ࡱ> '` 0kbjbj :Bw%x=x=x=8=L>kn@L@"AAAAA Bjjjjjjj$lhfojQLAALLjAAJk8Y8Y8YLAAj8YLj8Y8YV`@[aA@ ;+x=fRf` e`k0kaTpVp[a[apoa B2=EH8YGYIK B B BjjXX B B BkLLLL3<< Samoprocjena u inkovitosti nastavnika stranih jezika:istra~ivanje je provedeno u Istarskoj ~upaniji Prof. dr. sc. Moira Kosti-Bobanovi Sveu iliate Jurja Dobrile u Puli, Odjel za ekonomiju i turizam  Dr. Mijo Mirkovi  HYPERLINK "mailto:mbobanov@unipu.hr" mbobanov@unipu.hr Mieta Bobanovi, student Ekonomski fakultet u Zagrebu  HYPERLINK "mailto:mietabobanovic@gmail.com" mietabobanovic@gmail.com Sa~etak U ovom je istra~ivanju ispitana samoprocjena u inkovitosti studentskog anga~mana, upravljanja razredom i strategija pou avanja nastavnika engleskog kao stranog jezika u Istarskoj ~upaniji. Ispitana je i povezanost nastavni ke u inkovitosti s demografskim varijablama kao ato su godine pou avanja stranog jezika, stru no usavraavanje vjeatina pou avanja stranog jezika i poboljaanje jezi nih znanja i vjeatina. Istra~ivanje je provedeno u istarskim osnovnim i srednjim akolama te na Sveu iliatu u Puli. U istra~ivanju je sudjelovalo 122 nastavnika engleskog jezika kojima je dan demografski upitnik i upitnik o samo-u inkovitosti. Rezultati studije pokazali su da je u inkovitost nastavnika u uporabi strategija pou avanja vea od u inkovitosti u studentskom anga~manu i upravljanju razredom. Takoer, pokazalo se da su stru no usavraavanje vjeatina pou avanja stranog jezika i poboljaanje jezi nih znanja i vjeatina usko povezani s u inkovitoau. Klju ne rije i: samoprocjena u inkovitosti, nastavnik engleskog kao stranog jezika, studentski anga~man, upravljanje razredom, strategije pou avanja. Foreign language teachers perception of efficacy: a study in the region of Istria Ph.D. Moira Kosti-Bobanovi Sveu iliate Jurja Dobrile u Puli, Odjel za ekonomiju i turizam  Dr. Mijo Mirkovi  HYPERLINK "mailto:mbobanov@unipu.hr" mbobanov@unipu.hr Mieta Bobanovi, student Ekonomski fakultet u Zagrebu  HYPERLINK "mailto:mietabobanovic@gmail.com" mietabobanovic@gmail.com Abstract This study examined the levels of self-reported teachers sense of efficacy in students engagement, classroom management and instructional strategies among English as foreign language (EFL) teachers in the region of Istria. In addition, relationships in teachers self-efficacy were examined with respect to demographic variables such as years of teaching foreign language, professional development of language teaching skills and improvement of language skills. The study was conducted in primary and secondary schools and the University of Pula in the region of Istria. 122 EFL teachers were administered self-efficacy and a demographic questionnaire. The results of the research indicated that teachers efficacy for instructional strategies was higher than efficacy for management and engagement. It was also shown that professional development of language teaching skills and improvement of language skills were significantly correlated with self-efficacy. Keywords: self-efficacy, EFL teacher, students engagement, classroom management, instructional strategies Introduction In the last couple of decades, the concept of self-efficacy has attracted much attention as being a significant measure for understanding and predicting human behavior and its assumed consequences. Self-efficacy, as a key element of social cognitive theory, refers to beliefs in ones capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997, 3). Bandura (1997) noted four sources which affect the development of self-efficacy beliefs: a) mastery experience, b) vicarious experience, c) social persuasion, and d) physiological states. Of the four types, Pajares (1997) posits that mastery experiences tend to be the most influential because outcomes viewed as successful tend to raise self-efficacy, whereas those interpreted as failures tend to weaken it. People who have experienced successful performance in accomplishing a task, tend to have high self-efficacy, therefore past experiences play a vital role in developing self-efficacy beliefs. Once strong self-efficacy is cultivated from ones personal accomplishments, occasional failures may not have a negative effect. The second influential factor originates from observing other similar people perform a behavior successfully. While observing others attainments, individuals compare themselves as performers in the same situation (Bandura, 1997). Schunk (1989) notes that this source of self-efficacy can become influential when individuals are uncertain of their abilities or when they have limited or no prior experience with the activity. Similar to mastery experiences, observation of successful performances of tasks by others like oneself promotes individuals to make judgments about their own capabilities. However, self-efficacy based on observing others succeed will diminish rapidly if observers subsequently have unsuccessful experiences of their own. The third source of influence is social or verbal persuasion received from others. Successful persuaders foster peoples beliefs in their capabilities, while at the same time, ensure that the visualized success is achievable. Negative persuasion, on the other hand, may tend to defeat and lower self-beliefs. The most contributing effect of social persuasion pivots around initiating the task, attempting new strategies, and trying hard to succeed. Physiological reactions (e.g., physical symptoms such as heart rate, fatigue, sweating) are signs of anxiety that may destabilize peoples confidence of success at a specific task. Conversely, if individuals feel relaxed or excited prior to encountering a new situation, their efficacy may increase toward the upcoming task (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy is task-specific and differs from context to context. Bandura (1986) posited that various ways are