ERIC EJ840151: The Relationship between Teaching Efficacy and Personality Type of Cooperating Teachers

2007·0.13 MB·English

by  ERIC

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHING EFFICACY AND PERSONALITY
TYPE OF COOPERATING TEACHERS

T. Grady Roberts, Assistant Professor
Julie F. Harlin, Assistant Professor
Gary E. Briers, Professor
Texas A&M University

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between teaching efficacy and
personality type of agricultural science cooperating teachers. The target population was
agricultural science teachers who served as cooperating teachers. A convenience sample of
those teachers who attended an optional cooperating teacher meeting at Texas A&M University
was used in this study (n = 41). Teaching efficacy was determined using the Teacher’s Sense of
Efficacy instrument and personality type was assessed using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
Participants exhibited “Quite a Bit” of efficacy in student engagement, instructional strategies,
and classroom management. Accordingly, they also exhibited “Quite a Bit” of overall teaching
efficacy. Teachers were equally divided between extroversion (E) and introversion (I), mostly
sensing (S), equally divided between thinking (T) and feeling (F), and more judging (J). The most
prevalent personality type was ISTJ, followed by ESTJ, ENFJ, and ESFJ. Extroversion was
substantially related to overall teaching efficacy and, consequently, to all three subscales
(student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management). Additionally,
judging (J) was positively related to efficacy in classroom management and sensing (S) was
negatively related to efficacy in student engagement. Based on the findings, recommendations
and implications were given.

Introduction experience (Harlin et al.; Norris et al.).
However, how much do we really know
Cooperating teachers serve an important about cooperating teachers, their
role in the development of future teachers. personalities, and their teaching efficacy—
Some studies suggest, and many students traits/variables that are likely to affect their
relate, that student teaching is the most relationships with student teachers? Gaining
important experience prior to that of a better understanding of cooperating
becoming a “real” teacher (Harlin, Edwards, teacher attributes should ultimately allow
& Briers, 2002; Norris, Larke, & Briers, teacher educators to better decide placement
1990). In terms of time, many cooperating of student teachers, which in turn will
teachers impact student teachers far more maximize the likelihood of a good student
than university personnel (Torres & Ulmer, teaching experience.
2005). Over the course of an eleven-week
experience, the cooperating teacher spends a Theoretical Framework
tremendous amount of time with student
teachers, as compared with university Mitzel, as articulated by Dunkin and
personnel who may spend only a few hours Biddle (1974), asserted that the study of
a week over the course of a few years. Do teaching can be defined by the interaction
we tend to take for granted much of what we between Presage variables (teacher
know about our cooperating teachers? In characteristics), Context variables (student
countless studies, cooperating teachers are and environmental variables), Process
described based on age, gender, and variables (teacher and student interactions),
ethnicity, and their perceptions are probed and Product variables (outcomes). Within
concerning the overall student teaching the context of this study, cooperating
Journal of Agricultural Education 55 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Roberts, Harlin, & Briers The Relationship Between…
teachers assume the role of “teacher” and inclusion in this study, two theories
student teachers are the “students.” emerged, self-efficacy theory (Bandura,
Accordingly, Presage variables are the 1997) and personality type theory
characteristics that a cooperating teacher (Jung, 1971; Myers & Myers, 1995). Figure
brings to the learning environment. 1 d epicts the model used to guide this
While identifying Presage variables for inquiry.

Presage Variables

Teaching Efficacy

Process Variables Product Variables
Personality Type

Context Variables

Figure 1. The relationship between teaching efficacy and personality type of cooperating
teachers.

