Susanne Garvis, Donna Pendergast (Eds.) - Asia-Pacific Perspectives On Teacher Self-Efficacy-SensePublishers (2016) PDF

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Teacher Self-Efficacy
Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Teacher Self-Efficacy
Edited by
Susanne Garvis
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
and
Donna Pendergast
Griffith University, Australia
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN: 978-94-6300-519-7 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-94-6300-520-3 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6300-521-0 (e-book)
Published by: Sense Publishers,

P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/
All chapters in this book have undergone peer review.
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved © 2016 Sense Publishers
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
We dedicate this book to our colleagues who work in the field
of initial teacher education and professional learning. Globally, the
teaching profession has been subjected to closer than usual scrutiny
over recent years and the brilliant work of teacher educators is
sometimes less valued than it should be. We affirm the important
work of our colleagues and respect their contribution to
shaping the present and future educators of the world,
who in turn shape the present and future generations
of young people who will be our future.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgementix
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xiii
Acronyms and Abbreviations xv
Introductionxvii
Susanne Garvis and Donna Pendergast
1. Preservice Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs: An Opportunity to
Generate “Good Research” in the Asia-Pacific Region 1
David A. G. Berg and Lisa F. Smith
2. The Mediating Role of Collective Teacher Efficacy Beliefs in
the Relationship between School Climate and Teacher
Self-Efficacy across Mainstream and Special Needs Schools 19
Wan Har Chong and Ming Ying Ong
3. Understanding Teacher Self-Efficacy to Teach in
Inclusive Classrooms 37
Umesh Sharma and Sindu George
4. Teaching Efficacy Belief as a New Paradigm for Teacher Career
Development and Professionalism in Korea 53
So-Jung Seo
5. A Comparative Study of Early Childhood Teacher Self-Efficacy
for Arts Education in Australia and Oman 71
Susanne Garvis and Ali Kemal Tekin
6. Inclusion, Classroom Management and Teacher Self-Efficacy in
an Australian Context 87
Stuart Woodcock and Andrea Reupert
7. Teacher Self-Efficacy and Junior Secondary: Exploring a Moment
of Reform in Queensland Schools 103
Donna Pendergast and Katherine Main
8. Teacher Efficacy Research in Mainland China 115
Olli-Pekka Malinen
About the Contributors 127
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to acknowledge the contribution made by Joy Reynolds to the production

of this book.
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Dominant learning conversation 96

Figure 2. Dominant managing conversation 96
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Correlations of teacher self-efficacy, teacher collective

efficacy and school climate factors (n = 183) 26
Table 2. Means, standard deviations and range of variables (n = 183) 27
Table 3. Testing for teacher collective efficacy as a mediator in the
relationship between teacher self-efficacy and school
climate factors (n = 183) 28
Table 4. Previous experience 78
Table 5. TSES mean scores 79
Table 6. Student engagement 79
Table 7. Classroom management 80
Table 8. Instructional strategies 80
Table 9. Teacher self-efficacy in relation to frequency use of
behaviour management strategies 95
Table 10. Leading change development program project stages 107
Table 11. Average scores for the six subscales of the Norwegian
Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (two day conference and
the one day workshop) 110
Table 12. Significance test for leaders’ perceptions of teacher efficacy 111
xiii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym Meaning
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

AD Adapting instruction to individual needs
AITSL Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership
ANOVA analysis of variance
BE Beliefs
CAJ China Academic Journals
CCC Child Care Center
CH Coping with change
CI Confidence interval
CM Classroom management
CNKI China Knowledge Resource Integrated
CO Cooperate with colleagues and parents
DET Department of Education and Training
DETE Department of Education, Training, and Employment
DI Maintaining discipline
DV Dependent variable
ECE Early Childhood Education
ECEC early childhood education and care
ECED Early Childhood Education Department
ECM Educational Change Model
ECTES Early Childhood Teacher Efficacy Scale
EEC early education and childcare
GCC Gulf Cooperation Council
GTE general teaching efficacy
GTE Teacher efficacy
IEP individualized education plans
IN Instruction
IS Instructional strategies
IV Independent variable
K-OSTES Korean version of Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale
K-TESE Korean version of Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale
LSD Least Significant Difference
M Mean
MANOVA Multivariate analyses of variance
MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training
and Youth Affairs
xv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
MD Motivating students
MOE Ministry of Education
NAEYC National Association for the Education of Young Children
NCSS National Council of Social Service
NCTAF National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future
NIE National Institute of Education
NTSES Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OSTES Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale
PD professional development
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
PTE personal teaching efficacy
SC School Climate
SC Aff School Climate Affiliation
SC EC School Climate External Control
SC Em School Climate Empowerment
SC MC School Climate Mission Consensus
SC RA School Climate Resource Adequacy
SC SL School Climate Supportive Leadership
SC SS School Climate Student Support
SC WP School Climate Work Pressure
SD Standard deviation
SE Student engagement
SEIPD Self-Efficacy toward Future Interactions with People
with Disabilities Scale
SES Socio economic status
SLEQ School-level environment questionnaire
SOBMP Survey of Behaviour Management Practices
SPED special education
SQU Sultan Qaboos University
TCE Teacher collective efficacy (table 2)
TEIP Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices
TES Teacher Efficacy Scale
TSE Teacher self efficacy
TSES Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
VWO Voluntary Welfare Organizations
WT Working in teams
xvi
Susanne Garvis and Donna Pendergast
INTRODUCTION
This book has come about from numerous discussions we have had over the years
about the importance of developing a joint understanding of teacher self-efficacy
within the Asia-Pacific region. While much research has come from the American
context largely due to the foundational work of Albert Bandura in regards to teacher
self-efficacy, a growing body of research has begun to emerge in the Asia-Pacific
region as ideas of teacher behaviour and the mediator of such behaviour grows
in focus. By understanding the beliefs of teachers, we are able to understand the
associated behaviour. This book is therefore perhaps also foundational, in that it
is the first to attempt to organise and provide a snapshot of teacher self-efficacy
research.
