Differential manifestation of teacher self-efficacy in Brazilian university professors in the health area

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.712.7

[Vol-7, Issue-12, Dec- 2020]
ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(0)

Differential manifestation of teacher self-efficacy
in Brazilian university professors in the health

area

Maria Regina Teixeira Ferreira Capelo!”, Christina César Praça Brasil’,
Noemí Serrano-Diaz?, Zélia Maria de Sousa de Araújo Santos*, Rita Maria
Baptista Lemos Silva”, Raimunda Magalhães Silva”, Mirna Albuquerque

Frota”

!Centro de Literaturas e Culturas Lusófonas e Europeias da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa (CLEPUL) Polo University of

Madeira. Portugal

2467 University of Fortaleza (UNIFOR), Ceará, Brazil.
*University of Cadiz, Spain.

“University of Madeira. Portugal

*Corresponding author

Received: 30 Sept 2020; Received in revised form: 22 Nov 2020; Accepted: 29 Nov 2020; Available online: 11 Dec 2020
©2020 The Author(s). Published by AI Publications. This is an open access article under the CC BY license

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Abstract— Self-efficacy has occupied the research space due to the relevance it holds as an explanatory
mechanism of human performance to understand the characteristics of the population, the study analyzed
the differentiation of beliefs of self-efficacy of university professors who teach in the health area according
to gender, marital status, age, seniority at work, religion and training graduate academic. A cross-
sectional and quantitative study was attended by 189 university professors working in a private university
in northeastern Brazil. The differentiation indicate that Women perceive themselves more self-effective in
the elaboration of didactic strategies to favor interaction in class; older teachers consider themselves more
effective in didactic strategies for the planning of classes and postdoctoral teachers stood out for the
higher sense of self-efficacy regarding didactic strategies for class planning, didactic strategies to actively
implicate students and didactic strategies to favor interaction in class. Self-efficacy as an explanatory
mechanism of human performance is determinant and therefore it is important to be enhanced in university
professors for the pursuit of a higher quality of teaching-learning of future health professionals.

Keywords—Self-efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs, university professors.

I. INTRODUCTION

this reason, they have gained a prominent place among the

The concept of self-efficacy arises in the
conceptual framework of Cognitive Social Theory [1,2]
associated with individuals' perception of their ability to
plan and perform the desired tasks [3-6]. This denotes that
self-efficacy beliefs allude to each person's judgments
about their ability to perform a particular activity.

The theory of self-efficacy [1] aims to
demonstrate how people's cognitive, behavioral, contextual
and affective aspects are conditioned by self-efficacy. For

www.ijaers.com

explanatory constructs of success and failure in human
action [7-8]. Self-efficacy falls within one of the founding
mechanisms of human agency [1-3]. The sense of "being
an agent" symbolizes intentionality in the influence that
the individual exerts on the functioning itself and on the
circumstances of life itself [3].

By interfering with the exercise of control, self-
efficacy beliefs influence people's performance,
persistence and motivation to perform certain tasks.

Page | 35

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.712.7

Individuals are likely to perform activities in which they
believe they have more capacity to succeed than tasks in
which the sense of competence is evaluated by the
individual as reduced. Thus, self-efficacy makes a
difference in the way people feel, think and act and this is
reflected in choices, conducts and performance [9].