According to Bandura (1997), self- Chung, & Frelow, 2002). Teaching efficacy
efficacy is a person’s beliefs about his or her has been found to impact many components
abilities to “organize and execute the important to that of an effective teacher. In a
courses of action required to produce given review of research on teacher efficacy,
attainments” (p. 3). Pajares (1996) further Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy
added to the theory by asserting that self- (1998) noted that constructs can be related
efficacy is domain specific, thus indicating to student motivation and students’ self-
that a person could be efficacious in one efficacy. Not surprisingly, teacher efficacy
situation, but not in another. Accordingly, has been found to impact feelings about
self-efficacy in teaching, or teaching teaching and plans to remain in the teaching
efficacy, was deemed to a more appropriate profession (Darling-Hammond et al.),
theory to guide this inquiry. Tschannen- enthusiasm for teaching (Allinder, 1994;
Moran and Wolfolk Hoy (2001) postulated Guskey, 1984), and commitment to teaching
that teaching efficacy is a broad construct (Coladarci, 1992).
that can be further divided into efficacy in There are multiple theories about
student engagement, instructional strategies, personality type, but one of the most
and classroom management. referenced is based on the work of Isabel
Research on teaching efficacy in Myers (Myers, 1993; Myers & McCaulley,
agricultural education suggested that 1985; Myers & Myers, 1995), who advanced
“teaching efficacy is complex and difficult the work of Carl Jung (1971). According to
to measure and understand” (Knobloch, this theory, personality type is composed
2001, p. 128). Though not heavily of four dichotomous measures. The
researched in agricultural education, first dichotomy (Extroversion-Introversion)
teaching efficacy has received widespread captures how and where a person directs and
attention in teacher education research. receives energy. People with extroversion
Teaching efficacy can be defined as are energized by the outside world, while
teachers’ beliefs in their ability to do their people with introversion are energized by
jobs and confidence in their ability to internal thought and reflection. The second
achieve teaching goals (Darling-Hammond, dichotomy (Sensing-Intuition) portrays a
Journal of Agricultural Education 56 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Roberts, Harlin, & Briers The Relationship Between…
person’s preference for perception. Sensing to be more E (60%), S (76%), T (56%), and
people prefer to use their senses to gather J (60%). Cano and Garton (1994) studied
information, while intuitive people focus on three years of preservice teachers and
inference and possibilities. The third produced results consistent with the Cano et
dichotomy (Thinking-Feeling) describes a al. study. Garton, Thompson, and Cano
person’s preference in passing judgment. (1997) also assessed first and second year
People who prefer thinking rely on facts and teachers in Missouri using a modified
data to reach a decision, while feeling version of the MBTI called the Individual
people consider how the decision will Learning Preference (ILP) checklist.
impact others. The final dichotomy Findings of this study were not consistent
(Judging-Perceiving) portrays a person’s with the previous studies as teachers were
attitude about the outside world. Judging more E (54%), N (54%), T (65%), and J
people interact with the world using their (62%). Kitchel and Cano (2001) studied the
judging preference (Thinking-Feeling), in relationship between learning style and
contrast, perceiving people interact with the personality type of undergraduates who
outside world using their perceiving majored in agricultural education over a nine
preference (Sensing-Intuition). year period. Of the 16 possible
One of the most utilized instruments to combinations, ISTJ (20%), ESTJ (17%), and
assess personality type is the Myers-Briggs ESFJ (12%) were the most frequent for this
Type Indicator (MBTI). First developed in particular group. Kitchel (2005) also
1943, the MBTI has now been used by investigated personality type and interaction
millions in business, education, psychology, aspects between student teachers and
health, and other fields (Myers & Myers, cooperating teachers, finding that
1995). Quenk (2000) referred to the MBTI personality type was found to have little
as “the result of the interplay of a person’s influence on variables.
four preferences, represented by one pole of The relationship of MBTI scale scores
each dichotomy” (p. 11). Taking the MBTI (E-I, S-N, T-F, and J-P) to an assortment of
results in a four letter description: the other variables have been studied in a
Extroversion-Introversion set (E or I); variety of disciplines (Carr, 2000; Crockett
Sensing-Intuitive (S or N); Thinking-Feeling & Crawford, 1989; Edwards, Lanning, &
(T or F); and Judging-Perceiving (J or P) Hooker, 2002; Higgs 2001). In a study of
(Myers & Myers, 1995). Depending upon engineers and architects, Carr reported
the preference for each set, a person could positive relationships between S-N and
be categorized into one of 16 types (Myers construction planning; S-N and construction
& McCaulley, 1985). administration; J-P and construction
Personality type of those involved in planning; and J-P and construction
agricultural education has been heavily administration. He reported a negative
researched for the last 20 years. In 1985, relationship between J-P and construction
Barrett, Sorensen, and Hartung studied a documents. In a study on advising
group of students and faculty in a college of preferences of college freshman, Crockett
agriculture, finding that students held and Crawford found significant relationships
preferences toward I (54%), S (84%), T between advising style preference, the S-N
(69%), and J (57%), while faculty held scale, and the T-F scale. In a study on
preferences for I (63%), N (52%), T (63%), personality type and information processing,
and J (83%). Watson and Hillison (1991) Edwards et al. (2002) reported correlations
investigated personality type and job between individual MBTI scale scores and
satisfaction of West Virginia agricultural Social Information Processing. In a