Our joint focus on teacher self-efficacy research began when Susanne was a
doctoral candidate and Donna was her supervisor, together trying to navigate the
often fluid landscape of teacher self-efficacy in Australia. Over the years we have
continued our collaborations in the field of teacher self-efficacy, expanding it to
the contexts of teacher education programmes, beginning teachers and experienced
teachers. This had led us to also ask more and more questions about teacher self-
efficacy as details emerge about relationships, environmental factors and other
societal possibilities. Throughout the years we have also become interested to know
what similarities and differences exist across countries within the Asia-Pacific
region. Do they share similar understandings about the construct of teacher self-
efficacy?
In this introduction we do not attempt to define and describe teacher self-
efficacy for the reader. Rather we have let authors share their own understanding
of teacher self-efficacy, also providing cultural and contextual understandings
in their descriptions and definitions. This has also allowed authors to provide an
understanding of teacher self-efficacy within countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
The authors of each chapter also share their own tools for collecting, measuring
and analysing teacher self-efficacy. While some chapters have used similar
measurements, other authors have shared their own scales and tools within teacher
self-efficacy research. The reader is able to see variety across the Asia-Pacific region
but also at the same time make important connections across countries.
Looking across the chapters, we have learnt that all teacher self-efficacy research
is based on the same research belief:
If we can support the positive development of teacher self-efficacy beliefs we
can improve teacher practice with students.
xvii
S. Garvis & D. Pendergast
We believe this is an important goal not only for teacher self-efficacy research, but
also for educational reform in any country. If we want to improve the outcomes of
teaching and learning, we must first consider the beliefs and behaviour of the teacher
and how the environment influences this. Such a message is important for all people
interested in improving educational outcomes for all.
Organisation of the Book
In this book we have drawn together leading experts across the Asia-Pacific region.
They have provided snapshots of their research and detailed summaries of teacher
self-efficacy across the countries. The book begins with an overall summary of
research in the Asia-Pacific region before moving to a specific focus on research in
different countries.
In the first chapter Berg and Smith provide a summary of current research and
methods used across the Asia-Pacific region regarding teacher-self efficacy –
including pre-service and in-service teachers – and have found research from
Australia, China, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Taiwan. They
also however acknowledge the limited number of studies and point out that more
work is needed to be done. Of the studies that have been conducted they were
able to suggest that possible variation across the region could be a consequence
of collectivist cultures and greater expectations of teachers. Berg and Smith also
share a mixed method study that compared Malaysia and New Zealand in a mixed
methods approach to provide greater richness beyond statistical data. While using
a statistical scale, they also had focus groups with participants that allowed the
exploration of cultural difference. Berg and Smith contend that researchers should
be mindful of such important difference in the national cultures that make up the
Asia-Pacific region. They suggest there may be a different understanding of the
role of the teacher, as well as responsibilities and expectations. Mixed methods
approaches are one possibility to exploring these differences.
After a general summary of the research across the region, the book moves into
exploring specific examples within countries. In the second chapter, the reader is
provided with an understanding of the Singapore context. The Singapore education
system provides ten years of formal general education, comprised of six years of
primary schools and four years or more of secondary school. Children who are
unable to attend mainstream school can apply to attend special schools. Chong and
Ying provided a detailed exploration of the mediating role of collective teacher
efficacy beliefs in the relationship between school climates and teacher self-efficacy
across mainstream and special needs schools. Exploring the beliefs of 183 teachers,
a mediational analyses indicated that teacher collective efficacy mediated the
relationship between teacher self-efficacy and seven aspects of a school climate.
Chong and Ying call for schools to consider using the four sources of efficacy to
guide their practice with opportunities for master of experience at the individual and
school level, as well as productive school leadership to promote school change. They
xviii
Introduction
also suggest that within Asian schools, it may be important to pay closer attention to
teachers’ perceptions of competence as opposed to their actual competence.
In the third chapter, Sharma and George specifically focus on how teacher
self-efficacy can be used to teach in inclusive classrooms. Teachers with a strong
sense of inclusive teaching efficacy tend to crate classroom environments where
students with a range of abilities and learning styles can succeed. This field of
research, as the authors’ state, is relatively new but gaining significant attention
by researchers worldwide. Their chapter provides current findings in the Asia-
Pacific region, exploring studies from Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Indonesia and
China. Sharma and George believe that attitudes and efficacy together influence
teachers’ behaviour rather than one of the two constructs. They suggest that more
research is needed regarding the factors that influence the behaviour of teachers.
For example, teachers who are supported in schools are likely to include learners
from a range of abilities.
The context of South Korea is explored in the fourth chapter. Seo provides
recent research about the importance of teacher efficacy beliefs as a new paradigm
for teacher career development and professionalism within the context of early
childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care consists of
children aged birth to five years that can attend two different types of settings –
kindergarten (children aged three to five years) and day care centres (children aged
zero to five years). Seo suggests that putting teacher efficacy beliefs into practice
will pay off for teachers in early childhood education and care. The central idea is
that the quality of childcare is enhanced through positive teacher behaviour. Seo
also suggests that teacher training programs and teacher career development could
benefit by having a greater focus on self-efficacy beliefs within early childhood
education and care. An example of a 12-week training program is provided at the
end of the chapter, showing the possibilities of enhanced professionalism when
teacher efficacy beliefs are put into practice. By providing special attention to
the ongoing teacher education or career development experience, enhancing
professionalism can lead to the delivery of effective services for children.
In the fifth chapter, Garvis and Tekin report findings from another early childhood
teacher education study within the context of Australia and Oman. In a comparative
study, they were interested to know how teacher self-efficacy might function differently
in different sociocultural contexts. Specifically focusing on early childhood teacher
self-efficacy beliefs around arts education, they provide a quantitative understanding
of perceived capability for 5 arts disciplines: dance, drama, music, media and visual
arts compared to English and maths. Such comparative studies that focus on teacher
professionalism and beliefs are vital, both in terms of learning from the other setting
as well as going beyond the familiar in order to highlight was is taken for granted.
