Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Questionnaire of the Effect about Self-efficacy Beliefs of Teachers on their Concerns about Implementing a Mathematics Education Curriculum Reform about Problem Solving

Int. j. econ. manag. soc. sci., Vol(4), No (4), April, 2015. pp. 377-383

TI Journals

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences
www.tijournals.com

ISSN:
2306-7276

Copyright © 2015. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Questionnaire of the Effect about
Self-efficacy Beliefs of Teachers on their Concerns about Implementing
a Mathematics Education Curriculum Reform about Problem Solving
Mehran Azizi Mahmoudabad *
M.A.Student of Shahid Bahonar Kerman University,Kerman, Iran.

Mohammad Reza Fadaee
Associate Professor of Shahid Bahonar Kerman University,Kerman, Iran.
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Keywords

Abstract

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Self-efficacy
Concerns of Teachers
Curriculum Reform
Mathematics

To reform the curriculum, special attention should be paid to the individual characteristics and capabilities of
teachers, because they can contribute to the implementation of curriculum reform. These features and capabilities
include pedagogical and training knowledge, educational beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs, orientation towards the
curriculum, tolerating suffering, worries, and having many years of experience. The purpose of this study is
analyzing confirmatory factor of the effect of self-efficacy beliefs of Teachers on their concerns about
implementing mathematics education curriculum reforms. The population of this study consisted all sophomore
high school math teachers in the years 2013-14 in Dena and Boyer Ahmad city; finally, 121 responded to the
questionnaire. After investigating the content validity of the study, to assess the validity of structures, the
confirmatory factor analysis, Pearson correlation coefficient, and Cronbach's alpha were used. Statistical sample of
research in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was the number of samples corresponding to the number of
variables (latent). Results of the practical confirmatory analysis showed that the operating structure, regarding the
separation of the questions and compliance with principles is right. Reliability using Cronbach's alpha for the seven
components was 0.91 to 0.94, indicating good reliability tools. Confirmatory factor analysis results showed that
self-efficacy beliefs combination and teachers’ concerns have a good fitness. It is suggested that future research,
this questionnaire will be implemented for samples, sections, and other areas to ensure the validity and reliability.

1.

Introduction

Teachers, as the most significant factors in the implementation, are not just the executives of policies imposed on them, but are increasingly seen
as the centre of educational change [12]. In this context, the attention should be diverted to the characteristics and capabilities of individual
teachers because they can contribute to the implementation of curriculum reform. These features and capabilities include pedagogical and
training knowledge, training design skills, teaching and epistemological beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs, orientation towards the curriculum,
professional status, tolerating suffering, fears and years of experience [1].
Among the individual features and capabilities of teachers, their self-efficacy beliefs have special effects because the studies of previous decades
show that teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs pay more attention to students’ beliefs and believe in their own abilities to affect on students’
learning [20]. Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers are defined as the belief relating to individual capability of teachers to do teaching job [5].
Observations have shown that the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers are positively correlated with the performance and motivation of students and
will affect on the beliefs of teachers to do reforms and be willing to test the material and new educational methods [3]. Some studies during past
15 years have attempted to merge the concerns and self-efficacy beliefs of teachers. These studies have shown that teachers will low selfefficacy beliefs have higher concerns about their duties [14]; while teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs mostly focus on the effect of reform
on students [22]. However, when examining the relationship between anxiety and self-efficacy beliefs of teachers, scientists often believe selfefficacy to be the determining factor of concerns. Also, many studies have shown that if people have a clear understanding of the nature of the
new curriculum, properly understand their duties, and are not concerned about their position in the workplace, they will welcome the
new program. Otherwise, they resist it. But if it is possible to imagine this change and keep the previous situation?
Educational reform typically imposes new demands on the complex work of teaching, so it intensifies the concerns of the teachers (which are
defined as compound representation of emotions, mental preoccupations, thoughts, paying attention to a especial subject or task) [18].
Considering national curriculum document and, subsequently, revising and reproducing educational content and textbooks and as the teacher is
the guide and leader of teaching-learning process, and implementing curriculum requires appropriate assistance and attention of teachers
and benefiting from the professional qualifications and competence is appropriate for them, it is necessary to do some research in order to
understand the individual characteristics of teachers better, especially their self-efficacy and concerns about the reforms of curriculum.
On the other hand, in Iran, despite the undeniable importance of this area of research, it has not been considered seriously, so it is essential that
teachers' emotional responses to curriculum reform should be seriously noticed, because such studies help a deeper understanding of their
reaction and usage of curriculum in teaching.
In explaining the concept of self-efficacy beliefs, it should be said that beliefs in the domain of the beliefs of teachers have been assumed by this
prior assumption that what teachers do in their classrooms is the product of their beliefs [13]. So any attempt to change the way teachers teach is
necessarily involved in changing their beliefs. Self-efficacy creates a sense of ability in people to achieve a breakthrough. In other words, it can
be said that self-efficacy has been defined as a personal judgment in which a person has an educational purpose from his abilities to design and
follow his goal.
The concept of self-efficacy was first introduced in the late 1970s by Bandura. Self-efficacy beliefs refer to the perceived ability to design and
implement actions to achieve a target point. In this study, teachers' self-efficacy beliefs have been defined as personal abilities of teachers to do a
job like teaching [5].