education teachers and found that a majority correlational study between MBTI and
of teachers were SJs (58%), followed by SPs emotional intelligence, Higgs (2001)
(24%). reported that extroversion (E) was correlated
In related studies, Cano, Garton, and with motivation, influence, and intuitive
Raven (1992) investigated preservice decision making. He further found
teachers at The Ohio State University. In positive correlations between intuition
terms of personality type, the group tended (N) and influence, interpersonal
Journal of Agricultural Education 57 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Roberts, Harlin, & Briers The Relationship Between…
sensitivity, and intuitive decision u t ilizes 24 items accompanied by the
making. question “How Much Can You Do?” and a
Teaching efficacy has been examined in 9-point response scale (1 = Nothing, 3 =
multiple contexts. Research on personality Very Little, 5 = Some Influence, 7 = Quite a
type is abundant; however, examinations of Bit, and 9 = A Great Deal). All 24 items can
cooperating teachers are limited. No be used to determine overall teaching
research was found that examined the efficacy. Additionally, efficacy in student
relationship between teaching efficacy and engagement, instructional strategies, and
personality type. This study sought to begin classroom management can be determined
filling that void in the research. using eight items each. A score for each
subject on each efficacy in student
Purpose and Objectives engagement, instructional strategies, and
classroom management is determined by
The purpose of this study was to calculating the mean for the eight items that
determine if there is a relationship between comprise that construct. Overall teaching
personality type and teaching efficacy of efficacy is determined by calculating the
agricultural science cooperating teachers. mean for all 24 items.
Three objectives guided this inquiry. Tschannen-Moran and Wolfolk Hoy
(2001) reported that content validity was
1. Describe the teaching efficacy of the established through a series of pilot tests,
cooperating teachers. and construct validity was established
2. Describe the personality types of the through a factor analysis. They also reported
cooperating teachers. reliability coefficients, as a measure of
3. Describe the relationship between internal consistency, of .90 for overall
personality type and teaching teaching efficacy, .81 for student
efficacy of cooperating teachers. engagement, .86 for instructional strategies,
and .86 for classroom management.
Methods Personality type was assessed using the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Form
This study utilized a correlational design M®. This version of the MBTI uses 93
to achieve the objectives. Data were dichotomous response items--21 items for
collected with paper instruments the Extroversion-Introversion (E-I) scale, 26
administered face-to-face by the researchers. items for the Sensing-Intuition (S-N) scale,
The target population was agricultural 24 items for the Thinking-Feeling (T-F)
science teachers who served as cooperating scale, and 22 items for the Judging-
teachers. A convenience sample of those Perceiving (J-P) scale. Reliability
teachers who attended a cooperating teacher coefficients, measured as internal
meeting at Texas A&M University was used consistency, were determined to be .91 for
in this study (n = 41). Data were collected the E-I scale .92 for the S-N scale, .91 for
from all teachers present (100%). Given the the T-F scale, and .92 for the J-P scale
non-random sampling method and the (Consulting Psychologists Press, n. d.).
inability to determine the representativeness The MBTI Form M is hand scored using
of the sample, the researchers made no an overlay template for each scale (E-I, S-N,
attempt to generalize the findings beyond T-F, and J-P). The dichotomous nature of
the sample. Accordingly, this study each item produces direct inverse
contributes to the knowledge base by relationships between extroversion (E) and
providing baseline data for comparison introversion (I); sensing (S) and intuition
purposes and for providing the basis for (N); thinking (T) and feeling (F); and
future research from samples that would judging (J) and perceiving (P). Scores for
allow generalizability to larger populations. each scale range from 0 to 21 for E and I; 0
Teaching efficacy was determined using to 26 for S and N; 0 to 24 for T and F; and 0
the Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy instrument to 22 for J and P. Personality type is
long form (Tschannen-Moran & Wolfolk determined by the highest score for each
Hoy, 2001). This self-assessment instrument scale. In the event of equal scores for a
Journal of Agricultural Education 58 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Roberts, Harlin, & Briers The Relationship Between…
scale, I, N, F, or P is used. Beyond nominal the teaching efficacy of the teachers.
categorization, MBTI Form M scale scores As depicted in Table 1, efficacy in student
can be treated as ordinal variables (Slight, engagement ranged from 4.63 to 8.88.
Moderate, Clear, or Very Clear) based on The average teacher perceived him/herself
preference clarity (Myers & Myers, 1998). as having “Quite a Bit” of ability in
There is also precedence in the literature for engagement (M = 6.76, SD = .90).
using raw scale scores as interval data in Similarly, the average teacher expressed her
statistical analyses (Carr, 2000; Crockett & or his ability in instructional strategies as
Crawford, 1989; Edwards et al., 2002; Higgs “Quite a Bit” (M = 7.38, SD = .79).
2001). To meet the research objectives of Scores for this construct ranged from 5.88 to
this study, the authors chose to use both 9.00. The average teacher expressed
categorization and scale scores to meet greatest perceived ability in classroom
objective 2 and scale scores to meet management (M= 7.52, SD = .79). Efficacy
objective 3. is classroom management ranged from
5.75 to 9.00. Combining the three
Results constructs yielded an average teaching
efficacy score of 7.22 (SD = .74). The range
Data were collected from 41 cooperating for overall teaching efficacy was 5.63 to
teachers. The first objective was to describe 8.83.

