Exploring economics teachers’ efficacy beliefs in the teaching of economics

Abstract This study explored Economics teachers’ efficacy beliefs in the teaching of Economics. The quantitative research approach was adopted for the study with focus on the descriptive cross-sectional survey design. In total, 125 Senior High School Economics teachers were selected for the study. The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale was adapted as the data collection instrument for the study. Both descriptive statistics (e.g. means and standard deviations) and inferential statistics (MANOVA) were used to analyse the data. The study revealed that Economics teachers were more efficacious in instructional strategies (M = 4.14, SD = .94) compared to classroom management (M = 4.04, SD = .97) and student engagement (M = 4.03, SD = .98). Also, it was found out that there was a statistically significant difference in Economics teachers’ efficacy in the teaching of Economics based on their teaching experience. However, the study revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the Economics teachers’ efficacy based on school proprietorship and school location. Therefore, it was recommended that Ghana Education Service, Ministry of Education and Non-Governmental Organisations should continue to organise professional development programmes for teachers to ensure a continuous, progressive and consistent high efficacy level of Economics teachers. Also, private and public SHS headmasters should organise in-service training and professional development programmes for SHS teachers to further enrich their efficacy level. In the organisation of professional development programmes and seminars for teachers, equal attention should be given to rural and urban teachers.


PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
The teaching of Economics is an important part of preparing students for success in the modern economy. As such, it is essential to understand the efficacy beliefs of economics teachers in order to ensure that students are receiving the best possible education. This paper explores Senior High School Economics teachers' efficacy beliefs in the teaching of Economics. The findings revealed that Economics teachers were more efficacious in instructional strategies compared to classroom management and student engagement. Also, a difference in the effect of teaching experience on teachers' student engagement efficacy for private and public schools was found, but there was no difference in the Economics teachers' efficacy based on school proprietorship and school location. Therefore, in the organisation of professional development programmes and seminars for teachers, equal attention should be given to rural and urban teachers. Bandura (1977) defines self-efficacy as "beliefs in one's capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments" (p. 3). To Sebastian (2013), self-efficacy is a type of cognitive evaluation which every individual conducts over his/her capability. Self-efficacy is distinct from other conceptions of self (e.g., self-concept, self-esteem) in that it involves judgments of capabilities specific to a particular task. Buttressing this, Maddux and Kleiman (2019) asserted that self-efficacy is neither an ability, a trait nor self-esteem. They further explained that it is the belief in one's ability that a task can be well executed. Self-efficacy is "a context-specific assessment of competence to perform a specific task" (Pajares, 1997, p. 15).