Mehran Azizi Mahmoudabad *, Mohammad Reza Fadaee

378

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (4), April, 2015.

The concept of concern in the domain of education and teachers can be defined as emotions, teachers' denial and reactions to the reforms [16].
The concept of concern goes back to the late 1960s, when Fuller (1969) proposed a hierarchy of concerns of teachers consisting of three stages.
These three stages include: their concerns, concerns about the duty, and those about the effect. At the beginning of the new reform, teachers
usually had their own concerns and, at the same time, as the teachers implementing the reforms, the concerns of the duty and, in the end, after
gaining enough experience in the implementation of reforms, their concerns about greater focus on outcomes and the effect of change on
students. Only after resolving concerns at the first step, the concerns of next step become more apparent [16].
A few years later, Hall et al. (1997) have developed Fuller’s model. These scientists, regarding the fact that the educational changes are
processes which proceed the development of teachers' skills and feelings, presented the design of the stages of the concerns. The concerns of
teachers are based on the premise that when teachers accepted an amendment, they should pass through seven stages of concern, although they
are not unique to individuals. These steps are: 1. Awareness concerns, 2. Information concerns, 3. personal concerns, 4. Management concerns,
5. consequences concerns, 6. Cooperation concerns, 7. refocusing concerns
 Awareness concerns: At first, teachers feel they have little information about reform, but they are not interested in learning more about this.
 Information concerns: teachers are gradually interested in reform.
 Personal concerns: teachers focus on their own capabilities to implement the proposed changes.
 Management concerns: teachers start to review, organize, and doing reform.
 Consequences concerns: teachers, at this stage, think about the impact of reform on students’ learning.
 Cooperation concerns: teachers are trying to share experiences with colleagues.
 Refocusing concerns: teachers propose some alternatives to develop, change, alter, or modify the reforms.
From the beginning of the year 1980, concerns based adoption model (CBAM) stage of concern (SOC) questionnaire are widely used as a
research tool in the field of innovation and various educational reforms, such as the concerns of teachers participating in professional
development programs (for example, Tunks and Weller, 2009), evaluation of teachers in the integration process of IT and technology [24] and
teachers' concerns about the implementation of new educational programs [7].
Concerns based adoption model has been composed of three dimensions: a: the dimensions of teachers’ feelings and perception concerns about
innovation and educational reform. b: The next level shows how teachers implement reforms. c: and the last stage shows different ways to
implement reform.
Some studies conducted over the past 15 years have tried to integrate the concerns and self-efficacy beliefs of teachers. These studies have
shown that teachers with low self-efficacy beliefs show serious concerns in relation to the duty [14], while teachers with high self-efficacy
beliefs mostly focus on the impact of the reform on students [22]. Although efforts to integrate these two structures move in one direction, the
assumption is that self-efficacy beliefs affect concerns.
According to various meanings and emphasis that resolving problem has received worldwide [30], in this section, the role of resolving and its
introduction in reformed mathematics curriculum have been discussed.
Solving problems have long been interesting for math researchers and teachers, especially during the last quarter of the 20 th century when it has
turned into the most important subject in research and curriculum of mathematics [27] although the method of changing the interest in
mathematics curricula and teaching methods are different in different countries. For example, in America, after the publication of curriculum
standards and evaluation for school mathematics, problem solving has been changed into the focus of the mathematics curriculum, the primary
purpose of teaching mathematics, and an important part of all mathematics activities.
In Iran, as problem solving has a special place in textbooks, but after changing the educational system and the preparation of National