Garvis and Tekin found that while the early childhood education context and teacher
training was different in Australia and Oman, similarities emerged in the levels
of teacher self-efficacy. In particular, English and maths were ranked higher by
student teachers than any of the arts subjects. The arts disciplines that also require
xix
S. Garvis & D. Pendergast
a performance (music, dance and drama) were also ranked lower. Garvis and Tekin
suggest that emotional arousal as a source of efficacy may play an important role in
perceived competence within arts education in early childhood education contexts. A
hidden curriculum within disciplines subjects may also exist within early childhood
education and care in both countries.
In the sixth chapter Woodcock and Reupert explore the concepts of inclusion,
classroom management and teacher self-efficacy in an Australian context. They
suggest that in order to embrace diversity and inclusivity, teachers need to have
the belief in their own capability to teach inclusivity. Woodcock and Reupert
provide a summary of a recent study between newly graduated teachers’ sense
of teacher self-efficacy and how often they used various classroom management
strategies. They found that newly qualified teachers with a higher sense of teacher
self-efficacy towards student engagement and instructional strategies used rewards
more frequently than those with a lower sense of teacher self-efficacy. Woodcock
and Reupert conclude that for inclusion to be more successful, teacher self-efficacy
regarding inclusion needs to be considered, monitored and supported for new
teachers as they transition through their first years of teaching. Supportive ways
are also needed to allow teachers to develop support mechanisms through the
development of positive teaching behaviours.
Pendergast and Main are the authors of chapter seven, which provides a
rich insight into one of many rapid changes in education policy and practice in
Australia. Educational change is a complex process with schools typically seeming
to be in a state of constant change. The complexity of educational change is further
exacerbated as a result of a range of national, state and local reform agendas where
schools are often attempting to implement a number of reforms simultaneously. The
pointy end of this reform is in the classroom itself, and specifically related to teacher’s
work. In this chapter, the authors outline a reform program involving 259 schools.
They focus on insights into the perceptions of teacher self-efficacy to implement the
reform of junior secondary classrooms around the state of Queensland. Leadership
teams from each school completed a self-efficacy survey to provide a snap-shot of
their perceptions of the preparedness of their teachers to teach in Junior Secondary.
This occurred at the beginning of the program and was administered again at the end
of the program. The results reveal a continued focus on teacher instruction, adapting
instruction to individual student needs, and motivating students. Perhaps the real
insight gained from this chapter is the role that self-efficacy research can play as a
guiding consideration in a major reform project.
The final chapter by Malinen explores teacher efficacy research in mainland
China. In recent years there has been a growing interest towards mainland China and
Chinese teachers because of high Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) results. Much of the research however is publisher in the local language,
limiting dissemination to the international community. This chapter provides a
summary of current teacher self-efficacy research publisher in Chinese academic
xx
Introduction
journals. This allows readers from outside of China to also become familiar with
Chinese teacher self-efficacy research.
Conclusion
The chapters have been able to provide a snapshot of current research being
undertaken in the Asia-Pacific region in regards to teacher self-efficacy beliefs. This
includes specific focuses on inclusive teaching, professionalism, subject domains,
collective efficacy as well as specific contexts of early childhood education and care,
primary schools education, special needs schools and teacher education. This allows
the reader to begin to develop an understanding about the complexity of teacher
self-efficacy as well as the development and relationship between self-efficacy and
others theoretical constructs and concepts.
Looking across the chapters, we are able to see many similarities. This includes
the importance of understanding cultural and contextual differences within teacher
self-efficacy research. The chapters acknowledge that within the Asia-Pacific region
there is much difference and variation in regards to traditions, norms, languages
etc. leading to different perceptions and understandings about the roles and
responsibilities of a teacher. As such, many of the chapters call for more research in
the area, as well as the implementation of mixed-methods and qualitative tools to
explore cultural and contextual differences.
All of the chapters also provide hope to the reader about the possibilities of
understanding and supporting teachers and schools beliefs to enhance teacher
behaviour. Through the implementation of teacher self-efficacy beliefs into
educational contexts, teacher education programmes and professional development
programmes, there is strong hope that the outcomes of education systems in
supporting all students in their learning can be achieved. By allowing teachers to
develop their own sources of efficacy and supporting these through all stages of
career development, all children can be supported in their own learning.
As you read this book, we ask you to also reflect about your own understanding
of teacher self-efficacy and how you could also further support the development and
implementation of teacher self-efficacy beliefs. By sharing these important studies
across the Asia-Pacific region, the intention is to also develop the understanding of
teacher self-efficacy in the Asia-Pacific region to help support teachers, schools,
teacher educators, administrators and policy makers in their decisions regarding
educational policy and provision, while constantly highlighting the complexity
of the field. Teacher self-efficacy provides endless possibilities for an overall
reform to education across the Asia-Pacific region. It begins however with a joint
understanding of knowing what has been done.
xxi
DAVID A. G. BERG AND LISA F. SMITH
1. Preservice Teacher
Self-Efficacy Beliefs
An Opportunity to Generate “Good Research”
in the Asia-Pacific Region
ABSTRACT
This chapter examines how teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs can lead to the enhanced
wellbeing of students, teachers, and preservice teachers. We first present a brief
historical tour of the construct of teacher self-efficacy, followed by findings of
research pertaining to preservice and in-service teacher self-efficacy beliefs. We then
describe how teacher self-efficacy beliefs have been measured and the challenges
associated with the measurement of this construct. We develop this discussion by
sharing findings from a mixed methods approach that explored teacher self-efficacy
in the Asia-Pacific region. The chapter concludes with a discussion of what has
been learned to date, how findings from the research can contribute to enhancing
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, and the importance of mixed-methods research to
inform this area of study.