Table 1
Teaching Efficacy of Cooperating Teachers
Construct Min Max M SD Median
Student Engagement 4.63 8.88 6.76 .90 6.88
Instructional Strategies 5.88 9.00 7.38 .79 7.38
Classroom Management 5.75 9.00 7.52 .79 7.63
Overall Teaching Efficacy 5.63 8.83 7.22 .74 7.08
Note. Scale: 1 = Nothing, 3 = Very Little, 5 = Some Influence, 7 = Quite A Bit, 9 = A Great Deal
The second objective was to describe the while the average teacher’s introversion
personality types of the cooperating score was 10.90 (SD = 6.81). When
teachers. As seen in Table 2, on the categorized based on which score was
Extroversion-Introversion scale (possible higher (extroversion or introversion), 21
range of 0 to 21), the average teacher’s teachers (51.2%) were extroverted and 20
extroversion score was 10.17 (SD = 6.79), teachers (48.8%) were introverted.

Journal of Agricultural Education 59 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Roberts, Harlin, & Briers The Relationship Between…
Table 2
Myers-Briggs Type Preferences of Cooperating Teachers
Preferencea
Scale (Possible Range) M SD f Percent
Extroversion-Introversion (0 to 21)
Extroversion (E) 10.17 6.79 21 51.2
Introversion (I) 10.90 6.81 20 48.8
Sensing-Intuition (0 to 26)
Sensing (S) 16.66 7.84 30 73.2
Intuition (N) 9.34 7.84 11 26.8
Thinking-Feeling (0 to 24)
Thinking (T) 13.12 6.51 20 48.8
Feeling (F) 10.61 6.48 21 51.2
Judging-Perceiving (0 to 22)
Judging (J) 15.73 6.10 31 75.6
Perceiving (P) 6.32 6.15 10 24.4
aPreference determined by participant’s highest score in each scale