Curriculum document, special emphasis has been on problem solving in the curriculum because this document expresses that students should be
familiar with the mathematical processes such as problem solving and using strategies for problem solving, creative thinking (solving unusual
problems, etc.) and be skillful. Therefore, following the preparation of this document and special emphasis on problem solving in new textbooks,
compared with the previous textbook, they have had great changes which are briefly explained in the followings.
Before the reform, the book consists of eight sections called: 1. Lesson, 2. Activity, 3. class activity, 4. Exercise, 5. Problem solving, 6. Drawing,
7. Entertainment, and 8. Periodical exercises which have been designed based on students’ working and activity. The lesson was present by
teacher getting help from students; the activities were students’ duty to get the goal of the lesson; class activity was simple exercises to fix the
concepts in activities; exercises were the homework of students at home to fix the purpose of the lesson; problem solving was getting familiar
with the approaches of solving problems and the ways to think about the problem based on Pulia method for solving problem; the sixth part was
drawing, the next, entertainment and math to grow the intelligence, and, at the end of each part, a sample question was intended as the periodical
exercises to review the semester. But after the reform textbook, in the new book, the structure of each discussion is doing activity, working in
class, exercises and problem solving (Pulia strategic pattern); it has been listed in this book that for doing classroom activities, working in class,
and exercises, student have to enhance their abilities in problem solving; as someone who is skilled at solving problems can work to accomplish
the results. So, the first chapter of the book, as the approaches to solving problem includes the ways to draw figure, making pattern, omitting
undesirbla states, guessing and testing, sub-questions, simpler problem solving, and symbolic methods so that students can learn different
strategies of problem solving and can use these approaches in solving activities, working in classes, and exercises.
Few studies have so far examined the effects of self-efficacy beliefs on the concerns of teachers in the mathematics education curriculum reform
implementation, especially the problem solving issue. For example, Parsa (2007), in a study entitled investigating behavioral attitude and
willingness of teachers in progressing new curriculum, has stated that the ultimate effect of the reforms largely depend on participation,
understanding, and knowledge teachers from the change. To understand these concepts more and understand their relations, two separate surveys
were conducted. In the first study, 200 high school physics teachers of Fars province, and, in the second one, 540 middle school math teachers
from Khouzestan province participated in the research. In both studies, there was significant and positive relationship between the attitude of
teachers towards change and their behavioral attitude and willingness to advance new program. The positive perception of teachers from the
efficiency of new curriculum and performance capabilities of the new curriculum have a significant positive correlation with their behavioral
intentions in advancing new curriculum programs.
Studies by Ghaith and Shaaban(1999) showed that teachers with low self-efficacy beliefs have more concerns about their duties.
Studies by McKinneyet al (1999) found that teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs mostly focus on the impact of the reform on students.
Literature review and research of the field of education changes shows that teachers can have various reactions while facing with the
changes. They can accept new programs, or get neutral stance, or can be oppose to it and resist it [17].
Çetinkaya (2012), in a research entitled teachers in the heart of the reform: concerns of teachers in sixth grade mathematics education curriculum
reform in Turkey, investigated teachers' concerns about math reform in sixth grade in Turkey and identified the probable relationship between
the individual characteristics of teachers and their concerns about the curriculum. The results showed that teachers' concerns mainly focus on
individual and collaborative process adapted from the model based on concerns. This shows that teachers are not resistant to changes although