required to assess self-efficacy when tasks vary because assessment of self- efficacy is task-specific. Therefore, self-efficacy needs to be measured specifically rather than generally. Teacher efficacy is defined as the teachers belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context (Bandura 2006, 22). According to his theory, people are self-organizing, self-regulating, self-reflecting, and proactive. People set goals, predict likely outcomes, monitor and regulate their actions, and then reflect on their personal efficacy. From this perspective, self-efficacy affects peoples goals and subsequent behaviors, and it is influenced by environmental factors. Moreover, self-efficacy beliefs shape how much effort people exert, how long they will persist in the face of obstacles, their resilience dealing with failures, and how much stress or even depression they experience when managing demanding tasks. A number of researchers investigated the topic of teacher efficacy. Working on behalf of the Rand Corporation, Rotter (1966) began by composing a rather lengthy Likert-scaled survey and included two statements that would be used to identify internal and external factors: (1) When it comes right down to it, a teacher really cant do much because most of a students motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment and (2) If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students. These two statements turned out to be among the most powerful factors examined by Rand researchers in their study of teacher characteristics and student learning(Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001, 784). Over the two decades of research on teachers sense of efficacy, findings (Coladarci, 1992; Gibson and Dembo, 1984; Riggs and Enochs, 1990; Soodak and Podell, 1997; Woolfolk and Hoy, 1990; Woolfolk, Rosoff, and Hoy, 1990) support at least two separate dimensions of teachers perceived efficacy: Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) and General Teaching Efficacy (GTE). 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. A number of studies have demonstrated the relationship between teachers self-efficacy and their instructional behaviors. Pajares (1992, 311) found a strong relationship between teachers educational beliefs and their lesson planning, instructional decisions, classroom practices, and subsequent teaching behaviors. He concluded that beliefs are far more influential than knowledge in determining how individuals organize and define tasks and problems and are stronger predictors of behavior. On the other hand, teachers with a low level of efficacy have been found to be cynical not only about their own abilities, but also the abilities of their students and colleagues. Researchers have argued that teacher efficacy is subject-matter specific, situation specific, multidimensional, and varying across tasks (Cantrell, 2003; Emmer and Hickman, 1990; Skaalvik and Bong, 2003). According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy theory predicts that teachers with a higher sense of efficacy work harder with students and persist longer even when students are challenging to teach, partly because these teachers believe in themselves and in the students with whom they work (Woolfolk, 1998; Coladarci, 1992). Some research indicates that students of highly efficacious teachers outperform other students (Moore and Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992; Anderson et al., 1988). Research conducted over the past three decades has found that teachers self-efficacy affects student motivation (Gibson and Dembo, 1984), teachers adoption of innovation (Ghaith and Yaghi, 1997; Guskey, 1988), teachers classroom management and control strategies (Woolfolk and Hoy, 1990; Woolfolk et al., 1990), and teachers personal characteristics such as gender, grade level taught and experience (Ghaith and Shaaban, 1999; Ross et al., 1996). Although a growing number of studies have investigated teacher efficacy in context-specific domains such as efficacy for teaching special education (Coladarci and Breton, 1997), the differences in efficacy for teaching science and for teaching chemistry (Rubeck and Enochs, 1991), and prospective primary teachers efficacy beliefs with respect to teaching mathematics (Philippou and Charalambous, 2005), little research has been conducted to explore the perceived efficacy of teachers of English in contexts outside the US. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) asserted that teacher efficacy is constructed based on personal knowledge and beliefs but also on the impact exerted by culture and society on the teachers expectations, roles, and social relations. Therefore, there is a need to examine teachers perceptions of their teaching competence in terms of personal capabilities to teach English as a Foreign Language. The study sets out clearly among other things to find out: 1. What are the levels of self-reported teacher sense of efficacy in students engagement, classroom management, and instructional strategies among EFL teachers in the region of Istria? 