INTRODUCTION
Educational research is often judged to be good based on having a strong

conceptual framework and an elegant design. Unfortunately, consideration of the
ultimate purpose and impact of the research on human well-being can be neglected
(Hostetler, 2005). Similarly, Bandura (1997) has argued that theories are often
evaluated by their “explanatory and predictive power.” However, as he noted,
“The value of a psychological theory must also be judged by the power to change
people’s lives for the better” (p. viii). We believe that social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1997) provides a strong conceptual framework for educational researchers to use
in the development of studies of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs that can lead to the
enhanced wellbeing of students, teachers, and preservice teachers. By extension, we
believe that improving the well-being of students, teachers, and preservice teachers
will provide opportunities for increasing educational outcomes.
In this chapter, we seek to provide a warrant for this claim and encourage research
on teacher self-efficacy in the Asia-Pacific region. We begin by offering a brief
historical tour of teacher self-efficacy as a construct and presenting findings of
S. Garvis & D. Pendergast (Eds.), Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Teacher Self-Efficacy, 1–17.

© 2016 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
D. A. G. BERG & L. F. SMITH
research pertaining to preservice and in-service teacher self-efficacy beliefs. Next,

we offer an exploration of how teacher self-efficacy beliefs have been measured
and the challenges for those who seek to measure them. Following this, we consider
some of the most significant findings to date: namely the factors that affect teacher
self-efficacy beliefs and factors that are related to those beliefs. We develop this
discussion by sharing a mixed methods approach for researching teacher self-
efficacy in the Asia-Pacific region. We then conclude by considering what we have
learned, how we might respond to what we have learned, what limitations are evident,
and then we make suggestions as to what research could be done to contribute to this
body of scholarship in the region.
As a starting point, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007) described useful possibilities
for those seeking to research the self-efficacy beliefs of preservice teachers.
Teachers entering the field have typically experienced “apprenticeships”
of at least 17 years as students. What are the qualities of the teachers they
remember and what is the impact of these memories on preservice teachers’
developing sense of efficacy as teachers? Likewise, what is the impact of
modelling by university professors and by cooperating teachers during
student teaching? What is the impact of images of teachers in movies and the
news media? Studies such as these would be helpful as we seek to learn about
the source of self-efficacy beliefs among preservice and novice teachers.
(p. 954)
We are intrigued by these questions, but have others that we believe can make a
significant difference to how initial teacher education is shaped in terms of building
self-efficacy beliefs.
In our work, we have considered how graduates from different initial teacher
education pathways vary in their self-efficacy beliefs and have asked if those
in three- and four-year undergraduate programmes have higher or lower self-
efficacy beliefs as compared to those who have completed one year post graduate
programmes (Berg & Smith, 2014b). Further, we have considered how the number
of days that preservice teachers spend on practica may affect preservice teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs (Berg, 2011; Smith, 2006) and how the timing and the nature
of the practica may make an impact (Smith, 2006). In our comparison of the self-
efficacy beliefs of preservice teachers from three nations (Berg & Smith, 2014b),
we have identified differences among cohorts and considered how an understanding
of teacher self-efficacy beliefs and the antecedents for those beliefs can provide
important information for teacher educators who are responsible for initial teacher
education.
It is still the case that the majority of teacher self-efficacy research has been
conducted in North America. Research such as ours described above is merely
scratching the surface of what it possible and of what needs to be explored in our
Asia-Pacific context. We would like to encourage the growth of a body of research
that considers measurement issues, contextual influences of teacher self-efficacy,
2
Preservice Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs
and the influence of cultural preferences on the formation of teacher self-efficacy

beliefs across the Asia-Pacific region.
TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS
Background
Self-efficacy beliefs are those beliefs that people hold about the skills and
competencies they have to achieve a specific task (Bandura, 1997). These beliefs
influence how both thought processes and emotions affect an individual’s motivation.
Those who believe they have the capability to succeed are more likely to persist in
the face of adversity and invest significant effort to achieve goals of importance to
them; whereas, those who doubt their skills and competencies are more likely to see
such efforts as futile and will not endure (Bandura, 1997; de la Torre Cruz & Arias,
2007). These beliefs have considerable impact as a result of their self-referential
nature, and mediate among knowledge, skills, and behaviour in goal achievement
(Henson, Kogan, & Vacha-Haase, 2001). Given the potency of self-efficacy beliefs,
scholars have sought to understand how they affect people’s occupational activities
(Bandura, 1997). As evident in the chapters of this volume, the self-efficacy beliefs
of teachers and preservice teachers have come to be recognised as important topics
of educational research.
North American researchers have been engaging with the topic of teacher self-
efficacy for almost four decades, following questionnaire studies conducted by
the Rand Foundation (Armor et al., 1976) and Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly,
and Zellman (1977). In the ensuing years, two questionnaire items were added that
led to potent findings (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The first item
asked, “When it comes down to it a teacher can’t really do much because most of
a student’s motivation and performance depends of his or her home environment”
(Armor et al., 1976). Ashton, Olejnik, Crocker, and McAuliffe (1982) named this
general teacher efficacy (GTE). The second question, labelled by Ashton et al. as
personal teacher efficacy, asked, “If I try really hard, I can get through to even the
most difficult and unmotivated students” (Armor et al., 1976).
At this stage, the emerging construct of teacher efficacy was theoretically
underpinned by Rotter’s (1966) locus of control theory and was understood by the
“extent that to which teachers believed reinforcement lay within themselves or the
environment” (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998, p. 202). Nearly two
decades later in 1984, Gibson and Dembo looked to Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive
theory to more fully understand teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. This amounted to
a significant breakthrough in the field and by the outset of the new millennium,
the majority of teacher self-efficacy research was conceptually underpinned by
Bandura’s theory (Wheatley, 2002). This not withstanding, the use of these two
similar, but separate conceptual strands has caused confusion surrounding in teacher
self-efficacy research (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000).