379

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Questionnaire of the Effect about Self-efficacy Beliefs of Teachers on their Concerns about Implementing a Mathema...
International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (4), April, 2015.

some of them are confused about the program. They wanted to learn what others did to increase their knowledge and skills in the implementation
of curriculum reform.
Studies by Christou et al. (2004) showed that, while novice teachers have more personal concerns and duties, more experienced teachers were
mostly concerned about the impact of educational reform of math programs for students. From the other important findings of this study was that
the researchers cannot find any relationship between the stages of concerns and the years of implementing reforms in curricula.
In another study, Crawford and colleagues (1998) investigated the concerns of 376 teachers in an in-service education program (about
curriculum reform) who participated in the implementation of reforms for one year. The results showed that while teachers’ personal and
informational concerns were high, informational concerns significantly reduced after a year and their concerns transferred to the management
stage.
Subsequently, Charalambous and Philippou (2010), in integrating concerns model of teachers and their self-efficacy beliefs, proposed a model in
which the integration of these two areas led towards the removal of personal and cooperation concerns in reform because some parts of selfefficacy beliefs of teachers shared by these two areas of concern, and their modified model in integrating with their self-efficacy beliefs led to
five stages of concerns which are: awareness concerns, informational concerns, management concerns, consequences concerns, and
refocusing concerns. Charalambous and Philippou. (2010), in this study, proposed self-efficacy beliefs and concerns of 151 elementary school
mathematics teacher for 5 years in a modified curriculum about problem solving, empirical support for a model which integrated teachers' selfefficacy beliefs and concerns. This model suggests that the concerns of teachers in the early stages affect their concerns in the next stages; also,
the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers in using reform form their concerns’ effect and duty, and, in turn, are influenced by their concerns. Selfefficacy beliefs about the application of educational methods also affect different types of concerns of teachers.
Unlike the importance of the influence of teachers' self-efficacy beliefs on their concerns about the implementation of mathematics education
curriculum reform, valid and reliable instruments have not yet been introduced to measure these structures. In this regard, Schutz (1994) states
that to determine the reliability and validity of the instruments used to study a subject, the first step in the process is research; so, there is no
research that has examined the reliability of the tools’ effects of self-efficacy beliefs of teachers on their concerns regarding the implementation
of the mathematics education curriculum reforms in the country.
According to the research done about the effect of self-efficacy beliefs of teachers on their concerns about the implementation of the curriculum
reform of mathematics and studying the theoretical background of these structures, the common questionnaire in this scope are those of
Charalambous and Philippou (2010), based on the integration of research, and Bandura (1997), about self-efficacy beliefs, and Christo and
colleagues about the concerns of teachers in implementing curriculum reform. In general, self-efficacy beliefs and concerns are valid
structures for the evaluation of curriculum reform. On the other hand, the impact of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on their concerns about the
implementing mathematics education curriculum reform shows that teachers' concerns in the first stages affect on their concerns in the next
stages [7]; and self-efficacy beliefs of teachers in using reforms in their teaching affect their concerns. Also, this research introduces another
aspect of self-efficacy beliefs referring to the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers to teach using the employed method before introducing reform,
which has not yet been examined.
On the other hand, most researchers agree on this topic that the presence of a valid instrument is the first step in the research
process [27]. Therefore, using valid questionnaire is an important step in generalizing the results and completing the implementation cycle of the
research.
Since confirmatory factor analysis modeling approach is used to study the hypothetical structures, using different markers, it can be seen and
approved. When the relationship structure between the variables already exists, confirmatory factor analysis method is used. Thus, contrary to
exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis does not explore the factor structure, but it is supposed to confirm and verify the details
of the structure factor [19]. Therefore, the present research examines the impact tool of teachers' self-efficacy beliefs on their concerns about
implementing mathematics education curriculum reform of the Persian version [7] by using a confirmatory factor analysis among the Iranian
sample.

2.