The literature consulted highlights positive self-
efficacy as a factor associated with personal success,
professional satisfaction and successful individual
experiences and work motivation [4, 6, 10-13], having a
mediating role in the relationship between the overload of
and the dimensions of burnout in teachers [5]. Feelings of
self-efficacy are highlighted by the significant relationship
between burnout and academic teacher performance [14],
availability for involvement in collaborative practices [15]
and the remarkable impact on academic performance of
teachers [16, 17]. Teachers, confident in their beliefs, with
the potential to teach, research and manage, are the
fundamental elements to improve the effective learning
process [18] and to put into action their application
capabilities of various didactic strategies, in particular
those indicated as representative of university education,
such as the planning of the teaching-learning process, the
involvement of students in this process, the interaction and
creation of a positive learning climate in the assessment of
students’ learnings [19]. On the other hand, the theory of
self-efficacy [1] adds a collective dimension to the
individual agency through a sense of shared effectiveness
once people share knowledge, skills and resources, support
each other, form alliances and work together to solve their
problems and improve quality of life [20]. In fact, teachers,
by understanding themselves more capable of developing
their educational actions effectively [21] influence the
level of persistence in the face of difficulties and the
creation of higher expectations in relation to students [22].
Because it is a construct that does not only respect self-
regulation and individual motivation, but which can
become a collective phenomenon, with this study, it is
intended to analyze the differentiation between teachers'
beliefs of self-efficacy Brazilian university students due to
sex, marital status, age, seniority at work and graduate
academic training.

Il. METHODS
2.1. Participants

A representative sample was used, composed of 36%
of university professors from a universe of 530 [23],
consisting of 189 teachers, 56 men (29.50%) and 133
women (70.40%). The mean age is 44.75 (SD = 9.94) and
is between 27 and 77 years old. Of these, 31 aged 35 years

www.ijaers.com

[Vol-7, Issue-12, Dec- 2020]
ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(0)

or less (16.40%), 75 aged between 36 and 45 years
(39.70%), 55 in the 46 th and 55-year-old stagger
(29.10%) and 28 aged 55 years or older (14.80%). It is
noteworthy that 50% have less than ten years of teaching
experience, 26.40% have 11-20 years of teaching work and
22.60% have 21 years or more of teaching service. As for
the level of training, it is verified that 2.1% are specialists,
50.30% masters, 36% doctors and 11.60 post-doctors. We
aggregate the specialists and masters, which makes up
52.40% in this category. As inclusion criterion was to be a
university professor in undergraduate health courses at a
private University in northeastern Brazil.

2.2. Instruments

Participants completed a questionnaire of
sociodemographic and professional data built for this
purpose and the self-efficacy scale of the university
professor [24], in the Portuguese version. The Likert scale
contains 44 quantitative type items, whose answers range
from one to six and is divided into two domains: the first
evaluates the beliefs in the capacities of each teacher by
going the answers from "incapable" (1) to "very capable"
(6); the second measures the beliefs of self-efficacy, and
each of the answers varies between "never" (1) and
"always" (6). The scale measures the dimensions: didactic
strategies for planning classes, didactic strategies to
actively implicate students; didactic strategies to favor
interaction in class, and didactic strategies to evaluate
learning.

2.3 Procedure

The descriptive, cross-sectional and inferential study
was carried out after prior approval by the Ethics
Committee (2,988,258) of Plataforma Brasil and signing
the free and informed consent form of the participants. The
data collected were processed in the computer program
SPSS — Statistical Package for Social Science, version
22.0.

Exploratory data analysis was carried out so that we
can safely determine what kind of statistical tests to use. In
the present sample, the reliability indexes of the instrument
were a = 0,836 for didactic strategies for the planning of
classes, a@ = 0,789 for didactic strategies to actively
implicate students, a@ = 0,823 for didactic strategies to
favor interaction in class and œ = 0,824 for didactic
strategies to evaluate learning. The proportion of
variability in the responses resulting from differences in
respondents varies between reasonable and good, and
therefore their permissible reliability [25].

Indications regarding the normality of variances were
found in the four dimensions of the scale (Kolmogorov-

Page | 36

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS) [Vol-7, Issue-12, Dec- 2020]

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.712.7

Smirnov, p = 0,000; Shapiro-Wilk, p = 0,000). Exploratory
data analysis revealed that the assumptions underlying the
use of parametric tests [25] were met. Considering the
objective of the study, the analysis of the data focused on
the use of the difference’s tests. Student's Test T, inter-
subject design and Unifactorial variance analysis
(ANOVA) Unifactorial (One-Way Analysis of Variance,
F), inter-subject design [25] were used, given that the
results make it possible to make inferences. Ethical
procedures, correct reference, voluntary participation,
anonymity and confidentiality of data were fulfilled.

ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(0)

NI. RESULTS

The differential results according to gender indicate
statistically significant differences in the level of didactic
strategies t (187) = -2,197, p = 0,029. That is, women (N =
133; M = 89.33; SD = 5.85) self-perceive themselves more
capable of performing didactic strategies to favor
interaction in class in their academic context than men (N
= 56; M = 87,11; SD = 7,43) (Table 1).

Table. 1: Distribution of self-efficacy of university professors as a function of sex

Dimensions Sex N M SP t df p
a eat ae E favor Male 56 87,11 7,15 2197 187 0.029
PED areas Femeal 133 89,33 7,02

Source: this table was development based on the SPSS analysis.

The marital status did not indicate significant
differentiation (p < 0.050) in relation to representations of
teacher self-efficacy in any dimension of the scale
measured.

Regarding age, the study shows that teachers, in the
age group "56 years or older” (N = 28; M = 135.39; SD =
11.24), more self-effective perceptions of didactic

strategies for the planning of classes [F(3, 186 — 4 =
6.026), p = 0.001] than teachers aged 35 years or less (N =
31; M = 125.10; SD = 11.71) and aged between 36 and 45
years (N = 72; M = 127.39; SD = 11.50) (Table 2).

Table. 2: Distribution of self-efficacy of university professors according to age

Dimensions Age N M SP P df F ANOVA
<35 31 125,10 | 11,70
0,002
= 56 28 | 135,39 | 11,24
Didactic strategies for planning classes 3 | 6,026 0,001
36-45 | 72 127,39 | 11,50
0,005
= 56 28 | 135,39 | 11,24

Source: this table was development based on the SPSS analysis.

Regarding antiquity, it was observed that the group of
most experienced teachers, framed in the 11-20 years age
(N = 46; M = 131.50; SP = 8.47) and those with 21 or
more years of experience (N = 43; M = 131.70; SP = 8.79)
more self-effective perception swells in the field of
didactic strategies for planning classes [F(2, 178 — 3 =
5.516), p = 0.005] than less experienced teachers, this is 10
years or less of service (N = 90; M = 126,51; SP = 11,60)

WWW .ijaers.com

(Table 2). Differentiation was also evident in relation to
the didactic strategies dimension to actively implicate
students, to favour teachers with 11-20 years of experience
(N = 48; M = 10.85; SD = 11.74) when compared to the
less experienced (N = 91; M = 95,48; SP = 8,02), [F(2,181
— 3 = 5,724), p = 0,004] (Table 3).

Page | 37

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS)

[Vol-7, Issue-12, Dec- 2020]

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.712.7 ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(0)
Table. 3: Distribution of self-efficacy of university professors depending on antiquity
Antiquity ANOVA
Dimensions N M SP P df F
(Years) Sig
<10 90 126,51 11,60
11-20 46 | 131,50 8,47 BRA
Didactic strategies for , > 2 5.516 0,005
planning classes <10 90 | 126,51 11,60
0,019
>21 43 131,70 8,79
Didactic strategies t < 10 91 95,48 8,02
ee 0,003 2 | 5,724 0,004
actively implicate students 11-20 48 100,85 11,74

Source: this table was development based on the SPSS analysis.

Regarding academic formation, the results suggest
significant intergroup differences [F(2,185) — 3 = 5.497, p
= 0.005], with postdoctoral studies being the highest levels
(Table 4). Tuckey's Post Hoc test revealed that
postdoctoral teachers (N = 21; M = 136.67; SP = 6.57)
perceive higher self-efficacy beliefs in the field of didactic
strategies for planning classes than doctoral teachers (N =
67; M = 127.91; SP = 10.30) and then non-doctorates (N =
98; M = 128.79; SP = 11.87). Regarding didactic strategies
to actively implicate students [F(2,188) — 3 = 4.625, p =
0.011], postdoctoral teachers (N = 22; M = 102.77; SP =

