Sample Abstract Assignment Completed Example

Sample Abstract Assignment Completed Example

Abstract 1:

Bibliographic Citation

Savas, A. C., Bozgeyik, Y., & Eser, İ. (2014). A Study on the Relationship between Teacher Self Efficacy and Burnout. European Journal of Educational Research EUROPEAN J ED RES, 3(4), 159-166.

Authors

Ahmet Cezmi Savaş PhD, Yunus Bozgeyik PhD, and İsmail Eser PhD

Research Concern

As pointed out by the researchers, teacher competency is important, but the impact of teacher well-being and self-efficacy cannot be ignored when determining teacher effectiveness. More importantly a growing number of teachers are experiencing burnout within the teaching profession. While other research has been conducted on job burnout in other employment sectors, the same paradigms do not seem to hold true for teaching. Moreover, it is hypothesized through data gathered in the literature that not all teachers experience burnout syndrome. Therefore, the researchers in this article are primarily focused on characteristics that protect teachers from burnout and the relationship between self-efficacy and burnout syndrome.

Purpose

The main purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout in order to see if a positive, negative, or no correlation existed.

Therefore, the researchers attempted to answer the question of is teacher burnout caused by low levels of self-efficacy in teaching?

Precedent Literature

Vast amounts of research in teacher self-efficacy and job burnout have already been conducted. Tuğrul and Çelik (2002) assert that the problems teacher come across in school settings can lead them to experience job burnout syndrome. Furthermore, the researchers then identify a commonly used job burnout of model based on the works of Maslach & Jackson (1981) which holds job burnout consists of three dimensions; the most important of these dimensions, exhaustion develops as a result of experiencing excessive work-load and it is related stress. This literature citation helps to frame the focus for the remainder of the introduction which focuses on how job burnout is derived from stress related factors: fatigue, tension, addiction, and depression. Next, the researchers refine the focus of their study to include precedent literature on the topic of self-efficacy, and they point out how self-efficacy is tied to job burnout. Following the researcher’s assertions, they define efficacy as the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes to carry out a role (Balcı, 2005, p. 197). Finally, the authors funnel down into their topic and research question by citing the work of Bandura (1997) who puts forward that teacher self-efficacy can have a positive effect on teacher motivation and performance. From this literature review, the researchers make their claim for the purpose and usefulness of their study.

Research Methodology

The model used for data collection in this study was correlational research survey design model. As stated in the journal, the correlational research design is utilized to see whether there is a relationship between two variables after they are measured quantitatively (Savas, Bozgeyik, & Eser, 2014). The population included in the research includes teachers working in various primary and secondary state schools in the center of Gaziantep, Turkey. The sample consisted of 163 randomly chosen teachers from the population during the 2014-2015 academic year. The table below shows the distribution of the sample.

Two questionnaires were developed in order to gather data. One of the questionnaires was designed based on the model from Maslach and Jackson (1981) to determine teacher burnout. The other questionnaire was based on the work of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk (2001) to address teachers’ perception of self-efficacy.

Instrumentation

As previously mentioned, two questionnaires were used as the data gathering instrument. The first sought to understand teacher burnout. This questionnaire used three subscales: exhaustion, depersonalization and personal accomplishment to frame the findings. The other questionnaire sought to understand teachers’ perception of self-efficacy in the subscales of efficacy in student engagement, efficacy in instructional strategies and efficacy in classroom management subscales.

Findings

As mentioned in the journal, the data of the study was analyzed by SPSS programme. The data were analyzed through calculation of means, frequencies, correlation and hierarchical multiple regression analysis (Savas, Bozgeyik, & Eser, 2014). The results revealed that classroom management was the area teachers felt they had the greatest amount of self-efficacy in. Moreover, burnout levels were low compared to perceived efficacy levels. However, the teachers did report perceiving themselves high in the area of exhaustion meaning that teachers believed they are worn-out rather than burnout, but this only remained true for teachers with high self-efficacy. Teachers with low self-efficacy more often reported feeling as if they were burned out.

Conclusions

The authors of this study revealed that teachers with low self-efficacy levels experienced burnout more than their colleagues with high teacher self-efficacy levels. Through these findings the researchers conclude that improving teacher self-efficacy levels is critical for making schools more effective. Furthermore, the authors connect their findings with that of Karahan and Balat (2011) who found a negative relationship between teacher self-efficacy and burnout for teachers in private schools. This further proved the validity of their study. Therefore, the pointed conclusion is that in order to improve schools, teachers must have high self-efficacy.

Suggestions for Further Research

Based on the conclusion from this study that high levels of teacher self-efficacy lead to greater classroom performance, more research will need to be conducted to determine ways to improve teacher self-efficacy. Furthermore, the authors suggest that this data should also come from a qualitative perspective in order to yield the greatest possible conclusions.