Research Methodology

Regarding purpose, this is an applied research, because the purpose of this type of research is to develop applied knowledge; regarding
data collection, this is a descriptive (non-experimental) – correlational study. The population in this study includes all teachers teaching math at
first grade of high school classes in Dena and Boyer Ahmad cities in the academic years 92-93. To determine the sample size, a very important
question of sample size is determinant. Houman (2011), quoting James Stevens, suggested taking 15 cases for each predictive variable in
multiple regression analysis using ordinary least standard squares as a good rule of thumb. Because structural equation modeling in some
aspects is completely related to multi-variable regression, 15 cases per variable size in structural equation modeling is not unreasonable.
Also, Chin., Marcolin and Newsted(1996) suggested that the sample size must be equal to or greater than the following values: 1- 10 times, or
more, greater than the number of references in the model with the most forming representatives; 2- 10 times, or more, greater than the largest
number of routes which point to the dependent variable. In explaining this issue, it can be said that after compiling the model, we should care
which structure has dedicated the most forming representative to itself. Then we should multiply this number by 10 to achieve the sample
size. Then, the research sample will be 145 people, 74 men and 71 women. The sample population is all the people in society of whowm 121
people, 61 men and 60 women, participated in this study, which correspond to the outlined rules in determining the sample size.
The instrument used in this study is the questionnaire of teachers' concerns and their self-efficacy beliefs about the implementation of curriculum
reform (Charalambous and Philippou ., 2010). The components are summarized in the following table. This 35-item questionnaire is a 7point Likert-type one, scored from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), which has seven factors.
Table 1. The instruments used in this study
variable
Awareness concerns
Informational concerns
Management concerns
Consequences concerns
refocusing concerns
Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers before reform
Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers after reform

question
24-28
29-32
6,8,13,14
1,2,4,5,11
3,7,9,10,12
33-35
15-23

providers
Charalambous and Philippou (2010)
Charalambous and Philippou (2010)
Charalambous and Philippou (2010)
Charalambous and Philippou (2010)
Charalambous and Philippou (2010)
Charalambous and Philippou(2010)
Charalambous and Philippou (2010)

Mehran Azizi Mahmoudabad *, Mohammad Reza Fadaee

380

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (4), April, 2015.

To prepare the questionnaire, the questions were translated into Farsi. Then, Farsi text was reviewed and matched with the original text by some
specialists. The content validity of the questionnaire was approved by the some faculty members. In order to comply with ethical issues of
research, the permission and consent of the respondents in the study were obtained.
The descriptive statistics index (mean and standard deviation) and inferential statistics such as Cronbach's alpha, coefficient of correlation,
confirmatory factor analysis, Bartlett test and KMO indicator using SPSS software and LISREL were applied.

3.

Findings

Table 2 shows content sampling adequacy using KMO index and Bartlett test.
Table 2. Bartlett’s test table and KMO index to assess the adequacy of the sample content
Test

Statistics Amount

The amount of KMO
Buartlet Test
Degree of Freedom
Significance level

0.903
726.1074
21
0.000

As it can be seen in Table 2, Bartlett’s test result, which is an approximate of chi-square statistic, has been shown. Bartlett’s test significance
level (0.000) is smaller than5%, indicating that the factor analysis to identify structure is an appropriate operating model and the hypothesis of
correlation matrix being known is rejected. The KMO index, by being 0.903, is presented at the beginning of the table, and, because its value is
close to one, the number of samples for analysis is sufficient.
Table 3 shows the reliability of the questionnaire of the effect of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on their concerns about the implementation of the
mathematics education curriculum reform by using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. According to this table, the alpha coefficients swing from 0.91
to 0.94 which is very good. On the other hand, overall, the questionnaire has reliability coefficient (0.93) that represents the internal consistency
of questions.
Table 3. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for Questionnaire’s components
Row

Factor

Cronbach’s Alpha

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Awareness concerns
Informational concerns
Management concerns
Consequences concerns
refocusing concerns
Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers before reform
Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers after reform

0.91
0.91
0.92
0.91
0.91
0.92
0.94

The relationship between data collection tools and research tools
Table 4. The relationship between data collection tools and research tools
Subject

Dimension

Factor

question

The effect of Selfefficacy beliefs of
teachers on their
concerns about the
implementation of
mathematics education
curriculum reform

