For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/remarking.php#8

There are different factors affect learning like interest, motivation, attitudes, problem-solving skills, self confidence, and self sufficiency. Since there is a positive relationship between successes, self-confidence and motivation, having a higher levels of mentioned capabilities increases success and having a lower levels of those diminishes success. This is because when individuals have self confidence, they feel better within the process of learning and higher level of learning is accomplished.

The  basic opinion is that individuals having higher levels of self-confidence are more successful in solving problems that they confront (Owens, 2001). This situation emphasizes the necessity for defining self-confidence which is assumed to have a great effect on learning. Self confidence is answering the question; “How the others are seeing me?” Our perception is always connecting with the others (Baltaş, 2002). Nowadays, research studies show that self-confidence and success are related (Daniel, 2006). Particularly, Fitch (1970) pointed out the relationship between self-confidence and success. In addition, self-confidence is one of the most important factors for motivation and future success. In another research, Hair (2003) found that positive self confidence affects academic success positively.

(Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2006) consider confidence not as a generic concept but a reflection of the person’s perception of their capacity to achieve a particular goal in a 4 specific situation. Therefore the particular teaching context is likely to be central to an individual’s level of self-confidence. Some studies do provide insight into the relevance of self-confidence for teaching and teacher development. In one study, two teachers, who were given the lowest rating by students in a law school, were interviewed and observed before and after a programme for improving instruction (Hativa, 2000). Low self-confidence in teaching ability was outlined as a key trait of one of the teachers in the study. As the teachers altered their teaching behaviour, such as speaking more slowly and improving the clarity of the organization of the lesson, self-confidence appeared to improve. However, the findings can only be considered as being preliminary due to the use of only two participants from the same subject area and teaching context. In a study of academics’ conceptions of their own development as a teacher, Äkerlind (2003) identified one way that development was experienced was as an increase in comfort, confidence and ease of teaching. This way of experiencing development was considered to be entirely self-focused, however it did relate to both teacher and student focused understandings of teaching. This provides a slightly different perspective on the role of confidence in teaching, but it does indicate that confidence is an important dimension for development regardless of an individual’s conception and approach to teaching. Akbari and Sahubzada (2020) found the effects of self confidence on learning of students in areas of students’ participation in seeking goal and development of interest in lessons. Self-confidence fuels optimism and encourages a person to believe in his or her own skills, no matter how difficult the endeavour may be. Bhat (2022) explained that self-confidence motivates people to take chances, try new things, and learn new abilities in order to deal with a difficult circumstances. The majority of the present educational problem is due to poor self-confidence, which has resulted in a lack of adequate involvement and inadequate growth despite spending a significant amount of time in class. Therefore the aim of the current study is to consider the role of self confidence upon the approach to teaching and development as a teacher for a group of new academics.

Confidence scale was administered on B.Ed students before and after teaching practice. The school teachers went for teaching practice for selected days in selected schools. This is the experiment phase of the study. When student teachers came back to their colleges after teaching practice. Then, self confidence scale was administered as post test by the investigator. Statistical analysis was done to draw the results and interpretations.

Result Analysis

Analysis of data on Pre test scores in self confidence level of rural and urban would be school teachers

Scores on self-confidence were collected by using  Agnihotri's  Self Confidence Inventory. The collected data is tabulated into mean and standard deviation.

Table 1.1 showing Pre test scores on self confidence level of rural and urban student

Area	N	Mean	S.D
Rural	60	29.80	11.38
Urban	60	25.08	10.42

Table 1.1 indicates mean scores and standard deviations on self-confidence level of rural and urban would be secondary school teachers.  The mean score of pre test of self confidence level of rural would be secondary school  teachers is 29.90 with standard deviation 11.38 and mean score of pre test of self confidence level of urban student teachers is 25.07 with standard deviation 10.42. Self confidence level is more in rural would be secondary school teachers. 

Analysis of data on Post test scores in self confidence level of rural and urban would be secondary school  teachers

Table 1.2 showing Post test scores in self confidence level of rural and urban would be secondary school  teachers

Area	N	Mean	S.D
Rural	60	32.76	13.7
Urban	60	35.35	13.4

Table 1.2 indicates mean scores and standard deviations on self confidence level of rural  and urban student teachers The mean score of post test of self confidence level of rural student teachers is 32.76 with standard deviation 13.7 and mean score of pre test of self confidence of urban student teachers is 35.35 with standard deviation 13.4.Post test scores showed that self confidence level is more in urban would be secondary school  teachers.