2.. What are the correlations among EFL teachers sense of efficacy in students engagement, classroom management, and instructional strategies and reported demographic variables such as years of foreign language teaching, professional development and improvement of language teaching skills. Method Research Design Participants The participants in this study consisted of 122 EFL teachers (96 females and 26 males). The study was conducted in primary and secondary schools and the University of Pula. Eleven percent of the sample reported having taught EFL for more than 30 years while 18% of participants reported teaching languages for 5 years or less, which places these individuals into the novice category as defined in the literature (Theobald and Michael, 2001). Teachers were teaching English courses including all the language skills and sub-skills based on their institutes pre-specified schedules. The teachers were B.A. (84%) or M.A. (16%) graduates. Eighty-six percent of the sample reported having attended at least two county professional council meetings a year and 63% having developed their language skills regarding communicative language competence (taking part in the work of various institutions and associations; obtaining scholarships; studying or traveling to English speaking countries). Instruments An anonymous self-report questionnaire and a demographic questionnaire, served as the research tool in this study. The long version of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) was adapted to fit the context of EFL. The scale consists of 24 items including eight items for each of the three following subscales: a. The teachers' perceived efficacy for engaging students in learning EFL b. The teachers' perceived efficacy for managing EFL classes c. The teachers' perceived efficacy for implementing instructional strategies to teach EFL The items measuring use a five point scale with anchors at 1 - nothing, 2 - very little, 3 - some influence, 4 - quite a bit, and 5 - a great deal. The reliability of the instrument was assessed by computing Cronbach alpha coefficients for each of the three major subscales mentioned above, which resulted in .68 for EFL teachers' self-efficacy in engagement, .69 for their self-efficacy in management, .66 for self-efficacy in implementing instructional strategies. The demographic form asked about the participants demographic information including years of teaching experience, data about development of teaching skills and improvement of language skills. Procedure Prior to data collection, the researchers obtained approval from the head of each school/department. All teachers were informed of the purpose of the study, and the approximate time needed to complete the questionnaires (approximately 15 minutes). All teachers were assured that their participation would be anonymous and voluntary. The process of responding to the questionnaires was explained to the teachers to ensure that valid data were collected. It was also explained that the results would consist of group data and that individual participants and school/department would not be identified. Finally, in order to answer the research inquiry, the responses obtained from the questionnaires were tabulated and analyzed. Results and discussion Both descriptive and inferential statistics (correlation analysis) were used. Descriptive statistics were computed for each item and subcategory of the EFL teachers' self-efficacy instrument. Also the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed between the subcategories of the main variable (teacher self-efficacy) and the other variables (i.e. years of teaching foreign language, professional development of language teaching skills and improvement of language skills). Efficacy for Engagement, Class Management, and Instructional Strategies The descriptive statistics for the self-efficacy beliefs for students' interactive engagement, classroom management, and instructional strategies are displayed in Table 1 showing the range of 1 (nothing) to 5 (a great deal). TABLE 1. The means in the three subscales suggest that participants judged themselves more efficacious for instructional strategies (M =3, 91) than for management (M =3, 75) and engagement (M =3, 56). The participants reported a strong sense of efficacy in their content knowledge abilities, and they reported a lesser sense of efficacy in the areas of classroom management and student engagement as measured by the TSES. In fact, the means for the items measuring student engagement (motivation) showed that participants expressed having the least amount of efficacy in that area. Items 16 and 10 in the engagement subscale had the lowest mean. These items are both related to students' motivation and attitudes towards English. In light of Banduras theory and Tschannen-Moran et al.s model this finding indicates that the participants judged their abilities to motivate students to learn English as low while they perceived themselves more capable in designing instructional strategies, implementing alternative strategies in their classroom, providing appropriate challenges for very capable students and assessing students as well as in managing student behaviour such as controlling disruptive behaviour in the classroom and establishing a classroom management system. While content knowledge is crucial for teachers, the perceived ability to motivate students in the classroom is important, and has been found to be related to teacher efficacy (Midgley et al., 1989; Woolfolk et al., 1990) and may contribute to ones persistence in staying in the field of education (Yildirim et al., 2008). Self-efficacy and selected demographic variables A second aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between teachers perceptions of self-efficacy and selected demographic variables. TABLE 2. Positive Pearson Product-Moment correlation were found between EFL teachers' perceived self-efficacy beliefs for students' interactive engagement, classroom management, instructional strategies and demographic variables (Table 2). The correlation coefficients were statistically significant for the teachers' sense of efficacy for orchestrating instructional strategies and their self-reported development of teaching skills(r = 0.39) and improvement of language skills(r = 0.38); among their self-efficacy for engaging students and development of teaching skills(r = 0.32) and improvement of language skills(r = 0.31) and among classroom management and development of teaching skills (r = 0.30). According to results presented in