3
Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy’s (1998) model of teacher self-

efficacy offered an important breakthrough by combining Rotter’s (1966) and
Bandura’s (1997, 1995) theories. They used Rotter’s (1966) locus of control
theory to understand context and task analysis, but more significantly, looked to
the attribution analysis and interpretation of Bandura’s (1997, 1995) four principal
sources of information for the construction of teacher self-efficacy beliefs. These
four sources are: mastery experience, physiological and emotional states, vicarious
experience, and social persuasion. This dual conceptual foundation can be seen in
the two dimensions that their model offers. The first of these is “self perceptions
of teaching competence” and the second, “the teaching task and its context”
(p. 228). Notwithstanding, findings from our search of the literature suggest that
much of the recent research that has been conducted on teacher self-efficacy has
been more obviously underpinned by Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (see for
example, Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Reference to Rotter’s (1966) locus of control
theory is more evident in historical accounts of the evolution of teacher self-efficacy
research (Berg, 2011).
There are important reasons why initial teacher educators should be mindful
of their students’ teacher self-efficacy beliefs: once established, self-efficacy
beliefs seem to be resistant to change. That is, once a belief is formed, its holder is
likely to attend to confirmatory experiences and ignore or minimise evidence that
challenges the belief (Bandura, 1997). Thus, it is likely to be easier to encourage the
development of healthy teacher self-efficacy beliefs during initial teacher education
than to engage in remedial action once those beliefs are formed. Consequently, it is
not surprising that a body of research exists exploring the impact of early mastery
experiences on the formation of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (Hoy &
Spero, 2005). The findings from this body of research, however, are inconsistent
and are not easily interpreted (Berg, 2011, Berg & Smith, 2014; Ganser, 1996,
Henson, 2002; Parker, Guarino, & Wade Smith, 2002; Smith, 2006). Conceptual
and measurement issues offer some explanation for the inconsistencies, as do
context variables. Examples of conflicting findings include research into the effects
of urban and suburban environments (Ashton, Webb, & Doda, 1983; Knoblauch &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2008; Smith, Klein, & Mobley, 2007). Nevertheless, some highly
applicable findings are evident from this body of research including those that
identify the significance of appropriate mentoring and other support for preservice
teachers for the formation of their teacher self-efficacy beliefs (Burley, Hall,
Villeme, & Brokmeier, 1991; Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008; Woolfolk Hoy,
2000).
Measurement
Tschannen-Moran et al.’s (1998) model of teacher self-efficacy has been widely

accepted; yet, questions of how to best measure teacher self-efficacy beliefs
remain. Indeed, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) have argued that
4
“persistent measurement problems have plagued those who have studied teacher
efficacy” (p. 783). Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010) also have drawn attention to
measurement problems that are evident in the research literature. They noted that
there is a lack of common agreement as to how teacher self-efficacy should be
measured and conceptualised. Their claims support those made almost a decade
earlier by Roberts and Henson (2001), who challenged “the construct validity of
scores from a variety of instruments purporting to measure teacher efficacy…”
(p. 5). Here, we identify five challenges of which researchers of teacher efficacy
beliefs need to be mindful.
The first challenge we face is to ensure conceptual clarity. As already discussed,
researchers have looked to Rotter’s (1966) locus of control theory and Bandura’s
(1977) social cognitive theory, to provide conceptual frameworks for their studies.
Goddard, Hoy, and Woolfolk Hoy (2000) have suggested that although some
researchers have presumed that these theories are, to a degree, analogous, important
differences are evident. Indeed, social cognitive theory identifies beliefs about an
individual’s ability to bring about an outcome; whereas, locus of control theory
considers beliefs about the power of actions to affect outcomes. Bandura (1997)
has shown that only a weak correlation exists between these two constructs and has
argued that self-efficacy is a robust antecedent of behaviour, but locus of control is
not. Furthermore, he offered the following example to illustrate how locus of control
is very different from self-efficacy belief: “students may believe that high academic
grades are entirely dependent on their performance (high locus of control) but feel
despondent because they believe they lack the efficacy to produce those superior
academic performances” (Bandura, 2006, p. 309). Equally, teachers may believe that
student success is largely dependent on the effectiveness of teachers, but doubt their
own ability to be effective in the classroom.
Secondly, we suggest researchers should consider the challenges of ensuring
reliability and validity when measuring self-efficacy beliefs. Bandura (2006) has
argued that, “the construction of sound efficacy scales relies on a good conceptual
analysis of the relevant domain of functioning” (p. 310). In short, to be reliable,
teacher self-efficacy scales must reflect a strong understanding of what it means
to be an effective teacher. Bandura further argued that efficacy beliefs should be
measured against potential barriers to success or obstacles to pass, as everyone
has high efficacy beliefs for easily achievable activities. We would add that self-
efficacy measures should be examined in terms of their relationships to similar
constructs such as concerns about teaching (see e.g., Smith, 2006; Smith et al.,
2007; Smith, Corkery, & Buckley, 2009; Smith, Corkery, Buckley, & Calvert,
2012). In that way, evidence of validity can be established and findings can be
more readily generalised.
Thirdly, researchers must consider how general or situation specific the
measurement of teacher efficacy should be to best support the purpose of their
research. Bandura (1997) identified the lack of uniformity of teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs across different subjects. He pointed out that as a consequence of this,
5
“omnibus measures” (p. 243) resulted in compromise and reduced the predictive
power of findings. Nevertheless, the work of teachers is complex and success in
the classroom demands a wide range of abilities that exceed narrow understandings
of teaching a given subject. These include managing a safe and learning focussed
classroom; building and maintaining positive professional relationships with students,
parents, and colleagues; and, collecting and using assessment data summatively
and formatively to support and report on learning. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk
Hoy (2001) have highlighted the danger of overly specific enquiry: “I am confident
that I can teach simple subtraction to middle-income second graders in a rural setting
who do not have learning disabilities as long as my class is smaller than 22 students
and good manipulatives are available” (p. 795). Instruments that reflect broader
conceptions of the work of teachers allow researchers to measure global teacher
self-efficacy beliefs and thus increase the external validity and opportunities for
findings to be applied in practical contexts (Pajares, 1996; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Such multi-itemed instruments allow researchers to select
specific items germane to their enquiries (Bandura, 1997).