16.17) report higher self-efficacy beliefs than doctorates
(N = 68; M = 96.94; SP = 7.30) and then non-doctorates
(N = 99; M = 96.54; SP = 7.48. The study also revealed
significant differences in the level of didactic strategies to
favor interaction in class [F(2,186) — 3 = 4.638, p = 0.011].
That is, postdoctoral teachers (N = 22; M = 91.18; SP =
6.42) showed higher self-efficacy beliefs than doctorates
(N = 68; M = 86.99; SP = 7.17). However, it did not
expose differentiation related to beliefs
strategies to assess learning (p = 0.073) depending on the
level of training of participants.

in didactic

Table. 4: Distribution of self- efficacy of university due to academic training

ANOVA
Dimensions Academic level N M SP p df F E
ig.
No Doctor 98 128,79 11,87
Post-D 21 136,67 6,57 =
Didactic strategi ost-Doc , ,
idac ic strategies 2 5,497 0.005
for planning classes | Doctor 67 127,91 10,30
0,004
Post-Doc 21 136,67 6,57
No Doctor 99 99,54 7,48 BOAO
Didactic strategies | Bost-Doc 22 102,77 16,17 ?
to actively implicate 2 4,625 0,011
Doctor 68 96,94 7,29
students 0.021
Post-Doc 22 102,77 16,17
Didactic strategies | Doctor 68 86,99 7,17
to favor interaction 0,020 2 4,638 0,011
elise Post-Doc 22 91,18 6,57
Source: this table was development based on the SPSS analysis.
www.ijaers.com Page | 38

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.712.7

[Vol-7, Issue-12, Dec- 2020]
ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(0)

IV. DISCUSSION

The results found from the application of the instrument
created by Prieto (2007) were analyzed as a function of the
objective of the research assumed, namely, the differential
manifestations of the self-efficacy of Brazilian teachers,
due to gender, of marital status, age and academic
formation and fall within the specific, differentiated and
particularizing character [1]. The results indicated
differentiation in teacher self-efficacy associated with
gender at the level of didactic strategies to favor
interaction in class, benefiting female teachers. This
disagrees with Martín [26] who found no differences in
this area between Spanish and Italian university
professors. Also, the study by Covarrubias and Mendonza
[10] did not demonstrate gender as a variable that
differentiates feelings of teacher self-efficacy between
males and females. This evidence allows us to consider the
importance of future investigations that compete to patent
the intrinsic or extrinsic factors that contribute to teachers
holding the beliefs of higher self-efficacy than men when
deals with the didactic strategies dimension to favor
interaction in class.

It was possible to perceive greater teacher self-efficacy
at the level of didactic strategies for planning classes
according to the age of the participants, always in favor of
the higher age level. These differences may be closely
associated with the interpretation of previous personal
experience [1]. That is, successful experiences tend to
develop or sustain beliefs about the individual's ability to
engage in certain tasks, generating subsequent influence on
motivation and persistence to engage in tasks of the same
domain.

Antiquity also emerged in this study as a differentiating
variable in the perception of self-efficacy at the level of
didactic strategies for planning teaching classes and
didactic strategies to actively implicate students. it is
possible to realize that less experienced university
professors feel less effective. Martin's study [26] showed
no significant differences between these professionals due
to antiquity. The findings allow us to deduce that self-
efficacy beliefs are determined by several personal,
intrinsic, extrinsic and/or contextual factors, whereas by
the collective effect of the phenomenon [20] require to be
revealed with a view to promoting teacher self-efficacy
among university professors.

Although the literature refers to the importance of self-
efficacy beliefs in successful personal experiences, job
satisfaction and motivation [4, 6, 11-13], persistence and
positive expectations [22] and involvement and

www.ijaers.com

collaboration [15], studies on the academic training of
participants, which allow corroborating or contrasting the
results obtained and better accessing knowledge about this
professional group are scarce or non-existent, deserving
this area their deepening through new studies.