previously mentioned table there is no statistically significant correlation between teachers' sense of efficacy for classroom management and improvement of language skills and between self-efficacy and years of English teaching experience. These findings reveal that, first, the more aware the teachers perceived need of further development of their language skills regarding communicative language competence and methodological skills the more efficacious they felt in designing effective instructional strategies and the higher is their sense of efficacy for managing students in the foreign language classroom. Second, the more aware the teachers perceived their need of further improvement and development of their methodological skills and knowledge the higher is their sense of efficacy for managing students. Data showed that there were not statistically significant correlation between teachers' sense of efficacy and years of English teaching experience. This result corroborates previous researches (Guskey, 1988; Pajares, 1997) that found that efficacy beliefs of practicing teachers tend to be stable as they grow in years, but were in conflict with those of Campbell (1993) who assessed experience differences among teachers in the U.S. and in Scotland. His results stated that teachers with more experience were more efficacious. He concluded that more experienced teachers are exposed to an increasing number of ideas and strategies that will assist in confidence development. Further improvement and development of methodological skills and language skills regarding communicative language competence appear to have an impact on efficacy. Linguistic and methodological development can be achieved through specialized courses and seminars for foreign language teachers, by giving lectures at conferences, preparing workshops or publishing professional papers and articles in Croatian and in foreign languages. While it may not seem novel that increased education in the language and studying abroad affect teachers sense of efficacy, such a finding is still significant because it underscores the importance of school districts having salary schedules that award teachers for continuing their education. Teacher should achieve the required conditions for the promotion to specific degrees (teacher-mentor, teacher-advisor). Additionally, schools should encourage teachers to apply for quality study abroad opportunities and reward them upon completion. Teachers should get scholarships for the development of language skills and cultural knowledge. There are a variety of study abroad options available to teachers at times when school is not in session as well as scholarship opportunities to study/teach abroad. The data clearly indicate the benefits to ones sense of efficacy in teaching languages. Conclusion Research on teachers beliefs is crucial in determining the way teachers understand and organize instruction. Means computed for the three subscales measuring efficacy revealed that the participants judged their capabilities for instructional strategies higher than their capabilities for engagement and for classroom management. Statistically significant correlation were found between EFL teachers' perceived self-efficacy beliefs for students' interactive engagement, classroom management and instructional strategies and their self-reported development of teaching skills. With regard to demographic variable, improvement of language skills was found to be statistically significant correlated with participants self-efficacy for engagement and for instructional strategies. No statistically significant correlations were found between teachers perceived efficacy and years of experience, which supports previous studies about the stability of practicing teachers efficacy beliefs. Teacher should be aware of their personal responsibility to the further improvement and development of their skills, and to contribute to the development of their profession. Although the findings in this study are based on self-reported data, which implies certain built-in limitations, they do provide a foundation for further research about teacher efficacy and EFL teaching. More studies are needed to elaborate on the sources of information EFL teachers use to build self-efficacy. For obtaining a more precise estimate of teachers self-efficacy, future study should combine self-reporting measures with other measures based on objective performance. References Anderson, R., Greene, M., Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers and students thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2). Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognition theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.1-17. Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares and T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1-43). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Campbell J. (1993). A Comparison of teacher efficacy for pre and in service teachers in Scotland and America. Education II. Cantrell, P. (2003). Traditional vs. retrospective pretests for measuring science teaching efficacy beliefs in preservice teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 103(4). Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60: 323-337. Coladarci, T., Breton, W. (1997). Teacher efficacy, supervision, and the special education resource-room teacher. Journal of Educational Research, 90. Emmer, E. T., Hickman, J. (1990, April). Teacher decision making as a function of efficacy, attributions, and reasoned action. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Ghaith, G., Shaaban, K. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of teaching concerns, teacher efficacy, and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15. Ghaith, G., Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationship among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13. Gibson, S., Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76. Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional motivation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2). Moore, W., Esselman, M. (1992). Teacher efficacy, power, school climate and achievement: A desegregating districts experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: clearing up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research. 62(3):307332. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In H.W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, and D. M. McInerney, (Eds.), International advances in self research, 8. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Philippou, G., Charalambous, C. Y. (2005). Disentangling mentors role in the development of prospective teachers efficacy beliefs in teaching mathematics. Melbourne, Australia: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Riggs, I. M., Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teachers science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6). Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1). Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12. Rotter, J. B.(1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80. Rubeck, M., Enochs, L. (1991,). A path analytic model of variables that influence science and chemistry teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in middle school science teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI. Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames and R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education. San Diego. Skaalvik, E.M., Bong, M. (2003). Self-concept and self-efficacy revisited: A few notable differences and important similarities. In H.W. Marsh, R.G. Craven, and D.M. McInerney, (Eds.), International advances in self research. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M. (1997). Efficacy and experience: perceptions of efficacy among preservice and practicing teachers. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30(4). Theobald, N. D., Michael, R. S. (2001). Teacher Turnover in the Midwest: Who Stays, Leaves, and Moves? Policy Issues. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Lab. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. Yildirim, O Acar, A. C. Bull, S. Sevinc, L. (2008). Relationships between Teachers' Perceived Leadership Style, Students' Learning Style, and Academic Achievement: A Study on High School Students. Educational Psychology Journal. Woolfolk, A. E., Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1):8191. Woolfolk, A. (1998). Educational Psychology . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., and Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2):137148. TABLE 1. Table 1. EFL Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs Items of efficacy subscalesMeanSDEfficacy in Classroom Management1. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom during the English class?3.761.012. To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior in your English class?3.400.873. How well can you establish routines to keep activities running smoothly?3.920.954. How much can you do to get students to follow classroom rules?4.071.035. How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy?3.841.286. How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students?3.530.66 7. How well can you keep a few problem students form ruining an entire English class lesson?3.761.168. How well can you respond to defiant students?3.691.18Total3.750.21Efficacy in Student Engagement9. How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students in your English class?3.301.2510. How much can you do to help your students think critically?3.920.7611. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in your English class?3.461.12Jhl   0 2 6 {qbWEb8bWhmfhX{0JCJaJ#jhmfhX{CJUaJhmfhX{CJaJjhmfhX{CJUaJh 3hX{6]h 3hX<5\h 3hX{5\h 3h?5\h 3h 35CJ \aJ hC5CJ \aJ h 3hs5CJ \aJ h 3h5CJ \aJ h 35CJ \aJ h/u5CJ \aJ h 3hZmt5CJ \aJ h 3hmp5CJ \aJ  Z 4 6 h 6 8 : J L 8$a$gd[$a$gd/u$a$gd/u$a$gdX<$a$gdX{$a$gdmfEj6 h  2 4 6 8 : H J   J ^  t6nT »h 3h5\ h <&h;Hh;Hh <&h/u5h/u h <&h/uh <&h/u5\ h/u5\ h 3h 3hh 3hX{0Jjh 3hX{U h 3hX{jh 3hX{Uh 3hX{6h 3hX{51z&` VIJ$a$gdX{ $7$8$H$a$gd $7$8$H$a$gd$a$gd/u$a$gdX{$a$gdmfgd["$&:Xz|&`bʸʸtiWtJtiB:th 3hX{6h 3hX{5hmfhX{0JCJaJ#jhmfhX{CJUaJhmfhX{CJaJjhmfhX{CJUaJh 3hX{6]h 3hX{5\"h 3h 35CJ \aJ mH sH hX{5CJ \aJ mH sH "h 3h[5CJ \aJ mH sH "h 3h5CJ \aJ mH sH "h 3h0.5CJ \aJ mH sH "h 3hs5CJ \aJ mH sH b "=CLJT]acfpԿ}}odYdNBhVCJaJmH sH h 3hmfmH sH h 3hGmH sH h 3h_$ mH sH h 3hs5\mH sH h 3h1WmH sH h 3h 8mH sH h 3hsmH sH h 3hmH sH h 3h5\mH sH h;HCJaJhX{CJaJhmfhX{0JCJaJjhmfhX{CJUaJ#jhmfhX{CJUaJhmfhX{CJaJ"#vw;X: !!)!}l]N?3hmH nH sH tH hmfhmmH nH sH tH hmfhE/mH nH sH tH hmfh|mH nH sH tH !hmfhE/0JB*CJaJphhmfh|OJQJ!hmfhm0JB*CJaJphh{{OmH nH sH tH hmfhBlmH nH sH tH hmfmH nH sH tH hmfh?nmH nH sH tH hmfh?nCJaJmH sH *hmfh?n5CJ\aJmH nH sH tH h 3CJaJmH sH \: '#$h'i'*-/ $7$8$H$a$gdU' $7$8$H$a$gdL $7$8$H$a$gd#gdL $da$gd# $7$8$H$a$gdmf $da$gd@ $7$8$H$a$gd@ 7$8$H$gd?n$a$gdX{)!.!####<$=$$$$$$%<&=&g'h'i''''("(#(D(H(K(*忴wkwwV)hmfh#0JB*CJaJmH phsH hmmH nH sH tH h#mH nH sH tH hmfh#mH nH sH tH  hL hL h?nOJQJh#h?nOJQJhCOJQJh#hmOJQJhmfhmOJQJhmfhPmH nH sH tH hmfmH nH sH tH hmfhmmH nH sH tH hmH nH sH tH ******^+b+,,&-F-e-q-v--------/(0)0~v~kYJJhmfhU'mH nH sH tH "hmfhU'5\mH nH sH tH hmfhpmH sH hB,MmH sH h:mH sH h{{OmH sH h[VmH sH hmfhU'B*mH phsH hmfmH sH h #mH sH hmfhU'mH sH hL mH sH h#hL mH nH sH tH hmfhL mH sH h#hL mH sH #h#0JB*CJaJmH phsH /)02<7I9::;;<<<==="=#= 7$8$H$gd2 $dha$gdr@ 7$8$H$gdr@ $7$8$H$a$gd+ $dha$gd+gd5 w $7$8$H$a$gdBl $7$8$H$a$gd@ $7$8$H$a$gd $7$8$H$a$gdU')0=0A0g000000011g1h111f2g2222l3o33344444<5A5D5U5_5a5i5񵠵vgvvvhmfh.mH nH sH tH )hmfh.0JB*CJaJmH phsH )hmfhx0JB*CJaJmH phsH )hmfhp0JB*CJaJmH phsH )hmfhGc0JB*CJaJmH phsH h:mH nH sH tH hmH nH sH tH hlhtCmH nH sH tH hlh2mH nH sH tH $i5j5q5y555555555$6%6-606J6M6V6W666666666777,7-757F7G777B8E8888899;shmfh{{OmH nH sH tH h{{Oh{{OmH nH sH tH hmfhpmH nH sH tH hmfh?8mH nH sH tH hmfh.mH nH sH tH hmfhEcmH nH sH tH )hmfhGc0JB*CJaJmH phsH hmfhBmH nH sH tH hBhBmH nH sH tH -9I9O9j9999999::N:O:}:~:::::::;;;;;<<<<ȹzo\$h;H5CJ\aJmH nH sH tH hmfhP&mH sH h+mH sH hmH sH hm:mH sH hmfh+mH sH hmfh+mH nH sH tH hmfh+OJQJ^JhmfhqLmH nH sH tH hmfh?8mH sH hmfhEcmH sH h.:UmH sH hmfh.:UmH sH hmfhEcmH nH sH tH <=== ="=#=1=Q=b=q=y={====¬ufWfuWH>>>>>>]?