Introduction
Self-efficacy beliefs are powerfully related to attitudes and actions of individuals. For teachers, this construct is called teachers' sense of efficacy, which is "the teacher's belief in his or her capability to organise and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context" (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998, p. 233). Also, teacher selfefficacy belief in teaching is teachers' judgments of their capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Moreover, teachers' self-efficacy refers to teachers' capability to meet students' or learners' needs (Hunter, 2016).
Teacher self-efficacy theory is one of the social cognitive theories developed by Bandura (1977). Bandura stated that self-efficacy serves as the foundational inspirational force behind one's action and the level to which an action is undertaken depends on one's level of self-efficacy. He further argued that individuals develop specific beliefs concerning their coping ability to execute a task, which is called self-efficacy. Also, self-efficacy theory predicts that teachers with a high sense of efficacy work harder and persist longer even when students are difficult to teach. The self-efficacy theory propounded by Bandura underpinned this study.
Weston and Cranton (as cited in Onweh & Akpan, 2014) defined instructional strategies as the methods and materials used in teaching. In other words, instructional strategy is how the teacher uses methodology and procedures to transmit subject matter to students (Young-Lovell, 2009). This definition suggests that the self-efficacy of teachers in instructional strategies is teachers' belief in their ability to use creative methods that facilitate learning among students or learners. Also, teachers' efficacy in student engagement refers to their confidence in their capability to encourage students to learn (Moalosi & Forcheh, 2012). Blazevski (2006) explained that student engagement efficacy shows the expectations of teachers that they can empower students efficiently, involve parents and help students appreciate learning. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) asserted that encouraging students to enjoy learning or believe that they can do well in a given class is part of teachers' efficacy in student engagement. Moreover, according to Sternberg and Williams (2010), classroom management focuses on skills and techniques that allow a teacher to control students efficiently to create a quality learning milieu. Additionally, classroom management efficacy reflects a teacher's capacity to keep order in the classroom to ensure an effective instructional process (Wong & Wong as cited in Dustova & Cotton, 2015).
Self-efficacy is an important factor in determining how successful a teacher is in the classroom (Ismayilova & Klassen, 2019). However, "teaching is complex and multi-faceted" (Su et al., 2012, p. 153) involving a multitude of factors such as knowledge and skills, expertise, rapport with students, being supportive and approachable, being passionate and inspiring, management of classroom etc (Su et al., 2012). The multi-faceted nature of teaching could influence the teaching-learning process hence, demanding the teacher to be efficacious in engaging students, managing the classroom and deploying instructional strategies (Pring et al., 2009;Su et al., 2012). Similarly, the complexity of Economics necessitates that teachers are highly efficacious to use a variety of teaching methods to help students comprehend the various topics (e.g., choice, scarcity, scale of preference, demand schedule and curve) of the subject (Yidana et al., 2022). Consequently, instructional strategies employed by Economics instructors in the classroom should be able to assist students in grasping the essential concepts, principles, generalisations, and theories as well as mathematical equations in Economics. Research has shown that teacher self-efficacy beliefs can differ depending on the subject, student characteristics, and school environment (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). However, it seems there is a dearth of research on teachers' self-efficacy and the interaction effect of teachers' teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location on their efficacy beliefs in the Ghanaian context, particularly in Economics education. This study seeks to augment the literature in this field by exploring Economics teachers' efficacy beliefs in the teaching of Economics.