The fourth challenge for teacher self-efficacy researchers is to consider is how
understandings and antecedents of teacher self-efficacy beliefs may vary across
cultures. Indeed, Oettingen (1995) has argued that sources of efficacy beliefs
vary across cultures in their pervasiveness, forms, and significance. However,
culture as a concept is problematic and researchers considering culture are open
to allegations of stereotyping (Mason, 2007). Mason has argued that cultures
comprise diverse individuals who operate in a world, “characterised by increasing
degrees of plurality, multiculturalism, interdependence, hybridity and complexity
(p. 169). This notwithstanding, it is important to recognise that both the theoretical
roots and much of the emerging work on teacher self-efficacy has been developed
in a North American context and reflects the work and expectations of teachers in
American classrooms. Work remains to be done to consider the suitability of both
the foundational understanding of theory and validity and suitability of measures
when used in different settings.
A final challenge for researchers is to continue to expand the field of study by
applying new and creative methods of data gathering and analysis. Berg’s (2011)
review of the teacher self-efficacy literature reflected the dominance of quantitative
methods in researching teacher self-efficacy beliefs. This is disappointing as
almost two decades earlier, Pajares (1992) argued “additional measures such as
open-ended interviews, responses to dilemmas and vignettes, and observation of
behaviour must be included if richer and more accurate inferences are to be made”
(p. 327). Labone (2004) and Wheatley (2005) also have called for richer, more in
depth qualitative studies. In our recent study (Berg & Smith, 2014a), we looked to
mixed methods research. We used the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES;
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) in conjunction with a series of focus
groups. Thus, we were able to build upon the rich quantitative research base that
6
has evolved over the last 40 or more years by incorporating a qualitative phase
that allowed us to critically examine the survey results. Through subjecting the
data that emerged from the focus groups to thematic analysis, we obtained a richer,
more complex story and more in-depth results than the survey alone would have
provided. We suggest that a pragmatic approach, such as this, offers opportunities to
glean rich insights into teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in a range of contexts.
There are currently two very useful quantitative measures of teacher self-efficacy
beliefs. The first of these, the TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) has
been used to establish a significant body of research. Henson’s (2002) claim that
it had potential to make a rich contribution to teacher self-efficacy research has
since been well warranted in a wide-range of contexts, not least in the measurement
of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (Berg & Smith, 2014b; Cheung, 2008;
Klassen et al., 2009; Knobloch & Whittington, 2002). The TSES comprises 24
items. However, a potential disadvantage is that these items represent what may
be considered a narrow range of tasks, which principal components analyses have
consistently factored into three components: efficacy for student engagement;
efficacy for instructional strategies; and efficacy for classroom management.
Further, Roberts and Henson (2001) have cautioned that the eigenvalues belonging
to the third factor are borderline. Avanzi et al. (2013) have noted that the TSES
does not reflect the importance of teachers working with colleagues and parents,
and does not consider self-efficacy beliefs about adapting to the accelerated pace
of change evident in the education systems of many schools. This notwithstanding,
the narrower understanding of the work of teachers may mean that this scale is
more generic and has a wider utility, as is evident in its use with preservice teachers
without the need for amendment. Indeed, use of the instrument with preservice
teachers has generally resulted in a single dimension, suggesting that preservice
teachers may initially not distinguish among the different aspects of a teachers work
(Berg & Smith, 2014a; Duffin, French, & Patrick, 2012; Smith et al., 2007; Smith
et al., 2012).
The second measure, a more recent development, is the Norwegian Teacher
Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES) (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). The NTSES appears to
have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field. A notable strength is
its close alignment with Bandura’s (2006) recommendations for the construction of
self-efficacy scales (Avanzi et al., 2013). Additionally, it measures six dimensions
of teacher efficacy: instruction, adapting education to individual students’ needs,
motivating students, keeping discipline, cooperating with colleagues and parents,
coping with changes and challenges (see p. 614), thus offering a broader conception
of the range of tasks that teachers must engage in to ensure student success, as
compared to the TSES. This measure has been used successfully in Norway by its
authors and has been cross-validated by Avanzi et al. (2013) in Italy. However, as
yet it has not been adapted for use with preservice teachers or been used in research
in the Asia-Pacific region.
7
Significant Findings from Teacher Efficacy Research
Despite the conceptual and methodological uncertainty that has been evident in
the field of teacher efficacy beliefs, the importance of this construct is strongly
supported by an extensive list of positive outcomes for students, preservice
teachers, and practising teachers that have been found to be associated with strong
teacher efficacy beliefs (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Clearly,
correlation does not equal causation, yet the strength of the findings is such that
teacher self-efficacy beliefs are recognised as an important influence on teacher
performance (Avanzi et al., 2013; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Indeed, students
taught by teachers with high teacher self-efficacy beliefs have been found to have
higher levels of motivation (Midgeley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Woolfolk,
Rossof, & Hoy, 1990), self-efficacy (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988), and
achievement (Anderson et al., 1988; Armor et al., 1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986;
Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992).
In terms of in-service teachers, those with strong teacher self-efficacy beliefs
have been found to:
• be more committed (Coladarci, 1992; Evans & Trimble, 1986; Wolters &
Daugherty, 2007);
• be enthusiastic about teaching (Allinder, 1994; Guskey 1984; Hall, Burley,
Villeme, & Brockmeier, 1992; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010);
• be more likely to continue to work as a teacher (Burley, Hall, Villeme, &
Brockmeier, 1991; Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982);
• be tenacious, resilient, and more understanding of less successful students
(Ashton & Webb, 1986);
• be more likely to trial pioneering methods and innovative ideas (Allinder, 1994;
Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977; Cousins & Walker, 2000;
Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Guskey, 1988; Meijer & Foster, 1988; Smylie, 1988;
Wertheim & Leyser, 2002);
• use hands on teaching methods (Riggs & Enochs, 1990);
• show evidence of more effective organisation and planning (Allinder, 1994); and,
are more satisfied with their jobs (Klassen et al., 2009; Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2014).