^?g?h?u?v?~??????????Ƴ٤whhUIhmfh2o]mH sH %hmfh\B*mH nH phsH tH hmfh \mH nH sH tH hmfhU'mH nH sH tH hmfhmH nH sH tH hmfhBVmH nH sH tH hmfh2mH nH sH tH %hmfhbB*mH nH phsH tH %hmfhBVB*mH nH phsH tH %hmfhpTB*mH nH phsH tH %hmfh_Q%B*mH nH phsH tH #=>@AAAAAlBBBNCC"EEEEETFHH $7$8$H$a$gdD' $7$8$H$a$gd_o $7$8$H$a$gd, $7$8$H$a$gdkn 7$8$H$gd2 $7$8$H$a$gd;H $7$8$H$a$gd????@@@@n@@@@@@@@@@AAAȽޱ󥖇xeO9*hmfhe]5CJ\aJmH nH sH tH *hmfh25CJ\aJmH nH sH tH $h 35CJ\aJmH nH sH tH h;Hh 3mH nH sH tH hmfh \mH nH sH tH hmfhe]mH nH sH tH hmfhe]]mH sH hmfhBV]mH sH hmfhe]mH sH hmfhJmH sH hmfh2omH sH hmfh2o]mH sH ho]mH sH hmfhJ]mH sH AGAHAAAAAAAAAAAABB B B BB!B"B#B$B/B9BUB_BmZGmG%hmfhrB*mH nH phsH tH %hmfh)o}B*mH nH phsH tH %hmfha/B*mH nH phsH tH h{!hwxhmH nH sH tH h{!hpmH nH sH tH h{!he]mH nH sH tH %hmfhe]B*mH nH phsH tH %hmfhwxhB*mH nH phsH tH hmfhFRmH nH sH tH hmfhe]mH nH sH tH hmfh2mH nH sH tH _B`BkBlBnBrBBBBBBBMCNCbCfClCmCCCC/DƳƅƕƕr_L_9ƕ%hmfhrB*mH nH phsH tH %hmfh)o}B*mH nH phsH tH %hmfhFB*mH nH phsH tH %hmfh8!B*mH nH phsH tH hB*mH nH phsH tH hmfh8!B*mH phsH hmfhB*mH phsH %hmfhB*mH nH phsH tH %hmfhrB*mH nH phsH tH %hmfhe]B*mH nH phsH tH %hmfha/B*mH nH phsH tH /DPDgDDDE!E"EEEEEEEE)FSFTF`FFFFFGGɺzhYJYJY>YJY>h,mH nH sH tH h,h,mH nH sH tH h,h & mH nH sH tH "h,h,5\mH nH sH tH h & 5\mH nH sH tH "h,h & 5\mH nH sH tH %hmfhmfB*mH nH phsH tH hmfhkn \mH sH hmfhkn mH nH sH tH hkn B*mH phsH hmfB*mH phsH hmfh8!B*mH phsH hmfhwxhB*mH phsH G;GOrOsOOOO PPPIPbPcPhPPwwwwwwlwalwah%}h[mH sH h%}h Y,mH sH h%}h{mH sH h%}h(mH sH hmfh(mH nH sH tH hmfh Y,mH sH hmfhUmH sH hmfh Y,mH nH sH tH hmfh` mH sH hmfh{mH sH hmfh(mH sH himH sH hmfhmH sH hmfhimH sH #PPPPPPPPQQQQQQQQRRRR'R(R/R0R6R7RŶꑉznzn_TzIh%}hmH sH h%}hM?mH sH h%}hM?mH nH sH tH hM?mH nH sH tH hM?hM?mH nH sH tH hM?mH sH h%}h[+mH sH h%}h{!mH nH sH tH h%}hmH sH h%}hmH nH sH tH h%}hbLmH nH sH tH h%}hbLmH sH h%}h[mH sH h%}h{mH sH h%}h%}mH sH 7R8RhRiRkRRRRRSSSSS3S>SFSSSŷiZOD9D9D1hmmH sH h'hk2mH sH h'hTMmH sH h'hAmH sH hmfh{mH nH sH tH 3hB,MhB,M5B*CJ\aJmH nH phsH tH -hB,M5B*CJ\aJmH nH phsH tH hmfhJ5B*phhmfhJ0J5B*\phhmfhJ5B*\phhmfhJ5hB,MhU0JB*\phhB,MhUB*\ph+h%}hB,M5B*CJ\aJmH phsH SSSVY[n] _```kaGb dengogpg$a$gdA $7$8$H$a$gdcdU$a$gd[q$a$gdhdhgd+ $7$8$H$a$gd[q $7$8$H$a$gdbN $7$8$H$a$gd' $7$8$H$a$gdm $dha$gdmSSSSSSNTTTTTTTTUU UU;UFUhUwUUUUUUUrVøth]tRh'h~xmH sH h'h.. mH sH h'h.. \mH sH h'h"mH sH h'h%\\mH sH h'hJmH sH h'h%\mH sH h'h*H\mH sH h'h*HmH sH h'hk2mH sH $h'h'0JB*\mH phsH $h'hTM0JB*\mH phsH h'hTM\mH sH h'hTMmH sH rVVVVVVWW#W$WWWWX)XAXLXMXUXYYY8YeYfYɾxiZK@h'hKrmH sH h'hKrB*mH phsH h'hbNmH nH sH tH h'h~~'mH nH sH tH h'h~~'B*mH phsH h'h_mH sH h'h~~'mH sH h'hmH sH h'hQsmH sH h'hk2mH sH h'hAmH sH h'mH sH h'h'mH sH h'hmH sH h'h\mH sH h'h~x\mH sH fYYYYYYYYYYYqZrZZZZZ'[([[[[_\\\\\m]^^^ _οwkwk`kw`kThmfh\]mH sH h'h!JmH sH h'h\]mH sH h'h\mH sH hqmH nH sH tH %h'hbNB*mH nH phsH tH h'hmH nH sH tH h'hbNmH nH sH tH h'hpmH nH sH tH h'hpmH sH h'hKr\mH sH h'hKrmH sH h'hKrB*mH phsH  _._4___``````$a%aSaTajakaaaab(b)bθmm[PEP:PEh[qhmfmH sH h[qh:,mH sH h[qhfmH sH "h[qh+5\mH nH sH tH "h[qh:,5\mH nH sH tH %h[qh+B*mH nH phsH tH h[qh:,\mH nH sH tH *hmfh+5CJ\aJmH nH sH tH *hmfh_5CJ\aJmH nH sH tH hmfhmH sH h[mH sH hmfh\]mH sH h!!mH sH hmfh\mH sH )bFbGbHb`b=c>cBcDcccccccccccd d d d&d'dFdGd|d}dddddeeeeeeeffrfsfffffɾ߶߫ߜ߾꾜߾߾߾߾w0hcdUhcdUCJOJQJ^JaJmH nH sH tH h[qhh]mH sH h[qh{:B*mH phsH h[qh:,mH sH h[mH sH h[qh,a^mH sH h[qhhmH sH h[qhP&mH sH h[qh{:mH sH h[qh[qmH sH h[qhfmH sH .fff!g"gngogpg{g|gggh=h@hAhBhChWhҿxfZN?0hmfh7#B*mH phsH hhhhB*mH phsH hhB*mH phsH h:B*mH phsH #hmfh6B*]mH phsH he_B*mH phsH hmfhB*mH phsH *hmfh>a5CJ\aJmH nH sH tH *hmfh &5CJ\aJmH nH sH tH $h 35CJ\aJmH nH sH tH $h5CJ\aJmH nH sH tH hcdUmH nH sH tH hcdUhcdUmH nH sH tH pg{g|gBhChhhiiiiVjWjkkkkllllmmkn 7$8$H$gd] 9$a$gdRs 7$8$H$gdRs $7$8$H$a$gd03 $a$gd03 $a$gdAWhhhhhhiiiisiviiiiiiiiiiCjFj޴xiZKZKi<hRshYamH nH sH tH hRshe_mH nH sH tH hRshPmH nH sH tH hRsh7#mH nH sH tH hmfh7#mH nH sH tH #hmfhr56B*]mH phsH hPB*mH phsH hmfhr5B*mH phsH hmfhmH nH sH tH h:B*mH phsH hmfhB*mH phsH hmfh7#B*mH phsH #hmfh7#6B*]mH phsH FjGjHjQjVjwjjjjkkRkwkxkkkkk˼nbSD8he_B*mH phsH hmfh!mH nH sH tH hmfh7#mH nH sH tH hRsB*mH phsH #hmfh7#6B*]mH phsH hmfh7#B*mH phsH h:B*mH phsH #hmfhA6B*]mH phsH hmfhAB*mH phsH hRshAB*mH phsH hRshAmH sH hRshRs6mH nH sH tH hRsh7#mH sH hRshRsmH nH sH tH kkllll)lDllll7m8mompmmmmmqq_M;#h[<h:6_H mH nH sH tH #h[<h] 96_H mH nH sH tH #h[<h!6_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh] 9_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh!_H mH nH sH tH #hmfhA6B*]mH phsH hmfhAB*mH phsH he_B*mH phsH hmfhAmH nH sH tH hmfh!mH nH sH tH #hmfh!6B*]mH phsH hmfh!B*mH phsH mmmmm nGnfngnjnknlnxnnnnWoxoyoufTfE3E#hmfh6B*]mH phsH hmfhB*mH phsH #hmfh7#6B*]mH phsH hmfh7#B*mH phsH he_B*mH phsH hmfh!mH nH sH tH  hmfhA_H mH nH sH tH h[<_H mH nH sH tH #h[<h!6_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh] 9_H mH nH sH tH hmfh!B*mH phsH  hmfh!