Empirical Literature
Several studies (e.g., Adhikari, 2020; Boateng & Sekyere, 2018;Chacon, 2005;Siaw-Marfo, 2011) have been conducted on teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. For instance, Adhikari examined selfefficacy beliefs among mathematics teachers of Nepal. The finding showed that teachers had good efficacy beliefs in teaching mathematics. Also, it was found that teachers had better efficacy beliefs in instructional strategy than the other efficacy dimensions. Similarly, Siaw-Marfo found that social studies teachers had high level of efficacy. Likewise, other studies (e.g., Chacon, 2005;Eslami & Fatahi) found that English Language teachers' efficacy in instructional strategies was higher as compared to efficacy in classroom management and student engagement. Also, Shaukat and Iqbal (2012) found that teachers were highly efficacious in instructional strategies followed by student engagement and classroom management respectively. On contrary, Mintzes et al. (2013) found that science teachers had low level of self-efficacy.
Moreover, Boateng and Sekyere (2018) explored the efficacy beliefs of kindergarten school teachers in Ghana. They found that teachers were highly efficacious in pupils' engagement.
Similarly, Sarfo et al. (2015) revealed that teachers were highly efficacious in student engagement as compared to classroom management and instructional strategies. However, Poulou et al. (2019) found that teachers were highly efficacious in classroom management than instructional strategies and student engagement.
Also, Cobbold and Boateng (2016) found that kindergarten teachers had high efficacy beliefs in classroom management practices. From the studies reviewed, it seems that there is no empirical study about Economics teachers' level of efficacy in the teaching of Economics. It is important to establish that Economics has a unique theoretical underpinning that is unique from other subject areas. Ross et al. (1996) argue that teachers' level of efficacy depends on the subject matter and the particular group of learners or students they teach at a particular period. This means that the distinctiveness of every subject matter might result in different efficacy levels of teachers, therefore, this current study explored Economics teachers' efficacy in the teaching of Economics.
Research has revealed that teachers' self-efficacy beliefs present a curvilinear relationship with years of teaching experience such that self-efficacy increases in early and mid-career, levels out in mid-career, and then declines in later career stages (Dicke et al., 2014). Also, Cheung (2008) opined that years of teaching experience are associated with teachers' efficacy. In the same vein, Siaw-Marfo (2011) found that the more experienced the teacher is, the higher his/her efficacy level and vice-versa. In Iran, Karimvand (2011) explored the correlation of self-efficacy, teaching experience and gender. The study revealed that teachers with more teaching experience had a significantly higher self-efficacy than those with less teaching experience. However, Comerford (2013) found a negative correlation between years of teaching experience and teachers' self-efficacy. Also, Infurna et al. (2018) examined teaching experience and age as factors influencing self-efficacy. The study found that years of teaching experience negatively influence self-efficacy. This result suggests that teachers' self-efficacy falls as their years of teaching experience rise.
In another study, Alrefaei (2015) observed that teaching experience relates to teacher efficacy. Likewise, Klassen and Chiu (2010) investigated the effect of years of teaching experience on teachers' self-efficacy in Canada. The study showed that teaching experience showed a nonlinear relationship with teachers' efficacy. Haq and Akhtar (2013) discovered that there was no difference in teachers' self-efficacy in classroom management based on their teaching experience. Additionally, Guo et al. (2011) found that teaching experience does not influence teacher selfefficacy.
In Ghana, Abroampa and Wilson (2013) examined teachers' self-efficacy in public and private junior high schools. It was discovered that private school teachers have higher self-efficacy than public school teachers. Also, Boateng and Sekyere (2018) found that efficacy beliefs in pupil engagement among public and private kindergarten school teachers did not differ significantly. The findings of the independent sample t-test on efficacy beliefs in student engagement among public and private kindergarten teachers showed that student engagement practices among public and private kindergarten teachers did not differ significantly. Kumar (2013) studied self-efficacy of public and private school teachers. He found that there was no statistically significant difference in self-efficacy between public and private school teachers. Additionally, in Saudi Arabia, Alwaleedi (2017) revealed that public school teachers held significantly higher efficacy beliefs than private school teachers. Furthermore, Zamir et al. (2017) found that private school teachers have higher self-efficacy than public school teachers. Conversely, Cobbold and Boateng (2015) found that there was no statistically significant difference in instructional practices efficacy between public and private kindergarten teachers. Knoblauch and Chase (2015) discovered that urban student teachers had a lower sense of efficacy than suburban student teachers. Page et al. (2014) revealed that urban elementary school teachers had lower efficacy scores than suburban and rural teachers. Kulbo et al. (2019) found that basic teachers in urban schools tend to have higher self-efficacy than those in rural areas. Kaur and Paramjot (2016) found that urban secondary school teachers had higher efficacy than rural school teachers. Likewise, Himabindu (2012) discovered that urban school teachers are more efficacious than rural teachers.
The studies on the difference in teachers' efficacy with regards to their school proprietorship and school location/setting revealed contradictory findings. For instance, some of the studies (e.g., Abroampa & Wilson, 2013;Alwaleedi, 2017;Kulbo et al., 2019;Page et al., 2014) showed that there are differences in teacher efficacy based on school proprietorship and school location whilst other studies (e.g., Cobbold & Boateng, 2015;Kumar, 2013) revealed contrary findings. Teachers' efficacy is context specific (Labone, 2004;Pajares, 1996;Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007), but the aspect of context has not been sufficiently studied in literature (Klassen et al., 2011;Ronfeldt, 2012). Also, it seems the studies reviewed have not paid attention to the influence of teachers' teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location on their efficacy beliefs. Thus, this study sought to establish the differences in Economics teachers' efficacy based on their teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location.

Purpose of the Study
The thrust of the study was to explore Economics teachers' efficacy beliefs in teaching Economics. In specific terms, the study sought to: (1) examine Senior High School Economics teachers' level of teaching efficacy.
(2) determine whether there is any statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' efficacy based on their teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location.

Research Hypothesis
The study tested the following research hypothesis: H 0 : There is no statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' efficacy based on their teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location.