In contrast to these, teachers reporting negative efficacy beliefs have been found to
report higher levels of emotional exhaustion, burnout, and stress (Bandura, 1997;
Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007, 2014); have negative expectations of students’ learning
outcomes (Bandura, 1997); identify more student behaviour problems (Caprara,
Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003); and report lower levels satisfaction with
their work (Caprara et al., 2003; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone 2006;
Klassen et al., 2009).
8
As we have identified, research into preservice teacher self-efficacy beliefs is

important as a consequence of the resilience of these beliefs once they are established
(Hoy & Spero, 2005). Bandura (1997) has conjectured that this is a result of the
stable nature of people’s self-schemata of personal efficacy. However, inconsistent
findings have hindered the interpretation of research into the teacher self-efficacy
beliefs of preservice teachers (Ganser, 1996; Henson, 2002; Parker, Guarino, & Wade
Smith, 2002; Smith, 2006). The conceptual and measurement issues (as discussed
in this chapter) that have challenged researchers may offer a partial explanation for
this. However, context variables may also offer a rationale for inconsistent findings.
Examples of apparently conflicting results are evident in the study of the locus of
school setting for preservice teachers’ school based experience in rural, suburban, or
urban environments (Ashton et al., 1983; Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008; Smith
et al., 2007); and in studies investigating the impact of school stage (Fortman &
Pontius, 2000; Lin & Gorrell, 1998).
Researchers have, for the most part, found that teacher self-efficacy increases
during preservice teacher preparation programmes (Gorrel & Hwang, 1995;
Gurvitch & Metzler, 2009; Housego, 1992; Hoy & Spero, 2005; Hoy & Woolfolk,
1990; Malmberg & Hagger, 2009; Wenner, 2001). Hoy and Spero (2005) noted
that measurement issues might explain the exceptions to this that was evident in
Romi and Daniel’s (1999) and Lin and Gorrell’s (2001) findings. An alternative
explanation is that the discrepancies could be accounted for by important differences
in the practicum component of these programmes (Gurvitch & Metzler, 2009).
Further findings of interest include the value of giving preservice teachers
practicum experiences early in their programmes, with opportunities for working
with small groups, tutoring, and observation (Clift & Brady, 2005; Smith, 2006);
and, the importance of the relationship between reduced support and lower levels
of self-efficacy beliefs (Burley, Hall, Villeme, & Brokmeier, 1991, Woolfolk Hoy,
2000). Teachers mentoring preservice teachers in classrooms have been identified
as potential powerful sources of self-efficacy information. Teachers provide the
opportunity for vicarious experience (when preservice teachers see role models
successfully achieving teaching goals) and verbal persuasion (by making and
sharing judgements about preservice teachers’ abilities) (Knoblauch & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2008). Research has shown that preservice teachers’ teacher self-efficacy
beliefs are negatively correlated with their concerns about teaching, suggesting
that efforts to bolster teacher efficacy beliefs may ameliorate concerns about
self (Berg & Smith, 2014a). This supports Fuller’s (1969) foundational research
about teachers’ concerns, which suggested that as teachers and preservice teachers
become less concerned about themselves, they focus their concerns on their
students and their learning. In fact, concerns about teaching have been shown to
be a related but distinct concept from teacher self-efficacy (Berg & Smith, 2014a;
Smith et al., 2009).
9
TEACHER EFFICACY RESEARCH IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION
An emerging, but significant body of research is evident that explores teacher self-
efficacy beliefs in the Asia-Pacific region, including studies involving preservice
and in-service teachers from Australia (Garvis & Pendergast, 2011; Ho & Hau,
2004; Pendergast, Garvis, & Keogh, 2011), China (Cheung, 2006, 2008; Kennedy &
Hui, 2006; Ho & Hau, 2004; Tsui & Kennedy, 2009), Korea (Klassen et al., 2009),
Malaysia (Berg & Smith, 2014a), New Zealand, (Anthony, Haigh, & Kane, 2011;
Berg & Smith, 2014a; Haigh & Anthony, 2012; Smith et al., 2009; Smith et al.,
2012); Singapore (Klassen et al., 2009); and, Taiwan (Lin, Gorrell, & Taylor, 2002).
Findings from the limited number of studies that seek to measure the teacher
efficacy beliefs of teachers and preservice teachers across contexts are of interest,
as they offer the opportunity to consider how the construct is realised across the
Asia-Pacific region. For example, Ho and Hau’s (2004) study of Chinese and
Australian teachers found the construct of teacher efficacy to be cross-culturally
valid, though they noted important cultural differences. The Australian teachers who
participated in their study reported stronger efficacy beliefs in all areas, as compared
to their Chinese peers. Ho and Hau suggested that this was a consequence of the
self-effacing behaviour expected in collectivist cultures and greater expectations
of teachers in Chinese society. Similarly, in their comparative study of US and
Taiwanese preservice teachers, Lin, Gorrell, and Taylor (2002) found that the
Taiwanese preservice teachers prioritised strong relationships with parents and had
an increased awareness of the difficulty of teaching large classes. Further, Cheung
(2008), using Kennedy and Hui’s (2006) Chinese version of Tschannen-Moran and
Woolfolk Hoy’s (2001) Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) to compare the
beliefs of teachers in Hong Kong and Shanghai, posited that “a cultural preference
for being modest” (p. 119) offered an explanation for the lower efficacy scores of the
Hong Kong teachers in comparison to their peers in Shanghai. This is an important
reminder of the cultural differences that may be evident within nations and broad
cultural groups. Furthermore, these studies highlight differing cultural understanding
of the role of the teacher, and how culture may cloud the direct comparisons of
answers given to the same question by those from different cultures.
A MIXED METHODS MODEL
Here, we describe in more detail the design and findings from our mixed-methods
study (Berg & Smith, 2014a) with the hope that they may be useful to others seeking
to conduct similar research. We suggest that our findings have shown that teacher
self-efficacy is a useful construct for exploring the beliefs of preservice teachers
from two distinct Asia-Pacific nations: Malaysia and New Zealand (The study also
included preservice teachers from England) and that a mixed methods approach
to comparative teacher self-efficacy research allows for empirical findings to be
10
interpreted in a rich and nuanced way, thus avoiding overly simplified or superficial
explanations of difference.