_H mH nH sH tH h:_H mH nH sH tH knlnnnzo{oZp[pBqCqqqrrss/t0ttt3u4uuuvv 7$8$H$gd] 9 7$8$H$gdl$a$gdx$a$gd03 yozo{oo0pUpXpYpZp[p`pfpxp{ppAqBqCqJqLqNqûѭweVG;GhlmH nH sH tH hlhlmH nH sH tH hmfhlmH nH sH tH #hmfh6B*]mH phsH h[<B*mH phsH he_B*mH phsH hmfhB*mH phsH hxhbLB*mH phsH hxh5\mH sH h:B*phhxhx6B*]phhxhxB*phhe_B*phhmfhbLB*mH phsH hB*mH phsH NqOqUqXqqqqqqqqq2r5rOrvryrrrrrrƺƪƺtbSGՏ8hmfh03 B*mH phsH hr5B*mH phsH h:6B*]mH phsH #hmfh7#6B*]mH phsH hPB*mH phsH hmfh7#B*mH phsH he_B*mH phsH hmfh7#mH nH sH tH hhl6mH nH sH tH hlmH nH sH tH hlhlmH nH sH tH hmfhlB*mH phsH hlB*mH phsH hlhlB*mH phsH r7s9syssssssssst ttt&t-t/ttͿn\N?hmfhB*mH phsH h:_H mH nH sH tH #hh:6_H mH nH sH tH #hh!6_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh] 9_H mH nH sH tH he__H mH nH sH tH  hmfh!_H mH nH sH tH hmfh:B*mH phsH h!0JCJaJmH sH  hmfh03 0JCJaJmH sH hmfh03 B*mH phsH #hmfh03 6B*]mH phsH ttttttu-u.u/u1u3u4u?uAuuuuuuuovvufTfB#hmfh!6B*]mH phsH #hmfh7#6B*]mH phsH hmfh7#B*mH phsH he_B*mH phsH hmfh!B*mH phsH h:_H mH nH sH tH #h+dh!6_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh] 9_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh!_H mH nH sH tH hmfhB*mH phsH h:B*mH phsH #hmfh6B*]mH phsH vv3w6wGwjwvwwwxx1xXxzx{xxxxxxy"y+y,y-yƺثyhyhyVDVyh#h+dh] 96_H mH nH sH tH #h+dh!6_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh] 9_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh!_H mH nH sH tH hmfh!B*mH phsH #hmfhA6B*]mH phsH hmfhAB*mH phsH h:B*mH phsH #hmfh7#6B*]mH phsH hPB*mH phsH hmfh7#B*mH phsH hB*mH phsH vwwxwzx{x4y5yyyqzrzz&{W{X{Y{{{<|=|||| $7$8$H$a$gdA 7$8$H$gd] 9 7$8$H$gd03 $a$gdB $7$8$H$a$gdB$a$gd03 -y2y3y4y5yFy]yyyyyyDzhzqzrz7{º}qbPbA2hM?h &mH nH sH tH hmfhBlmH nH sH tH #hmfh7#6B*]mH phsH hmfh7#B*mH phsH he_B*mH phsH hmfh&3B*mH phsH +h@h7#5B*\mH nH phsH tH h+dh@6B*phh@h@B*phhe_B*ph hmfh&3_H mH nH sH tH h!_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh!_H mH nH sH tH h:_H mH nH sH tH 7{W{X{{{{{{{{{{||;|<|=|Z|ǶǤvgUgF4"hmfh!6]mH nH sH tH h^h^B*mH phsH #hmfh^6B*]mH phsH hmfh^B*mH phsH h!_H mH nH sH tH h+d_H mH nH sH tH #h+dh] 96_H mH nH sH tH #h+dh!6_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh] 9_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh!_H mH nH sH tH +hB,Mh6B*]mH nH phsH tH "hM?h &6]mH nH sH tH Z|]|z|{|||||||||}}}}}о៏o_O8-h;H5B*CJ\aJmH nH phsH tH hYaB*mH nH phsH tH hB*mH nH phsH tH hB*mH nH phsH tH hB,MB*mH nH phsH tH hAB*mH nH phsH tH  hmfh7#_H mH nH sH tH h+d_H mH nH sH tH #h+dh!6_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh] 9_H mH nH sH tH  hmfh!_H mH nH sH tH hP_H mH nH sH tH ||||||||||||||||||||||||}}}}} $7$8$H$a$gdA}}}}} } } } } }}}}}}}I}e}j}m} d$IfgdB,MgdB,M $7$8$H$a$gdA}}}H}I}m}n}}|   !"#$}ncTHhmfhB,M\mH sH hmfhB,MmH nH sH tH hmfhB,MB*phhmfhB,M0JB*\ph-hB,M5B*CJ\aJmH nH phsH tH hB,MmH nH sH tH UhB,MhB,MmH sH hB,MhB,M5mH sH hmfhB,M\hmfhB,MB*\ph3hB,MhB,M5B*CJ\aJmH nH phsH tH -hYa5B*CJ\aJmH nH phsH tH m}n}}}}^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M}}}}}^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M}}c~h~m~^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkdb$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,Mm~n~~~~^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd1$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M~~ ^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,MW\a^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,Mab^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M$).^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkdm $$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M./`ej^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd< $$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,Mjkqv{^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd $$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M{|^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd $$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd $$IflF> #   t06    44 lapytB,MEJO^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd $$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,MOP^RRR d$IfgdB,MkdU$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M[ ` e ^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M12. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in your English class?4.300.7513. How much can you do to help your students value learning?3.770.9214. How much can you do to foster student creativity?3.530.8715. How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is failing?3.460.8716. How much can you to help student do well in your English class?2.691.25Total3.560.47Efficacy in Instructional Strategies17. How well can you respond to difficult questions from your students in your English class?3.920.7618. How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught?3.530.6619. To what extent can you craft good questions for your students?40.7020. How much can you do to adjust your lessons to the proper level for individual students?3.761.3021. How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies?3.760.7222. To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused?4.150.6823. How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom?4.070.4924. How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students?4.070.76Total3.910.20 TABLE 2. Table 2.Correlations among self-efficacy subscales and selected demographic variables VariablesYears of teachingDevelopment of teaching skillsImprovement of language skillsEfficacy for engagement0.200.32*0.31*Efficacy for management0.170.30*0.20Efficacy for instructional strategies0.190.39*0.38**Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)     PAGE  PAGE 1 e f    ^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M     ^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M  C H M ^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,MM N    ^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd`$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M     ^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd/$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M     ^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M  49>^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> #   t06    44 lapytB,M>?