Research design, population and sampling
The descriptive cross-sectional survey design was employed for the study. It was used to explore Economics teachers' efficacy beliefs in the teaching of Economics. The choice of this design was influenced by the opinion of Wiersma and Jurs (2009) that it is appropriate for gathering information and generalizing from the sample to a population so that the inferences could be made about certain characteristics, attitudes or behaviour of the population. Also, the researchers were not interested in manipulating the variables involved in the study but rather wanted to investigate the situation as it existed on the ground (Osuala, 2001;Saunders et al., 2009). Therefore, the descriptive cross-sectional survey was deemed suitable for the study. For instance, Osuala asserted that the cross-sectional survey is suitable in circumstances where the researcher is not interested in manipulating the variables in the study. Moreover, C. Cohen et al. (2007) opined that cross-sectional survey design allows the collection of data that may be used to examine current practices and conditions.
The population of the study comprised all Senior High School (SHS) Economics teachers in the Kumasi Metropolis. The Metropolis had a total of 335 Economics teachers (Ghana Education Service, 2022). The sample for this study was drawn from 40 of 67 Senior High Schools in the Metropolis using the simple random sampling technique. The 40 selected schools had a total of 150 Economics teachers.
The census method was used to include all the 150 teachers from the forty schools that were selected for the study. This technique was used because each school had a relatively small number of Economics teachers. Ogah (2013) recommended that when the population size is relatively small, data can be gathered from every member of the population. Also, a large sample provides better judgment than a small sample, provided such large samples are available and accessible (Gall et al., 2007). Additionally, Field (2018) observed that the larger the sample, the higher the predictive accuracy.

Data collection instrument
The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (long form) developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) was adapted for the data collection. The TSES comprises 24 items with three sub-scales, specifically, efficacy for student engagement (SE), instructional strategies (IS) and classroom management (CM). Each of the sub-scale comprised eight items. The 9-point scale in the original version was adapted to a five-point Likert scale, that is, 1 (Not at all), 2 (Very little), 3 (Some influence), 4 (Quite a bit) and 5 (A great deal). The TSES was used by other scholars (e.g., Boateng & Sekyere, 2018;Cobbold & Boateng, 2016;Sarfo et al., 2015) to examine teachers' efficacy beliefs in teaching. Shachar et al. (2013) opined that the TSES makes better theoretical sense because of it high item uniformity. Therefore, the adaptation of the TSES makes it applicable to use in the Ghanaian context. A higher score on this scale was likened to higher efficacy. The Cronbach alpha (α) reliability coefficient for the three sub-scales: SE, IS and CM were .881, .878 and .917 respectively. Also, the composite reliability for the instrument was .960. Therefore, the instrument was deemed reliable and suitable for gathering valuable data for the study (Nunnally as cited in Pallant, 2020).

Procedure for data collection
The researchers engaged the services of five research assistants for the entire study. They were thoroughly briefed on all aspects of the instrument as well as research ethics. Each of the research assistants was assigned to four schools. The research assistants visited and administered the instrument to all the schools that were sampled. Economics teachers were given 20 to 25 minutes to respond to the items in the questionnaire. After the filled questionnaires had been collected, each completed instrument was quickly reviewed for completeness. In all, 125 completed questionnaires were collected. Therefore, the return rate for the questionnaire was 83.3%.

Data processing and analysis
The data were screened to identify and eliminate incomplete and void questionnaires. Afterwards, the data were coded and entered into the SPSS version 28 for data processing. Mean and standard deviation were used to determine Economics teachers' level of efficacy in student engagement, classroom management and instructional strategies. The study used the mean benchmarks recommended by Yidana and Asare (2021) to interpret the Likert scale. The following is the interpretation of the mean of the scale: (1) 00-1.49 = Very low (2) 50-2.49 = Low In terms of the research hypothesis, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in the Economics teachers' level of efficacy based on teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location.

Characteristics of the Economics Teachers
The Economics teachers' teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location were examined; and based on these categorical variables, the sensitivity of Economics teachers' student engagement, instructional strategies and classroom management efficacy to these characteristics was examined. Results of these variables are presented in Table 1.
In Table 1, the Economics teachers are concentrated around the teaching experience ranges of 6-10 years (n = 48, 38.4%), 0-5 years (n = 29, 23.2%) and 11-15 years (n = 27, 21.6%), which summed up to 104 (83.2%). Also, more than half of the Economics teachers (n = 91, 72.8%) were from public Senior High Schools (SHSs), exceeding the Economics teachers that were from private SHSs by 40 (32.0%). This suggests that the majority of the Economics teachers were from public SHSs. Lastly, it can be observed that the majority (n = 74, 59.2%) of the Economics teachers were from urban SHSs.