Focusing attention on the training of university
professors, the study of Vizcayo, Lopes e Klimenko [19]
pointed out that most teachers feel able to use various
didactic strategies, although the relationship between self-
efficacy beliefs and their performance varies from one
dimension to another.

In this study, it was found that teachers with
postdoctoral training significantly more positively evaluate
didactic strategies to actively involve students and didactic
strategies to favor interaction in class, what in our opinion
presupposes the relevance and originality of the study
under consideration in the knowledge of this professional
group. High levels of teacher self-efficacy are positively
associated with performance [17] and with the findings, it
is admitted that the most qualified teachers tend to
evidence and seek to maintain a high awareness of self-
efficacy at work.

V. CONCLUSION

The study reveals several differential manifestations of
self-efficacy according to gender, age and academic
education among university professors. That is, women
perceive themselves more competent in the field of
didactic strategies to promote interaction in class, older
teachers consider themselves more effective in developing
didactic strategies for planning classes and postdoctoral
studies stood out by the higher sense of self-efficacy in
relation to didactic strategies for planning classes, didactic
strategies to actively implicate students and didactic
strategies to favor interaction in class. This fact, revealing
the importance of continuing teacher training.

Considering the results expressed in this study, it is
deduced that it would be advantageous to facilitate the
continuous training anchored in the development of the
sources of information of self-efficacy. That is, direct
experiences, learning, persuasion and
physiological and emotional states, as well as the sharing
of practical experiences that allow to expand self-efficacy
in domains such as didactic strategies for planning of

vicarious

classes, didactic strategies to actively implicate students,
didactic strategies to favor interaction in class and didactic
strategies to evaluate learning, essential dimensions for
improving the quality of university education.

Page | 39

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.712.7

[Vol-7, Issue-12, Dec- 2020]
ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(0)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To Maria Helena de Agrela Gonçalves Jardim,
illustrious teacher and collaborator that is no longer among
us.

REFERENCES

[1] Bandura A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control.
New York: Freeman.

[2] Bandura A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164-180.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x

[3] Bandura A. (2008). A evolução da teoria social cognitiva. In
Bandura A, Azzi G, Polydoro S (Org.). Teoria Social
Cognitiva: conceitos básicos. (pp. 15-41). Porto Alegre:
Artemed.

[4] Cardoso, H. F., Baptista, M. N., & Rueda, F. J. M. (2017).
Autoeficácia em el trabajo: revisión bibliométrica entre
2004 y 2014 em la base de datos EBSCO — Academic
Search. Psicología desde el Caribe. Universidade del Norte,
34(3), 204-218. ISSN 0123-417X.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14482/psdc.33.2.72788.

[5] Carlotto, M. S., Dias, S. R. S., Batista, J. B. V., & Diehl, L.
(2015). O papel mediador da autoeficácia na relação entre a
sobrecarga de trabalho e as dimensões do burnout em
professores. Psico-USF, 20(1) 13-23.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712015200102.

[6] Capelo, R., & Pocinho, M. (2014). Autoeficácia docente:
predição da satisfação dos professores. Educar em Revista,
54, 175-184. ISSN 0104-4060.
https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-4060.37870.

[7] Bzuneck, J. A. (2000). As crenças de auto-eficacia dos
professores. In Sisto, F. F., Oliveira, G. C., Fini, L. T.
(Org.). Leituras de Psicologia para a formação de
professores (pp. 115-134). Petrópolis: Vozes.

[8] Silva, J. T., & Paixão, M. P. (2007). Estudos sobre o papel
da auto-eficácia em contextos educativos. Psychologica, 44,
7-10.

[9] Bernardini, P. B., & Murgo, C. S. (2017). Fontes de
formação das crenças de autoeficácia de docentes do ensino
superior. Colloquium Humanarum, 14(Especial) 361-368.
ISSN: 1809-8207.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5747/ch.2017.v14.nesp.000966.

[10] Covarrubias, C. G., & Mendonza, M. L. (2015). Sentimiento
de autoeficácia em uma muestra de professores chilenos
desde las perspectivas de género y experiencia. Estudios
Pedagógicos, XLI(1), 63-78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/s0718-07052015000100004.