Concerns

Awareness concerns
Informational concerns
Management concerns
Consequences concerns
refocusing concerns
Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers before reform
Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers after reform

24-28
29-32
6,8,13,14
1,2,4,5,11
3,7,9,10,12
33-35
15-23

Self-efficacy beliefs

Table 5 shows the results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the questionnaire about the effect of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on their
concerns about mathematics education curriculum reform. The mean of questions is from 3.99 to 5.00 and t value is from
26.50 to 41.57. Therefore, according to the mean and t value, the questions are in suitable domain.
Results of Table 6 describes the seven dimensions of the questionnaire about the effect of teachers' self-efficacy beliefs on their concerns about
the mathematics education curriculum reform; the highest mean is about teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs after reform, and the lowest mean
is teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs before the reforms.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs with teachers’ concerns in which awareness concerns and informational concerns
have the most correlation.

381

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Questionnaire of the Effect about Self-efficacy Beliefs of Teachers on their Concerns about Implementing a Mathema...
International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (4), April, 2015.

Table 5. Confirmatory factor analysis of the questionnaire about the effect of teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs on their concerns about mathematics education curriculum reform
Row
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

Questions
Reforming improves the solving problem skills of students.
Reforming develops the solving problem thoughts of students.
Reforming should start from school books.
Introducing reform will weaken problem solving performance of students.
Reforming will only help to develop the surface knowledge of students.
Reforming will reduce teacher’s readiness time to minimum.
Reforming, compared to the teaching methods of problem solving used before, is not preferable (better).
Reforming will help students’ development in problem solving.
Compared to using reforms, there are simpler methods to improve the problem solving skills of students.
Doing reforms in school books is useless.
Reforms pay attention to all the needs of students.
I am concerned about the efficiency of reforms.
Reforms propose great changes in teaching problem solving.
I use the reforms in a way to be respondent to my students’ reaction.
I can organize my teaching in problem solving around reforming ideas.
I can use reforms to help students in problem solving.
I have no problem using reforming ideas into teaching problem solving.
I feel I am component enough to help my students in using reform for problem solving.
I can use reforms to help my students to recognize unknown problems.
I can use the pages of the book relating to reforms.
I can use reforms to support the performance of proposing problems of my students.
I can use reforms to teach my students to solve problems.
I can organize different activities to help my students in using reforming ideas to solve mathematics problems.
I am not well informed about the purposes of reforms.
I know about what reforms claim to help students’ development.
Reforms require a teaching method which I am not familiar with.
I just have a vague understanding of reforms.
I am informed enough about the purposes and basic philosophy of reforms.
I am willing to knowing more about the ways other teachers use reforms.
I am willing to know more about the aims of reforms.
I am interested in knowing more about other teachers’ willing to reforms.
I am interested in participating in professional development seminars about reform.
I trust on myself about teaching problem solving before reforms.
I am capable of helping my students in organizing their thoughts while solving problems.
Before reforms, I was able to involve students in solving problems.

Mean
4.24
4.28
4.29
3.99
4.14
4.42
4.27
4.46
4.43
4.52
4.69
4.58
4.49
4.47
4.43
4.47
4.30
4.33
4.28
4.30
4.33
4.41
4.49
4.41
4.75
4.79
4.88
5.00
4.95
4.71
4.65
4.65
4.72
4.83
4.74

STD
1.50
1.31
1.41
1.50
1.43
1.58
1.49
1.62
1.41
1.33
1.44
1.52
1.69
1.76
1.62
1.74
1.71
1.80
1.62
1.69
1.68
1.72
1.55
1.43
1.55
1.59
1.60
1.59
1.58
1.58
1.59
1.59
1.64
1.54
1.25

T value
31.11
35.73
33.33
29.35
31.78
30.83
31.45
30.24
34.39
37.22
35.79
33.18
30.46
27.92
30.09
28.20
27.58
26.50
29.03
27.98
28.26
28.13
31.79
33.81
33.59
34.52
33.51
34.01
34.45
32.61
32.08
31.54
34.52
41.57
38.55

Self-efficacy
beliefs (after
reform)

0.11

0.08

-0.05

-0.08

0.81

0.74

0.44
0.21

0.44

Self-efficacy beliefs
(before reforms)

Figure 1.The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs of teachers with their concerns

0.55

0.03

Refocusing
Concerns

0.49

Consequences
concerns

Management
concerns

0.70

Informational
concerns

Awareness
concerns

0.88

Mehran Azizi Mahmoudabad *, Mohammad Reza Fadaee

382

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (4), April, 2015.