Results
This section presents the results of the study concerning the research objectives that were posed to guide the study.

Economics Teachers' Level of Instructional Strategies, Student Engagement and Classroom Management Efficacy
The first research objective was intended to find out Economics teachers' efficacy in teaching Economics. Table 2 shows the results of Economics teachers' level of efficacy in teaching Economics.
The results indicated that Economics teachers have high efficacy (M = 4.07, SD = .96) in employing instructional strategies, engaging students and managing the classroom. Under instructional strategies efficacy, ability to respond well to difficult questions from students (M = 4.18, SD = .84) and implement alternative instructional strategies (M = 4.16, SD = .94) were outstanding. The highest mean (4.14) was observed for instructional strategy efficacy. Hence, this suggested that instructional strategy is the highest efficacy factor among the rest. To confirm that the difference in the dimensions of Economics teachers' efficacy beliefs is statistically significant, a repeatedmeasures ANOVA was conducted at a .05 level of significance. The preliminary Mauchly's test for sphericity was not violated, χ2 (2) = 1.608, p = .448. Therefore, the sphericity assumed result attests that the differences in the self-efficacy factors are statistically significant, F (2) = 6.870, p < .001, η 2 p = .052. Hence, the null hypothesis of no significant difference was rejected. Further evidence provided by the partial eta squared (η 2 p = .052) stresses that there is a difference; however, the observed difference is small following the effect size guideline by J. Cohen (1988). In Table 3, the Bonferroni pairwise comparison result supports the ranking of the self-efficacy factors.
It can be observed from Table 3 that instructional strategies efficacy (1) is statistically higher than both student engagement (2) and classroom management (3) efficacies. However, no significant difference is observed between student engagement and classroom management efficacies. This result suggests that Economics teachers' instructional strategies efficacy is higher than their student engagement and classroom management efficacies.