Analysis of data on Pre test scores in Self-confidence level of arts and science would be secondary school  teachers

Table 1.3 showing Pre test scores in self confidence level of arts and science would be secondary school  teachers

Area	N	Mean	S.D
Arts	60	28.83	11.54
Science	60	26.13	10.64

 

Table 1.3 indicates mean scores and standard deviations on self confidence level of arts and science would be secondary school teachers. The mean score of pre test of self confidence level of arts would be secondary school  teachers is 28.83 with standard deviation 11.54 and mean score of pre test of self confidence level of science student teachers is 26.13 with standard deviation 10.64. Self- Confidence level of arts would be secondary school teachers is more.

Analysis of data on Post test scores in Self-confidence level of Arts and Science would be secondary school  teachers

Table 1.4 showing Post test scores in self confidence level of Arts and Science would be secondary school  teachers 

Area	N	Mean	S.D
Arts	60	31.15	12.79
Science	60	36.90	13.80

Table 1.4 indicates mean scores and standard deviations on self confidence level of arts and science would be secondary school  teachers. The mean scores of post test of self confidence level of arts would be secondary school  teachers is 31.15 with standard deviation 12.79 and mean scores of post test of self confidence level of science student teachers is 36.90 with standard deviation 13.80. Self -confidence level is more in science would be secondary school  teachers.

Analysis of data on scores in Self-Confidence level of rural and urban would be secondary school  teachers

Table showing mean, S.D & t-value on scores of self confidence level

N	Scores of Self confidence	Mean	S.D	SEm	t-test
120	Post scores	34.03	13.56	1.238	4.135
120	Pre scores	27.48	11.13	1.017

Above table depicts that mean of post scores is 34.03 with standard deviation 13.56 and mean of pre scores is 27.48 with standard deviation 11.13. t-value įs 4.135 which is significant at 0.01 level. There is difference in pre scores and post scores of self confidence of would be secondary school teachers.

1. Akbari, O & Sahibzada, J. (2020). Students’ Self-Confidence and Its Impacts on Their Learning Process. American International Journal of Social Science Research. 5. 1-15. 10.46281/aijssr.v5i1.462. 2. Åkerlind, G. (2003). Growing and developing as a University Teacher – Variation in Meaning. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 375-390. 3. Baltaş, A. (2002). Özgüven - özsaygı. Aktiveline, 27, 24-26. 4. Baltaş, A. (2007). Özgüven mi? Özsaygı mı? http://www.baltas-baltas.com/makaleler.asp?makaleid=155- internet adresinden 28 Nisan 2007 tarihinde edinilmiştir. 5. Bhat, R. (2022). Self- Confidence and its impact on students academic achievement: An overview. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research. 9(2). 6. Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Building theories from case study research. In M. A. Huberman, & M. B. Miles, The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 5-36). 7. Daniel, J. J. (2006). Effects of band and seating placement on the motivation and musical self-esteem of high school wınd musicians. USA: Bowling Green State University Graduate College Pub. Co 8. Fitch, G. (1970). Effects of self-esteem, perceived performance, and choice on causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16 (2), 311-315 9. Hair, E. C. (2003). Self-esteem, personality and achievement in high school: A prospective longitudinal study in Texas. Retrieved December 2, 2003, from http//search.epnet. com/direct 10. Hativa, N. (2000). Becoming a better teacher: A case of changing the pedagogical knowledge and beliefs of law professors. Instructional Science, 28, 491-523. 11. Ho, A. S. P., Watkins, D. and Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning. Higher Education, 42, 143-169. 12. Kember, D. & Kwan, K-P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469-490. 13. Light, A. and Calkins, S. (2008). The experience of faculty development: patterns of variation in conceptions of teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 13, 27-40. 14. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A. & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by disciplinary and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 285-298. 15. Martin, E. & Lueckenhausen, G. (2005). How university teaching changes teachers: Affective as well as cognitive challenges. Higher Education, 49, 389-412. 16. Martin, E. & Ramsden, P. (1992). An expanding awareness: how lecturers change their understanding of teaching. Research and Development in Higher Education, 15, 148-155. 17. McKenzie, J. (2002) Variation and relevance structures for university teachers’ learning: Bringing about change in ways of experiencing teaching. In Quality Conversations, Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 7-10 July 2002: pp 434. 18. Postareff, L., & Lindblom Yl nne, S. (2011). Emotions and confidence within teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 799-813. 19. Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education. 23, 557-571. 20. Smith, J. (2010). Forging identities: the experiences of probationary lecturers in the UK. Studies in Higher Education, 35:5, 577-591. 21.Owens, T. J. (2001). Extending self-esteem theory and research. Cambridge: University Press.