Journal of Agricultural Education 60 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Roberts, Harlin, & Briers The Relationship Between…
The second scale, Sensing-Intuition, had based on their higher score in this scale
a possible range from 0 to 26. The average resulted in 31 teachers (75.6%) labeled as
teacher had a sensing score of 16.66 (SD = judging and 10 teachers (24.4%) labeled as
7.84) and an average intuition score of 9.34 perceiving.
(SD = 7.84). Classifying participants based Using the preferences on each of the
on their highest score revealed that 30 four scales (Extroversion-Introversion,
teachers (73.2%) had sensing as their Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and
preference and 11 teachers (26.8%) had Judging-Perceiving) resulted in a possibility
intuition as their preference. of 16 different personality types. Teachers in
The third scale was Thinking-Feeling, this study displayed 13 of the 16 types
which had a possible range of 0 to 24. (Table 3). The most prevalent type was ISTJ
Teachers’ average thinking score was 13.12 (n = 11, 26.8%). For each of three types,
(SD = 6.51) and average feeling score was five teachers (12.2%) were classified as
10.61 (SD = 6.48). Dichotomizing ESTJ, ENFJ, and ESFJ. An additional four
participants resulted in 20 teachers (48.8%) teachers were labeled as ISFJ (9.8%). ISFP,
classified as thinking and 21 teachers ENFP, and INTP were the personality types
(51.2%) classified as feeling. of two teachers each (4.9%). The following
The fourth scale was Judging- personality types ENTP, ESFP, ESTP, INFJ,
Perceiving (possible range from 0 to 22). and INFP were exhibited by one teacher
The average teacher had a judging score of (2.4%). No teachers had personality types of
15.73 (SD= 6.10) and a perceiving score of ISTP, INTJ, or ENTJ.
6.32 (SD= 6.15). Categorizing teachers

Table 3
Personality Type of Cooperating Teachers
Type f Percent Type f Percent
ISTJ 11 26.8 ENTP 1 2.4
ESTJ 5 12.2 ESFP 1 2.4
ENFJ 5 12.2 ESTP 1 2.4
ESFJ 5 12.2 INFJ 1 2.4
ISFJ 4 9.8 INFP 1 2.4
ISFP 2 4.9 ENTJ 0 0
ENFP 2 4.9 INTJ 0 0
INTP 2 4.9 ISTP 0 0

Journal of Agricultural Education 61 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Roberts, Harlin, & Briers The Relationship Between…

The final objective of this study was to and perceiving. Therefore, only one score
describe the relationship between was used from each scale (E, S, T, and J).
personality type and teaching efficacy of As depicted in Table 4, substantial
cooperating teachers. To accomplish this, correlations were found between
Pearson correlations were calculated to extroversion and instructional strategies (r =
quantify the relationships between .52), classroom management (r = .54), and
personality type scale scores (extroversion overall teaching efficacy (r = .58) (Davis,
[0 to 21], sensing [0 to 26], thinking [0 to 1971). Moderate correlations were found
24], and judging [0 to 22]) and teaching between extroversion and student
efficacy scores. Note that Myers-Briggs engagement (r = .49); judging and
Form M produces direct, inverse classroom management (r = .39); and
relationships (that is, an increase in one sensing and student engagement (r = -.33).
causes a decrease in the other) between Correlations for I, N, F, and P were
extroversion and introversion; sensing and direct inverses of those reported for E, S, T,
intuition; thinking and feeling; and judging and J.