Difference in Economics Teachers' Efficacy based on Teaching Experience, School Proprietorship and School Location
The research hypothesis determined whether there was any statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' efficacy based on their teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location. The MANOVA test was carried out after the establishment of the correlation among the domains of efficacy. MANOVA is wasteful when dependent variables are uncorrelated, this is why correlation must be established (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019). Also, Grice and Iwasaki (2008) suggest that for MANOVA, the correlation between the dependent variables should not exceed .90. The correlation results among the dependent variables (instructional strategies, student engagement and classroom management) are indicated in Table 4. Table 4 shows that the correlations among the dependent variables are significant. Thus, MANOVA was used to determine the differences in SHS Economics teachers' efficacy based on teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location. Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics for the difference in Economics teachers' efficacy based on teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location.
In Table 5, it appears that Economics teachers who have 16 and above years of teaching experience are more efficacious in instructional strategies (M = 4.42, SD = .44) than teachers who have 11-15, 0-5 and 6-10 years of teaching experience. Also, it seems that teachers who had taught for 11-15 years were more efficacious in student engagement (M = 4.47, SD = .62) than the other years of teaching experience. Lastly, it appears that Economics teachers who had taught for 16 and above years were highly efficacious in classroom management (M = 4.38, SD = .49) than those who had taught for 11-15, 0-5, and 6-10 years of teaching experience.
Also, from Table 5, it seems that public SHS Economics teachers are highly efficacious (M = 4.33, SD = .59) in instructional strategies compared to private SHS teachers (M = 3.64, SD = .71). Also, the  results indicate that public teachers are highly efficacious in student engagement (M = 4.21, SD = .57) and classroom management (M = 4.20, SD = .72) than private teachers.
The results give the impression that rural SHS Economics teachers are highly efficacious (M = 4.17, SD = .61) in instructional strategies compared to urban SHS teachers (M = 4.12, SD = .75). Also, the results indicate that rural teachers are highly efficacious in student engagement (M = 4.05, SD = .61) than urban teachers (M = 4.01, SD = .80). However, it seems that urban SHS Economics teachers were highly efficacious in classroom management (M = 4.06, SD = .77) than rural teachers (M = 4.02, SD = .78). The differences in Economics teachers' efficacy based on teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location were established statistically by using MANOVA.
The test of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices based on Box's M test was conducted. The results of the Box's M test are M = 147.938, F (48, 8228.647) = 2.694, p < .001. This result is statistically significant, which means that the assumption of variance-covariance matrices has not been met. Therefore, Wilk's Lambda ( W Þ test was used to test for statistical significance. The result shows that there is a statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' efficacy in teaching Economics based on their teaching experience (main effect), F (9, 265.428) = 5.270, p < .001; W = .670, η 2 p = .125. This result implies that teachers' efficacy in teaching Economics is significantly dependent on their teaching experience. However, it is obvious that there exists no statistically difference in Economics teachers' efficacy in teaching Economics based on school proprietorship (main effect), F (3, 109) = 1.769, p = .157; W = .954, η 2 p = .046; and school location (main effect), F (3, 109) = 2.156, p = .097; W = .944, η 2 p = .056. Also, statistical significance was observed at the two-level interactions between teaching experience and school proprietorship, F (9, 265.428) = 2.440, p = .011; W = .824, η 2 p = .062; teaching experience and school location, F (9, 265.428) = 1.993, p = .040; W = .853, η 2 p = .052; and school proprietorship and school location, F (3, 109) = 2.710, p = .049; W = .931, η 2 p = .069. Additionally, no significance was observed at the three-level interaction (teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location). Pallant (2020) suggested that because of the separate analyses at the univariate level, Bonferroni adjustment should be used to determine the significance level. Hence, the original p-value of .05 was divided by the number of dependent variables (e.g., in this case, we have four dependent variables = .05/3 = .0166 which is approximately .017). The results will be considered significant only if p-value is less than .017. Table 6 presents the univariate results.
The corrected models for instructional strategies efficacy, F(13, 111) = 5.656, p < .001; student engagement efficacy, F(13, 111) = 6.851, p < .001; and classroom management efficacy, F(13, 111) = 4.276, p < .001 were statistically significant. Also, significant difference was observed in Economics teachers' instructional strategies, F(3, 111) = 7.652, p < .001; student engagement, F(3, 111) = 13.037, p < .001; and classroom management efficacies, F(3, 111) = 7.773, p < .001; based on their teaching experience (main effect). However, no significant differences were found in Economics teachers' instructional strategies, student engagement and classroom management efficacies for the main effects (school proprietorship, school location). Again, significant difference was found in Economics teachers' student engagement efficacy for the interaction effect (teaching experience*school proprietorship), F(3, 111) = 3.733, p = .013; however, the effect size was moderate (η 2 p = .092). No significant differences were found in Economics teachers' instructional strategies and classroom management efficacies for the interaction effect (teaching experience*school proprietorship). Likewise, no significant differences were observed in Economics teachers' instructional strategies and classroom management efficacies for the interaction effects (teaching experience*school location, school proprietorship*school location, teaching experience*school proprietorship*school location). A post-hoc analysis was performed to find out where the differences in the Economics teachers' efficacy exist based on their teaching experience. Table 7 presents a summary of the post-hoc analysis. In Table 7, the Turkey's HSD post hoc test indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' instructional strategies efficacy between teachers who have taught for 0-5 years, and 6-10 years. This result suggests that Economics teachers who had taught for 0-5 years were highly efficacious in instructional strategies than those who had taught for 6-10 years. Also, it can be observed from Table 7 that there is a statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' instructional strategies efficacy between teachers who have taught for 6-10 years, and those who have taught for 11-15 years. This result means that Economics teachers who had taught for 11-15 years were highly efficacious in instructional strategies than those who had taught for 6-10 years. Additionally, there is a statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' instructional strategies efficacy between teachers who have taught for 6-10 years and 16 years and above. This result reveals that Economics teachers who had taught for 16 years and above were highly efficacious in instructional strategies than those who had taught for 6-10 years.
Also, concerning student engagement efficacy, there is a statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' efficacy between teachers' who have taught for 0-5 years and 6-10 years. Moreover, the result shows that there is a statistically significant difference in teachers' student engagement efficacy between teachers who have taught for 6-10 years and 11-15 years; and 6-10 years and 16 years and above.
In addition, the post hoc test shows that there is a statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' classroom management efficacy between teachers who have taught for 0-5 years and 6-10 years. Again, it can be seen from Table 7 that there is a statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' classroom management efficacy between teachers who have taught for 6-10 years, and those who have taught for 11-15 years. Furthermore, there is a statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' classroom management efficacy between teachers who have taught for 6-10 years and 16 years and above.