Table 6. Descriptive Characteristics of subscales of the questionnaire
T value

standard deviation

Mean

Dimension Questionnaire

4.58
2.28
3.41
2.65
3.02
36.28
2.86

6.28
5.57
5.41
7.88
7.27
4.43
12.42

21.00
17.60
18.29
22.03
21.83
13.59
43.19

Awareness concerns
Informational concerns
Management concerns
Consequences concerns
refocusing concerns
Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers before reform
Self-efficacy beliefs of teachers after reform

Table 7. Fitness Characteristics of the model
2

4.

χ .df

CFI

NNFI

NFI

GFI

AGFI

RMSEA

Amount
Criterion

1.37
less than

0.93
More than

0.94
More than

0.93
More than

0.93
More than

0.94
More than

0.05
less than

Interpretation

2.5
Good
Fitness

0.90
Good
Fitness

0.90
Good
Fitness

0.90
Good
Fitness

0.90
Good
Fitness

0.90
Good
Fitness

0.10
Good Fitness

Discussion and Conclusion

One of the important features of each test is its validity and reliability. The purpose of the present study is to examine conformity factor analysis
of the questionnaire about the effect of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on their concerns about the implementation of the mathematics education
curriculum reform. The results of the current study showed that this questionnaire has acceptable reliability in which the lowest reliability
coefficient is about the sub-scale concerns of awareness, informational, consequences, and refocusing with (0.91), and the highest reliability
coefficient is teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs subscale after the reform (0.94). In other words, Cronbach's alpha coefficients for questionnaire’s
subscales indicates the internal consistency of the Persian version of questionnaire about the impact of teachers' self-efficacy beliefs on their
concerns regarding the implementation of mathematics education curriculum reform. In a research by Charalambous and Philippou (2010), also,
the reliability range through Cronbach's alpha was satisfactory. The results of this research are consistent with those done by Charalambous and
Philippou (2010).
One of the findings of this research is the relationship between teachers' concerns. So, the highest correlation is in teachers’ concerns is between
teachers' awareness and informational concern (0.88) and the lowest one is between management concerns and refocusing concern (0.03). In
analyzing the results, it should be mentioned that teachers’ concerns at every stage affected their concerns in the later stages which is consistent
with the findings of Charalambous and Philippou ., (2010), Çetinkaya (2012), Beijaard and Vries (1997). The findings also indicated that selfefficacy beliefs before reform affected management concerns, consequences concerns, refocusing concerns, awareness concerns, and selfefficacy beliefs after the reforms. This means that teachers who feel more effective about the methods before reform have greater concerns in Management, consequences, refocusing, and awareness. These results are consistent with findings by Charalambous and Philippou (2010).
Results of other studies according to Table 7 show that the chi-square degree of freedom is 1.37. As chi-square degree of freedom is less
than 2.5, the provided model has a reasonable and proper fitness. The results of other index also verify this fitness. These findings are consistent
with the results found by Charalambous and Philippou (2010). Charalambous and Philippou (2010), using exploratory factor analysis, confirmed
goodness of fit for the integration model of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their concerns. Therefore, in this research, the given model,
according to the suitability indicators like the square root of the variance error estimation of approximation (RMSEA), and, as they are less
than 0.1, they are acceptable and show the verification of research model. Other indicators, i.e. NFI, NNFI, NFI, GFI, AGFI, are all above 0.9
which all confirm the suitability of the model.
In sum, it must be noted that the reliability and validity coefficients of the questionnaire, shortness and easiness of performance have provided
the widespread use of these questionnaires by researchers in educational environment. It is suggested that the questionnaire be tested in different
parts and to approve the reliability or probably review it.