Table 4
Correlations Between Personality Type Scores and Teaching Efficacy of Cooperating Teachers
Extroversion Sensing Thinking Judging
Student Engagement .49 -.33 -.02 .01
Instructional Strategies .52 -.26 -.09 .04
Classroom Management .54 -.05 -.04 .39
Overall Teaching Efficacy .58 -.25 -.06 .16

Conclusions, Implications, and most have substantially more experience.
Recommendations Thus, it was reasonable to expect that
teachers would exhibit “Quite a Bit” of
Based on the objectives that guided this teaching efficacy. Although other research
inquiry and the findings reported, several on teaching efficacy of cooperating teachers
conclusions can be drawn. Readers are could not be found, the observed teaching
cautioned that these conclusions apply only efficacy scores are consistent with the group
to those teachers who participated in this of inservice teachers examined by
study. Tschannen-Moran and Wolfolk Hoy (2001).
The first objective was to describe the Further research should be conducted with
teaching efficacy of the cooperating other groups of cooperating teachers to
teachers. Cooperating teachers exhibited provide a larger picture of this phenomenon.
“Quite a Bit” of efficacy in student The second objective of the study was to
engagement, instructional strategies, and describe the personality types of the
classroom management. Accordingly, they cooperating teachers. Cooperating teachers
also exhibited “Quite a Bit” of overall were equally divided between extroversion
teaching efficacy. (E) and introversion (I), mostly sensing (S),
As a requirement to be a cooperating equally divided between thinking (T) and
teacher at Texas A&M University, teachers feeling (F), and more judging (J). The most
must have a minimum of three years of prevalent personality type was ISTJ,
successful teaching experience, although followed by ESTJ, ENFJ, and ESFJ.
Journal of Agricultural Education 62 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Roberts, Harlin, & Briers The Relationship Between…
Given the social nature of teaching, one Theory further predicts that presage
could expect that teachers would be more variables (teacher attributes) interact with
extroverted than introverted, which the context variables (student teacher attributes)
current study does not support. However, to affect product variables, which in this
previous research of preservice agricultural case would be a successful student teaching
science teachers also reported nearly equal experience (Dunkin & Biddle). So, although
percentages of extroverts and introverts not empirically validated, the observed
(Garton et al., 1997). Considering the relationship between teaching efficacy and
scientific nature of agriculture, it is personality type in cooperating teachers may
reasonable to expect that a majority of influence the experience had by student
teachers would be sensing, which is also teachers.
consistent with previous research (Cano et The relationship observed between
al., 1992). In view of the complex extroversion and teaching efficacy seems
interaction between people and science in rational. Given the complex social
agricultural education, it was reasonable to interactions required throughout the school
expect a near equal split between thinking day, it is reasonable to expect that people
and feeling found in this study and also who are energized externally would have
reported in earlier research (Cano et al; greater comfort in their ability to engage,
Garton et al.). The final dichotomy instruct, and manage students. It is important
(Judging-Perceiving) indicates the to note that teaching efficacy and teaching
preference for interacting with the outside ability are not necessarily synonymous.
world. Given the assessment centered However, given the strength of the observed
environment that characterizes most schools, relationships, if introverted teachers have a
it was reasonable to expect that teachers lower opinion about their abilities, does this
would be predominantly judging. Earlier affect their teaching ability and longevity?
research with preservice teachers also The current study does not provide a basis
showed more judging, but not to the same for answering this question; so, further
degree of the cooperating teachers in the research is recommended.
current study. Further research is needed to The observed relationship between
determine if other groups of cooperating judging and efficacy in classroom
teachers also are more judging. Finally, the management makes sense intuitively.
four personality types (ISTJ, ESTJ, ENFJ, Managing a classroom requires constant
and ESFJ) exhibited most frequently in the gathering and interpreting information,
current study are consistent with those which would describe teachers who exhibit
reported by Kitchel and Cano (2001) (ISTJ, judging. Does this mean that teachers who
ESTJ, and ESFJ). Further research is needed are more perceiving are not as proficient at
to gain a even better understanding of managing a classroom? Are their differences
personality types of agricultural science in classroom management “styles” of
teachers and particularly those that serve as teachers who are judging and perceiving?
cooperating teachers. Again, these questions are beyond the scope