Discussion
The study explored Economics teachers' level of efficacy in teaching Economics. The study revealed that Economics teachers were highly efficacious in all three dimensions of efficacy (instructional strategies, student engagement and classroom management). It is worth noting that the Economics teachers were more efficacious in instructional strategies compared to classroom management and student engagement. The finding of the study aligns with that of Cobbold and Boateng (2015) who found that teachers have high efficacy beliefs in instructional practices. Likewise, the finding of the study is consistent with that of Adhikari (2020) who found that mathematics teachers had high efficacy beliefs in instructional strategies. However, Poulou et al. (2019) found that teachers had high efficacy level in classroom management than self-efficacy in instruction and student engagement. Again, the finding of this study contradicts that of Mintzes et al. (2013) who found that science teachers had low level of self-efficacy. The differences in the findings may be a result of the different sample cases that were used for the study. In addition, the differences in the research findings may be due to the differences in the subject areas under consideration in each study. Economics teachers' high efficacy level implies that they had strong self-confidence that they could effectively and efficiently deploy instructional strategies (such as teaching methods and procedures), engage and inspire students to participate in Economics lesson and also create a conducive learning atmosphere for students in the classroom. Also, the findings suggest that Economics teachers can respond effectively to nerve-racking and challenging circumstances in the classroom. For instance, Guskey (as cited in Bray-Clark & Bates, 2003) observed that teachers with higher levels of efficacy are more likely to persevere in their efforts to achieve learning goals when they encounter obstacles and they are more willing to take risks in their classroom management.
The research hypothesis sought to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' efficacy based on their teaching experience, school proprietorship and school location. The finding of the study revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' teachers' instructional strategies, student engagement and classroom management efficacies based on teaching experience. This finding means that Economics teachers' instructional strategies, student engagement and classroom management efficacies are sensitive to teaching experience. This finding validates the common belief that teachers with higher teaching experience possess higher efficacy (Holzberger et al., 2013). Also, this finding confirms that of Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007) who observed that the self-efficacy of teachers grows corresponding to years of experience. This suggests that teachers have high efficacy level when they are more experienced. Likewise, Siaw-Marfo (2011) asserted that teachers have high efficacy level when they are more experienced.
Specifically, it was found that Economics teachers who had taught for 0-5 years were highly efficacious in instructional strategies, student engagement and classroom management than those who had taught for 6-10 years. Also, the study revealed that Economics teachers who had taught for 11-15 years were more efficacious in instructional strategies, student engagement and classroom management than those who had taught for 6-10 years. In addition, the findings of the study showed that Economics teachers who had taught for 16 years and above were more efficacious in instructional strategies, student engagement and classroom management than those who had taught for 6-10 years. This finding implies that Economics teachers' teaching experience plays a significant role in improving their self-efficacy level. It is most likely that teachers who are more experienced had engaged in professional development programmes such as seminars and professional learning communities (PLC). Mintzes et al. (2013) observed that elementary school teachers with low self-efficacy in science teaching grew substantially over a period of 3 years as a result of their participation in a PLC. Therefore, beginning Economics teachers can engage in professional learning communities to enhance their teaching self-efficacy. Klassen and Chiu (2010) asserted that teachers' self-efficacy rises from initial mid-career and falls after 23 years of teaching experience. Contrary to this finding, Alrefaei (2015) and Sam et al. (2015) found that teaching experience is not related to teacher efficacy.
Additionally, the study showed that there were no statistically significant differences in Economics teachers' instructional strategies, student engagement and classroom management efficacies based on school proprietorship. This finding suggests that Economics teachers' efficacy is not dependent on their school proprietorship. This finding is surprising because, given the number of professionally trained public SHS Economics teachers in the study [91 (72.7%) of public SHS teachers compared to 34 (27.2%) of private SHS teachers] and their level of professionalism, one would have thought that they would have higher efficacy than their private school counterparts. The finding of the study confirms that of Cobbold and Boateng (2015) who observed that there was no statistically significant difference in instructional practices efficacy between public and private kindergarten teachers. However, the finding of the study is not in line with that of Sam et al. (2015) who found that public SHS teachers have a higher level of efficacy than private SHS teachers. Again, the finding of the study is contrary to that of Abroampa and Wilson (2013) who discovered that private JHS teachers were highly efficacious compared to public JHS teachers. Also, the finding of the study is inconsistent with that of Zamir et al. (2017) who found that private elementary school teachers have a higher level of efficacy than public elementary school teachers. Similarly, Swars (2005) and Akhtar (2009) found that public basic school teachers are highly efficacious in classroom management than private basic school teachers. The difference in the findings of the current study and these studies (Abroampa & Wilson, 2013;Akhtar, 2009;Cobbold & Boateng, 2015;Swars, 2005;Zamir et al., 2017) may be a result of the sample used for the study. The current study focused on SHS teachers whilst the other studies focused on elementary/basic school teachers. Therefore, the efficacy level of SHS teachers may differ from that of basic school teachers.
Moreover, the findings of the study indicated that there is no statistically significant difference in Economics teachers' efficacy based on school location. This finding means that Economics teachers' instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management efficacies are not sensitive to school location. Also, the finding implies that posting of trained and qualified Economics teachers to various senior high schools is not skewed to urban schools. Hence, Economics teachers that are posted to rural senior high schools are equally trained and qualified as their urban counterparts. The finding of the study is not in tandem with that of Kaur and Paramjot (2016) who found that urban secondary school teachers had higher efficacy level as compared to rural teachers. The finding is contrary to that of Kaur and Paramjot (2016), Knoblauch and Chase (2015), and Page et al. (2014) who found that urban teachers had lower efficacy than rural teachers.
Lastly, the study revealed that there was a significant difference in Economics teachers' student engagement efficacy for the interaction effect (teaching experience*school proprietorship). This finding indicates that there is a significant difference in the effect of teaching experience on teachers' student engagement efficacy for private and public schools. The finding suggests that the influence of teaching experience on teachers' student engagement efficacy depends on whether the teacher is from a private or public school.