[11] Pedro, N. (2011). Auto-eficácia e satisfação profissional dos
professores: colocando os constructos em relação num
grupo de professores do ensino básico e secundário. Revista
de Educação, XVIII(1), 23-47.

[12] Salanova, M., Lorrente, L, Chambel, M. J., & Matinezi, I.
M. (2011). Linking transformational leadership to nurses”
extra-role performance: the mediating role of self-efficacy

WWW .ijaers.com

and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
67(10), 2256-2266. https://doi.org/10.1111/.1365-

[13] Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. A. (2007). The
differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and
experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23,
944-956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003.

[14] Garcia, A.A.P., Escocia, C. V. B., & Perez, S. B. S. (2017).
Burnout syndrome and self-efficacy beliefs in professors.
Propósitos y Representaciones, 5(2), 65-126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2051 1/pyr2017.v5n2.170.

[15] Silva, J. C., & Silva, M. M. (2015). Colaboração entre
professores e autoeficácia docente: Que relações? Revista
Portuguesa de Educação, 28(2), 87-109.
https://doi.org/10.21814/rpe.7733.

[16] Haddad, S., & Taleb, R. A. (2016). The impact of self-
efficacy on performance (An empirical study on business
faculty members in Jordanian universities). Computers in
Human Behavior, 55, 877-887.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.032.

[17] Hernandez, L. F. J., & (Ceniceros, D. I. C. (2018).
Autoeficácia docente e desempeño docente, uma relación
entre variables? Innovación Educativa, 18(78), 171-192.
ISSN-e 1665-2673.

[18] Kiran, S., Shahzadi, E., Saher, A., & NAB, K. (2019).
Teaching, Research, and Management Self-Efficacy of
Agricultural Universities’ Teachers. Psychology Research,
9(5), 228-234. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-

[19] Vizcaino, A. E., Lopez, K. M., & Klimenko, O. (2018).
Creencias de autoeficácia y desempefio docente de
professores universitários. Revista Katarsis, 25, 75-93.

Retrieved from
http://revistas.iue.edu.co/index.php/katharsis.

[20] Férnandez-Ballesteros, R., Diés-Nicolás, J., Caprara, G. V.,
Barabaranelli, C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Determinantes y
relaciones estructurales desde la eficacia personal a la
eficacia coletiva. In Salanova, Grau, Martínez, Cifre,
Llorens, García-Renedo (Eds.). Nuevos Horizontes em la
Investigación sobre la autoeficácia. (pp. 68-80). Col-lecció
“Psique”, Universidad Jaume I.

[21] Gonzales, M. M. C. (2013). Influencia de la autoeficácia
docente coletiva em el professorado universitário.
Psicologia Educativa, 19(1), 3-12.
https://doi.org/10.5093/ed2013a2.

[22] Bzuneck, J. A. (2017). Crenças de autoeficácia de
professores: um fator motivacional crítico na educação
inclusiva. Revista Educação Especial, 30(59), 697-708.
https://doi.org/10.5902/1984686X28427.

[23] Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T. R., &
Feinstein, A. R. A (1996). simulation study of the number of
events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin
Epidemiol, 49(12), 1373-1379.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00236-3.

Page | 40

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS) [Vol-7, Issue-12, Dec- 2020]
https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.712.7 ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(0)

[24] Prieto, L. N. (2007). Autoeficacia del professor
universitário: eficácia percebida y práctica docente.
Madrid: Narcea Ediciones. ISBN: 84-277-1548-X.

[25] Pestana, M. H., & Gageiro, J. N. (2005). Análise de dados

para ciências Sociais. Lisboa: Edições Sílabo.
Martín, C. M. (2015). Las creencias de autoeficacia del
profesorado universitario. Um estúdio comparado Esparia-
Italia. Dissertação de Mestrado. Valladolid: Universidade de
Valladolid. Retrieved from
http://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/15039

www.ijaers.com Page | 41