The third objective was to describe the of this study and should be investigated
relationship between personality type and further.
teaching efficacy of cooperating teachers. The observed negative relationship
Extroversion (E) was substantially related to between sensing and efficacy in student
overall teaching efficacy and, consequently, engagement is a little more perplexing.
to all three subscales (student engagement, Recall that sensing people prefer to gather
instructional strategies, and classroom data using their senses, while intuitive
management). Additionally, judging (J) was people prefer focusing on inference and
positively related to efficacy in classroom possibilities. Perhaps the dynamic
management and sensing (S) was negatively oscillation of subtle interactions between
related to efficacy in student engagement. teacher and student occur beyond the
Thus a relationship exists between the sensory inputs preferred by sensing people,
presage variables (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974) thus aligning more closely with the
of personality type and teaching efficacy. preferences of intuitive people. As
Journal of Agricultural Education 63 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007
Roberts, Harlin, & Briers The Relationship Between…
mentioned before, it is important to note that practices of special education teachers and
efficacy is not necessarily an indicator of consultants. Teacher Education and Special
ability. However, given the high percentage Education, 17, 86-95.
of sensing teachers in this study, the inverse
relationship between sensing and efficacy in Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The
student engagement should be investigated exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
further.
The findings of this study show that Barrett, L., Sorensen, R., & Hartung, T.
there is a relationship between teaching (1985). Personality type factors of faculty
efficacy and personality type with this group and students: Implications for agriculture
of cooperating teachers. Specifically, more college teaching. NACTA Journal, 29(1), 50-
extroverted cooperating teachers exhibited 58.
greater teaching efficacy. As Bandura (1997,
p. 241) noted, “teachers’ beliefs in their Cano, J., & Garton, B. L. (1994). The
efficacy affect their general orientation learning styles of agriculture preservice
toward the educational process as well as teachers as assessed by the MBTI. Journal
their specific instructional activities.” He of Agricultural Education, 35(1), 8-12.
further argued that less efficacious teachers
were troubled with classroom management Cano, J., Garton, B. L., & Raven, M. R.
issues and had students who performed at a (1992). Learning styles, teaching styles, and
lower level. Accordingly, the findings of the personality styles of preservice teachers of
current study, coupled with Bandura’s work agricultural education. Journal of
imply that within this group, more Agricultural Education, 33(1), 46-60.
extroverted cooperating teachers likely
create a better learning environment which Carr, P. G. (2000). An investigation of
would provide a better experience for the relationship between personality traits
student teachers. Thus, it is recommended and performance for engineering and
that teacher educators at Texas A&M architectural professionals providing design
University consider extroversion of the services to the building sector of the
cooperating teacher when deciding on construction industry. Unpublished doctoral
student teacher placement. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
This study should be replicated with and State University, Blacksburg.
other groups of cooperating teachers using
sampling methods that allow for Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of
generalization to the larger population of efficacy and commitment to teaching.
cooperating teachers in agricultural Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 323-
education. The findings also raise several 337.
other questions that should be addressed
with further research. Beyond cooperating Consulting Psychologists Press. (n.d.).
teachers, does the same relationship exist in Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® quick fact
the larger population of agricultural science sheet. Mountain View, CA: Author.
teachers? Is there a relationship between
teaching efficacy and personality type in Crockett, J. B., & Crawford, R. L.
student teachers? Does the relationship (1989). The relationship between Myers-
between personality type and teaching Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) scale scores
efficacy translate to a difference in teaching and advising style preferences of college
ability? Does personality types of freshman. Journal of College Student
cooperating teachers affect the teaching Development, 30(2), 154-161.
efficacy and ability of their student teachers?
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R. &
References Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher
preparation: How well do different pathways
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship prepare teachers to teach? Journal of
between efficacy and the instructional Teacher Education, 53(4), 286-302.
Journal of Agricultural Education 64 Volume 48, Number 4, 2007