Resources
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

[11]
[12]
[13]

Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331-367.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist, 44(9), 1175.
Beijaard, D., & Vries, Y. D. (1997). Building expertise: A process perspective on the development or change of teachers’ beliefs. European journal of
teacher education, 20(3), 243-255.
Charalambous, C. Y., & Philippou, G. N. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs about implementing a mathematics curriculum reform:
integrating two lines of inquiry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 1-21.
Charalambous, C. Y., Philippou, G. N., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). Tracing the development of preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs in teaching mathematics
during fieldwork. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(2), 125-142.
Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Philippou, G. (2004). Teachers' concerns regarding the adoption of a new mathematics curriculum: An application
of CBAM. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2), 157-176.
Crawford, A. R., Chamblee, G. E., & Rowlett, R. J. (1998). Assessing concerns of algebra teachers during a curriculum reform: A constructivist approach.
Journal of In-service Education, 24(2), 317-327.
Çetinkaya, B. (2012). Understanding teachers in the midst of reform: Teachers’ concerns about reformed sixth grade mathematics curriculum in Turkey.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(3), 155-166.
Chin. W.W., Marcolin., B & Newsted, P. (1996). "A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: esults from a
Monte Carlo simulation study and voice mail emotion.adoption study", Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information Systems,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Davoudi, Kh., et al. (2005). Teacher's book, Mathematics of the third grade of the middle school. Department of Education. Tehran.
Duke, D. L. (2004). The challenges of educational change. Allyn & Bacon.
Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. Mathematics teaching: The state of the art, 249, 254.

383

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Questionnaire of the Effect about Self-efficacy Beliefs of Teachers on their Concerns about Implementing a Mathema...
International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(4), No (4), April, 2015.

[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]

Ghaith, G., & Shaaban, K. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of teaching concerns, teacher efficacy, and selected teacher characteristics.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(5), 487-496.
Houman,A. (2011). Structural equation modeling using LISREL software. SAMT publication.
Hord, S., & Hall, G. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston: Allyn&Baeon, 191-1998.
Ham, S. H., & Sewing, D. R. (1988). Barriers to environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 19(2), 17-24.
Hall,G.E.,George,A.A.,&Rutherford,W.L.(1977).Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin:
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED147342).
Jöreskog, K. & Sorbom, .S. (1993). Introduction, in Testing Structural Equation Models. Kenneth A.Bollen and J. Scott Long, Eds. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Lin, H. L., & Gorrell, J. (2001). Exploratory analysis of pre-service teacher efficacy in Taiwan. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(5), 623-635.
Ministry of Education. (2012). National Curriculum document of Islamic Republic of Iran.
McKinney, M., Sexton, T., & Meyerson, M. J. (1999). Validating the efficacy-based change model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(5), 471-485.
Parsa, Abdullah. (2007). Investigating teachers' attitudes and behavioral tendencies about doing new curriculum programs. Curriculum studies. 4, 138-103
Roach, A. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Frank, J. L. (2009). School-based consultants as change facilitators: Adaptation of the concerns-based adoption model
(CBAM) to support the implementation of research-based practices. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19(4), 300-320.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. Handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning, 334-370.
Stanic, G., & Kilpatrick, J. (1988). Historical perspectives on problem solving in the mathematics curriculum. In R. Charles and E. Silver (Eds.), Teaching
and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (1-22). Reston, VA: NCTM . Lawerance Erlbaum Associates.
Schutz, R.W. (1994). "Methodological issues and measurement problems in sport psychology".International perspectives on sport and exercise
psychology. Eds: Serpa, 35-57.
The research and planning Organization. Compiling Office of Elementary and Secondary textbooks. The Department of Education. (2014). Mathematics
of the seventh grade. Book publishing organization of Iran.
Tunks, J., & Weller, K. (2009). Changing practice, changing minds, from arithmetical to algebraic thinking: an application of the concerns-based adoption
model (CBAM). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 161-183.
Törner, G., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Reiss, K. M. (2007). Problem solving around the world: Summing up thestate of the art. ZDM – The International
Journal on Mathematics Education, 39, 353.