
5.241 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and 20 to 25 years
experience Teachers of various dimensions of 304
Teacher Self-efficacy
5.242 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between below 10 years and 25 to 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 305
Self-efficacy
5.243 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and 25 to 30 years
experience Teachers of various dimensions of 306
Teacher Self-efficacy
5.244 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between below 10 years and above 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 307
Self-efficacy
5.245 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
below 10 years and above 30 years

477
 experience Teachers of various dimensions of 308
Teacher Self-efficacy
5.246 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 10 to 15 years and 15 to 20
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 308
Self-efficacy
5.247 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and 15 to 20 years experience
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 309
Self-efficacy
5.248 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 10 to 15 years and 20 to 25
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 310
Self-efficacy
5.249 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and 20 to 25 years experience
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 311
Self-efficacy
5.250 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 10 to 15 years and 25 to 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 312
Self-efficacy
5.251 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and 25 to 30 years experience
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 313
Self-efficacy

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.252 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 10 to 15 years and above 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 313
Self-efficacy
5.253 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 10 to
15 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 314
Self-efficacy
5.254 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 15 to 20 years and 20 to 25

478
 years experience Teachers in their Teacher 315
Self-efficacy
5.255 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to
20 years and 20 to 25 years experience
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 316
Self-efficacy
5.256 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 15 to 20 years and 25 to 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 316
Self-efficacy
5.257 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to
20 years and 25 to 30 years experience
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 317
Self-efficacy
5.258 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 15 to 20 years and above 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 318
Self-efficacy
5.259 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 15 to
20 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 319
Self-efficacy
5.260 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 20 to 25 years and 25 to 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 319
Self-efficacy
5.261 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 to
25 years and 25 to 30 years experience
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 320
Self-efficacy
5.262 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 20 to 25 years and above 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 321
Self-efficacy
5.263 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 20 to
25 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 322
Self-efficacy

Table Description of the Table Page

479
No. No.
5.264 Table showing significance of difference of
Means between 25 to 30 years and above 30
years experience Teachers in their Teacher 323
Self-efficacy
5.265 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between 25 to
30 years and above 30 years experience
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 324
Self-efficacy
5.266 Table showing significance of difference of
Means Married and Unmarried Teachers in
their Teacher Self-efficacy 324
5.267 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Married and Umnarried Teachers of various
dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy 325
5.268 Table showing significance of difference of
Means Residential and Non-residential
Teachers in their Teacher Self-efficacy 326
5.269 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Non-residential Teachers of
various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy 327
5.270 Table showing significance of difference of
Means Co-educational and Exclusively for
Women Institution Teachers in their Teacher 328
Self-efficacy
5.271 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-
educational and Exclusively for Women
Institution Teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Self-efficacy 329
5.272 Table showing significance of difference of
Means Co-educational and Exclusively for
Men Institution Teachers in their Teacher Self- 329
efficacy
5.273 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Co-
educational and Exclusively for Men
Institution Teachers of various dimensions of
Teacher Self-efficacy 330
5.274 Table showing significance of difference of
Means Exclusively for Men and Women
Institution Teachers in their Teacher Self- 331
efficacy
5.275 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between

480
 Exclusively for Men and Women Institution
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 332
Self-efficacy

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.276 Table showing significance of difference of
means between Residential and Aided
Institution Teachers in their Teacher Self- 333
efficacy
5.277 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Aided Institution Teachers of
various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy 334
5.278 Table showing significance of difference of
means between Residential and Government
Institution Teachers in their Teacher Self- 334
efficacy
5.279 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Government Institution
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 335
Self-efficacy
5.280 Table showing significance of difference of
means between Residential and Private
Unaided Institution Teachers in their Teacher 336
Self-efficacy
5.281 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Residential and Private Unaided Institution
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher 337
Self-efficacy
5.282 Table showing significance of difference of
means between Aided and Government
Institution Teachers in their Teacher Self- 338
efficacy
5.283 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided
and Government Institution Teachers of
various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy 339
5.284 Table showing significance of difference of
means between Aided and Private Unaided
Institution Teachers in their Teacher Self- 339
efficacy
5.285 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between Aided

481
 and Private Unaided Institution Teachers of
various dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy 340
5.286 Table showing significance of difference of
means between Government and Private
Unaided Institution Teachers in their Teacher 341
Self-efficacy
5.287 Table showing the values of ‘t’ between
Government and Private Unaided Institution
Teachers of various dimensions of Teacher
Self-efficacy 342

Table Description of the Table Page

No. No.
5.288 Table showing the diffrence of means in
between High and Low Teacher Value
Behaviour in respect of Teacher Motivation 344
5.289 Table showing ‘t’ values between High and
Low Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of all
the Dimensions of Teacher Motivation 345
5.290 Table showing the diffrence of means in
between High and Low Teacher Value
Behaviour in respect of Teacher Self-efficacy 346
5.291 Table showing ‘t’ values between High and
Low Teacher Value Behaviour in respect of all
the Dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy 347
5.292 Table showing the diffrence of means in
between High and Low Teacher Motivation in
respect of Teacher Self-efficacy 348
5.293 Table showing ‘t’ values between High and
Low Teacher Motivation in respect of all the
Dimensions of Teacher Self-efficacy 348

482
 List of Figures
S.No. Description of the Figure Page No.
1 Diagram showing the Teacher Value Behaviour 11
2 Diagram showing the Teacher Motivation 19
3 Diagram showing the Teacher Self-Efficacy 25
4 Diagram showing the Model Teacher Thought
and Action 37
5 Diagram showing the Relationship between
Teacher Value Behaviour, Teacher Motivation 43
and Teacher Self-efficacy

483
 CH
APTER – I

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

484
 CHAPTER –
II

CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS

485
 CHAPTER – III

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

486
 CHAPTER –
IV

METHODOLOGY

487
 CHAPTER
–V

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

488
 CHAPTER
– VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

489
BIBLIOGRAPHY

490
APPENDICIES

491