Conclusions and Recommendations
The study vividly showed that Economics teachers were highly efficacious to employ instructional strategies, engage students and manage the classroom. Economics teachers' high level of efficacy implies that they had high abilities in employing creative methods to transmit content to students, encourage students to participate in the teaching and learning process and also create quality learning environment. Also, it can be concluded that teaching experience is an influencing factor in determining the efficacy level of Economics teachers. However, the influence of teaching experience on teachers' student engagement efficacy depends on whether the teacher is from a private or public school. Additionally, school proprietorship (i.e., public or private) does not influence the efficacy of Economics teachers. Similarly, Economics teachers' efficacy was not sensitive to school location, hence, irrespective of where teachers teach whether urban or rural areas they have the same level of efficacy. Therefore, it is recommended that the Ghana Education Service (GES), Ministry of Education (MoE) and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO's) should continue to organise professional development programmes for teachers to ensure a continuous, progressive and consistent high efficacy level of Economics teachers. Moreover, private and public SHS headmasters should continue to organise in-service training and professional development programmes for SHS teachers to further enrich their efficacy level. Again, SHS headmasters should make sure that in-service Economics teachers who have less teaching experience engage in professional learning communities and professional development programmes to enhance their level of efficacy. Lastly, in the organisation of professional development programmes and seminars for teachers, equal attention should be given to rural and urban teachers.

Limitations and suggestions for further studies
This study employed the quantitative research approach to explore Economics teachers' level of efficacy in teaching Economics. The research instrument utilised did not allow for the researchers to obtain further data through observation or seeking clarifications from the respondents. As a result, conducting observations and interviews would have provided a more precise understanding of Economics teachers' level of efficacy. Future studies should focus on employing mixed method approach in examining teachers' level of efficacy. Additionally, it is not possible to apply the conclusions of the research to all Economics teachers in Ghana. Therefore, similar studies could consider a broader range of respondents across SHSs in Ghana.