^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M;@E^RRR d$IfgdB,MkdV$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,MEF^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd%$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,MGLQ^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,MQR^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkd$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M^RRR d$IfgdB,Mkda$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M^RRRRRRMgdB,M $7$8$H$a$gdB,Mkd0$$IflF> # t06    44 lapytB,M#$.A` $$Ifa$gdB,M $dha$gdB,M$a$gdB,MQH<<< $$Ifa$gdB,M $IfgdB,Mkd $$IfT\U 4#0634abytB,MT   DEFHIKLNOQRXYZ\]cdefgijkշh*20JmHnHuh h0Jjh0JUhszjhszUhmfhFMmH sH %hmfhB,MB*CJaJmH phsH hmfhB,MB*mH phsH  hmfhB,MB*\mH phsH hmfhB,MmH sH #QH<<< $$Ifa$gdB,M $IfgdB,Mkd$$IfT\U 4#0634abytB,MT QH<<< $$Ifa$gdB,M $IfgdB,Mkd$$IfT\U 4#0634abytB,MT  DEGHJQF;999 $dha$gdFM $dha$gdB,Mkd}$$IfT\U 4#0634abytB,MTJKMNPQZ[\ghijk $dha$gdFMh]hgd$ &`#$gd 8 001h:p. A!"#$% DyK mbobanov@unipu.hryK Jmailto:mbobanov@unipu.hryX;H,]ą'cDyK mietabobanovic@gmail.comyK Xmailto:mietabobanovic@gmail.comyX;H,]ą'cDyK mbobanov@unipu.hryK Jmailto:mbobanov@unipu.hryX;H,]ą'cDyK mietabobanovic@gmail.comyK Xmailto:mietabobanovic@gmail.comyX;H,]ą'c$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555/  pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555/ pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555/  pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555pytB,M$$If!vh555#v#v#v:V l t06555/ pytB,M$$If!vh5 55 5 #v #v#v #v :V 06,5/ 34ytB,MT$$If!vh5 55 5 #v #v#v #v :V 06,5/ 34ytB,MT$$If!vh5 55 5 #v #v#v #v :V 06,5/ 34ytB,MT$$If!vh5 55 5 #v #v#v #v :V 06,5/ 34ytB,MT!@@@ bNNormalCJ_HaJmHsHtHV@V 8! Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJ\^JaJV@BV U Heading 4dd@&[$\$5\_H mH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List R^@R $- Normal (Web)dd[$\$_H mH sH tH BOB $-apple-converted-space4 @4 $Footer  !.)@!. $ Page NumberbO2b Default 7$8$H$-B*CJOJQJ^J_HaJmH phsH tH :O12: Pa4+3d B*^Jph:O12: Pa6+3d B*^Jph:Oa: A3+2B*CJOJQJaJph<O12< Pa10+2d B*^JphDOD A0+3#6B*CJOJQJ]^JaJph:O12: Pa8+1d B*^Jph<O12< Pa11+3d B*^Jph:O: A4+3B*CJOJQJaJphDO12D 5 wPa13+3dB*OJQJ^Jph2O2 AA5+2B*CJ aJ ph2O2 03 A7+1B*CJaJph6U@6 X{ Hyperlink >*B*ph4@4 Header _$ xBde4QYZKLi0z{V I J \ :'hi) "<'I)**++,,,---"-#-.011111l222N33"55555T68888::;;;;<>7B8BkBBCCCFIKnM OPPPkQGR TUnWoWpW{W|WBXCXXXYYYYVZWZ[[[[\\\\]]k^l^^^z_{_Z`[`BaCaaabbcc/d0ddd3e4eeeffwgxgzh{h4i5iiiqjrjj&kWkXkYkkktCtHtIttttttttt8u=uBuCuuuuuuvvvVv[v`vavgvlvqvrvsvtvuvvvwvvvvvvvw4w5wMwRwXw^w_www|wwwwwwwwwwwwwwxxxxxxxxxxx!x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(0080800:0:0:0:0:0:0:8088080=B0=B00=B0=B0=B0=B0=B00=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B00=B000000000000=B0=B0=B0=B0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B 0=B0@0ȑ00O@0ȑ00O@0ȑ00O@0ȑ00O@0@0@0@0@0@0ȑ000 OYYYVZWZ!xʑ00|ʑ00ȑ00a0w ʑ00 $$$'6 b)!*)0i59<=?A_B/DG I{LP7RSrVfY _)bfWhFjkmyoNqrtv-y7{Z|}kADFGHJKMNOPQSTUVWYZ[\^_`abcefghjklmnpqru/#=HSpgknv|}m}}}m~~a.j{Oe   M    >EQ JkBEILRX]diostvwxyz{|}~jCQ0_x xXXXX  '!!8@0(  B S  ? OLE_LINK1 !x&!x:j/Tk/Tl/TTm/TSn/So/$Q#p/d\#q/d^#r/$P#s/dR#t/R#u/$R#v/P#w/Q#x/R#y/$S#z/dS#{/S#|/S#}/$T#~/dT#/T#/T#/$U#/dU#/U#/U#/$V#/dV#/V#/V#/$W#/dW#/W#/W#/$X#/dX#/X#/X#/$Y#/dY#/Y#/Y#/$Z#/dZ#/Z#/d[#/$\#/[#/$]#/\#/$[#/[#/^#/\#/Z#/]#/d]#^ +---F>JJJ|W|WXXXXXXYYYYY2Z?Z?Z\\\[`[`3a3a{b{bb9c9cDccfff.g:g:glglgZhZhehjll'l!x      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456879d +---K>JJJWWXXXXYYYYYYY:ZFZFZ\\\````@a@abbbBcMcMccfff2g>g>gugugchghghj%l)l)l!x  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456879C1*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsmetricconverter9+*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState9:*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType8-*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCityB0*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region 10 in ProductID:98:::9:8100:-:+::-+:-:+-:00:-:+-:-:-:+-:0:-:+-:--:-:+::-+ kmnos4jvRiuI P \ c .5!'-48?JPfoz%*08@PXZ` ####$$$$E%M%%%&&,&1&6&>&D&&&&&''' ''';(A(F(L(((((I)R)])e)..11114'4>>>>AAAAB'BIIIIWWCXJXXXY$YPYWYkYrYzYYZZ[ [[[\] ]]]]]]x^}^^^{______`0`;`U`f`n`CaJaaatIttttt8uCuuuuvVvvvwwwwwwwwxxxxxx!xwwwwwwwxxxxxx!x^>ʑtiE?#l8d$h 88^8`hH.h ^`hH.h  L ^ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h xx^x`hH.h HLH^H`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.^`OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.l8d^>tiE?                  mV+$9 & `  .. 03 ;R _$ 00 !Y | kn V!eP'6IbL``TM[NvRs$-Jk >a~xR z !!8!{!7# #$ $_Q% &P&}&'U'~~')M+ Y,k#.0.E/a/k2 3|3-7?8] 9~j9m::{:wj:;0;2<X<[<:=o,D"EG*HEH I.wI!JqLB,MFM{{O:PibPpT.:UcdUBV[V1WgHW!X \%\e],a^e_/bEcGcjd+dAuemfHgwxhwfkBlLPlmKSmpbn2o_o`omp%qr sQs5sasZmt/uqukv5 wxszz{!|%})o}\.lfHjM"?CG}:Yaih? F/IFF tCp!As'\{:,;HU 8BY@.Rq,.$2oC#*2rFR[+D'x"i&35A (p[qjquKrRxh&hGGx(^Ty`ja6L 'w@ v,r5?n]MF (AcQbq!E{(pM?ns\9J2qOw+Q'VM%bN_#,X{[F8G Pm|B]hosm}r@`BMQ0mmImemjmmmnmmmmmmmmmcnhnmnnnnnnno oooWo\oaobooooo$p)p.p/p`pepjpkpqpvp{p|pppppppqqEqJqOqPqqqqqrrrrZr_rdrerrrrrrrssGsLsQsRsXs]sbscsssssssss>tCtHtIttttttttt8u=uBuCuuuuuuvvvVv[v`vavgvlvqvrvvvvvw4w5wMwRwXw^w_www|wwwwwwwww!x'd3@]mLq x 0@@UnknownG:Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Cx Arial;& :Cx Helvetica?5 :Cx Courier New;Wingdings"1+'+'gf=f=!4dww 2QHP ?Zmt20Percepcija u inkovitosti u itelja stranih jezikastudentMoira   Oh+'0$ 4@ ` l x 4Percepcija učinkovitosti učitelja stranih jezikastudent Normal.dotMoira2Microsoft Office Word@G@(M@+@+f՜.+,D՜.+,d  hp  UNIPU=w' 3Percepcija učinkovitosti učitelja stranih jezika Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA%  mailto:mietabobanovic@gmail.comSlmailto:mbobanov@unipu.hr% mailto:mietabobanovic@gmail.comSlmailto:mbobanov@unipu.hr  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F+Data M 1Table pWordDocument:BSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q