Abstract 2

Bibliographic Citation

Dodson, R. (2014). Which Field Experiences Best Prepare Future School Leaders? An Analysis of Kentucky’s Principal Preparation Program. Educational Research Quarterly, 37(4), 41-56. Retrieved June 14, 2016, from Eric.

Authors

Richard L. Dodson Ed.D. in educational administration, Professor at Murray State University

Research Concern

The journal opens by identifying the problem that Kentucky principals are not “ready” when they graduate from in state principal preparation programs. Therefore, the education professional standards board in Kentucky implemented a requirement to enforce that all individuals in a principal preparation program complete field hours as part of their program. Dodson is primarily concerned with understanding if there really is a benefit to these field hours and what makes some experiences higher quality than others.

Research Purpose Statement

As stated by Dodson (2014), The purpose of this research is to explore the overall utility of field experiences in training future school leaders and what exactly constitutes ‘high-quality” field experiences in the eyes of currently practicing principals.

Moreover, the following five research questions were developed:

1. Are programs that include field experiences more effective in preparing principals than those than do not include field experiences?

2. Does allowing students and their administrators to choose field experiences result in more effective training than having the university script which field experiences students perform?

3. Which field experiences do current principals consider the most effective?

4. What type(s) of field experiences should be added to principal preparation programs?

5. Does requiring field experiences put Kentucky ahead of the curve in principal preparation?

Precedent Literature

As previously mentioned, there is vast scholarship that states current school principals were not “ready” when they completed their principal preparation program. This problem then leads to too much on the job learning (Dodson, 2014). The author then cites research from Turnbull and Haslam (2010) that proposes districts could improve principal quality by acting as “consumers,” encouraging local universities to craft programs to meet specific needs. In response to this research, Dodson (2014) mentions that some districts have designed local level preparation programs that coincide with the experiences taking place at the universities. This is followed up with further research data from Zubrzycki (2012) that asserts, nationwide, ‘homegrown” leadership academies and career tracks supplement university-based programs, adding hands-on experience, mentoring, and training in district-specific information and initiatives. The authors argument is followed up with additional literature that suggest only true “hands-on” field experiences will lead to improvement of principal preparation programs (Fry, Bottoms, and O’Neill, 2005). The literature review section is concluded with the point that one learns school leadership by examining the key concepts and skills used by effective school leaders, watching good models, and “trial and error” on the job (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001). Overall, the literature review from the journal was either short in nature or short to show there is a gap in literature about the evaluation of field experience in principal preparation programs.

Methodology

The author of this journal begin his data gathering by compiling a survey that was sent to 170 school superintendents that asked them to forward the survey to local school principals. A total of 900 possible principals were given the opportunity as one district of 230 declined participations. All in all, 263 principals responded to the survey giving the study just under a 30 percent participation rate. Of the participants, 99.2 percent were public school principals. Over 49 percent were listed as principals of elementary schools, 29.3 percent were listed as middle or junior high, and 32.8 percent listed as high school. Finally, 51.4 percent that completed the survey were female and 48.6 were male.

Instrumentation

The instrument used for data collection in this study was an online survey administered through email. According to Dodson (2014), The survey used a Likert-scale attitude measure, as well as forced choice (yes/no) and open-ended questions. Questions examined principal perceptions of field experiences’ impact on their preparation to be school leaders.

Findings

Over 60 percent of participants reported completing field experiences during their principal preparation program. 91.4 percent perceived field experiences as valuable to preparation while 8.6 percent found them ineffective. Of the principals that did not complete field experiences, all of them agreed they would have been better prepared if they had participated in field experiences. In attempting to find out what types of field experiences would achieve the greatest benefit, Dodson (2014) states, Desired experiences vary and include: shadow a principal; work on instruction and discipline; participate in committee meetings; conduct instructional coaching; analyze student data; conduct teacher observations and evaluations; develop a budget; Site-Based Decision Making; train to interact with upset parents; engage in Comprehensive School Improvement Planning; handle personnel issues; and review school law. Clearly, the complex demands of leading a school cannot adequately be taught without real-world practice. Finally, this study sought to determine if having a choice in your field experience placement increased your satisfaction. The data yield that 71.5 percent of principals that chose their field experiences were satisfied while only 37.1 percent who did not choose their placement were satisfied.

Conclusions

Dodson (2014) points out, this research indicates that programs that include field experiences are more effective in preparing principals than are those that lack field experiences. In addition, the best way to implement field experiences seem to be allowing students and their administrators jointly to choose those experiences. Therefore, this study offers support for the need of field experiences in principal preparation programs not only in Kentucky but also in other states as well. Finally, this study also concludes that there needs to be a variety of field experiences for principal preparation program students to engage in.

Suggestions for Further Research

Overall, Dodson does not outline many suggestions for further research, but he does offer that more research should be conducted on this same topic with principals of more urban/high population schools. Also, he adds the importance of a study to indicate if adding a thorough internship to principal preparation programs would also improve principal readiness.