In the first phase of the research, we used the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale
(long form) (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) to gather quantitative
data. A principal components analysis of these data yielded a single factor solution
for each national group. The coefficient alpha reliabilities for the TSES for the
New Zealand, Malaysian, and English samples were .95, .96 and .87 respectively.
Using scale scores based on the one factor solutions, a univariate analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was used to examine differences between the samples, which
resulted in a significant difference among groups, F (2,251) = 5.534, p = .004,
partial eta squared = 0.042. Following this, we re-examined the mean differences
using Least Significant Difference (LSD) post hoc procedures at alpha = .05. These
revealed that the mean for the Malaysian sample (M = 143.41, SD = 25.96) was
significantly lower than that of the New Zealand sample (M = 156.23, SD = 22.63)
and the English sample (M = 156.80, SD = 26.90). With a mean score of .50 standard
deviations below the other cohorts, it appeared that the Malaysian preservice
teachers believed that they were less likely to function well as a teacher as compared
to their New Zealand and English peers.
The mixed-method design allowed us the opportunity to explore these findings in
focus groups. The findings from these were fascinating and alerted us to important
differences among the three cohorts. Most notably, the Malaysian preservice
teachers reported important contextual factors, including less time spent on
practicum experiences in the first year of their study. They also reported class sizes
that were twice that of New Zealand classes, and an expectation that they would
engage in subject-based primary teaching. With this in mind, it was hardly surprising
that participants would indicate lower scores on TSES items such as, “How much
can you motivate students who show low interest in their school work?” With less
time spent in larger classes, the task was clearly more challenging than for their
New Zealand peers.
However, the rich discussion from the focus groups allowed us the opportunity
to explore cultural differences both across and within the cohorts. We contend that
researcher should be mindful of such important differences in the national cultures
that make up the Asia-Pacific region. We argue that different understandings of
the role of the teacher must be considered (Berg & Smith, 2014a; Cheung, 2006;
Ho & Hau, 2004; Lin, Gorrell, & Taylor, 2002; Tsui & Kennedy, 2009). Indeed,
going back to 1980, Hofstede contended that teachers in high power difference
societies, such as Malaysia, are likely to take greater responsibility for the success
or failure of their students than teachers in low power difference societies, such as
New Zealand. A further cultural difference that must be considered when comparing
reported self-efficacy beliefs is a society’s cultural norms. For example, the self-
effacing tendencies often expected in collectivist cultures (Ho & Hau, 2004) may not
11
align with extolling one’s self-efficacy as a teaching education student. Even within
the Malaysian cohort, differences were the norm among the backgrounds – and
beliefs – of the students. We recommend Oettingen (1995) for a useful discussion of
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and Bandura’s sources of self-efficacy, to consider
how sources of self-efficacy belief may vary across the cultures evident in our study.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have argued that teacher efficacy research offers investigators
rich opportunities to conduct research that might be considered “good” both in its
capacity to support the development of educational outcomes that enhance the well-
being of students, teachers and preservice teachers, and in its sound method and
conceptual framework. However, we have also described important limitations that
must be recognised: a lack of conceptual clarity, measurement issues, and the need to
understand how cultural and contextual variables may affect teacher efficacy beliefs.
Our research (see Berg & Smith, 2014 for a more detailed description) proved to
be a useful reminder of the challenge of conducting comparative studies, and the
difficulty in attributing difference to culture and/or context. This notwithstanding, we
have been able to use our findings to argue that contextual and cultural factors must
be considered as we, as teacher educators, seek to support the development of new
teachers with robust self-efficacy beliefs. We believe that using a mixed-methods
design greatly increased the depth of information gathered from the participants
and more importantly, the interpretation of their responses. We encourage other
researchers to make use of mixed-methods to provide a more comprehensive
account of reported teacher self-efficacy beliefs. In that way, we can provide more
nuanced explanations of difference and make better use of results obtained. We hope
that our research may be considered to be “good” because it has potential to, in a
modest way, encourage a more sophisticated understanding of preservice teachers
from different contexts, and their well-being. Nevertheless, we acknowledge this
work is still in its infancy. Consequently, we encourage researchers across the region
to engage with the powerful idea of teacher efficacy in their own contexts and
advance the platform of scholarship presented in this volume.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge Shelley Morgan for editorial assistance on this
chapter.
REFERENCES
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special
education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the
Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 17(2), 86–95.
12
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking
skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2),
148–165.
Anthony, G., Haigh, M., & Kane, R. (2011). The power of the ‘object’ to influence teacher induction
outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 861–870.
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, O., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., … Zellman, G. (1976).
Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student
achievement. New York, NY: Longman.
Ashton, P. T., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L., & McAuliffe, M. (1982, April). Measurement problems in the study
of teachers’ sense of efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York, NY.
Ashton, P. T., Webb, R. B., & Doda, N. (1983). A study of teachers’ sense of efficacy (Final Report,
National Institute of Education Contract No. 400-79-0075). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 231 834)
Avanzi, L., Miglioretti, M., Velasco, V., Balducci, C., Vecchio, L., Fraccaroli, F., & Skaalvik, E. M.
(2013). Cross-validation of the Norwegian Teacher’s Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES). Teaching and
Teacher Education, 31, 69–78.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura
(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1–45). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Berg, D. A. G. (2011). An international comparative study of the teacher efficacy beliefs and concerns
about teaching of preservice teachers in Malaysia, New Zealand and England (EdD). University of
Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, L. F. (2014a). Pre-service teachers’ efficacy beliefs and concerns in Malaysia,
England and New Zealand. Issues in Educational Research, 24(1), 21–40.
Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, L. F. (2014b). Assessment of teacher self-efficacy beliefs and
concerns about teaching of graduating preservice teachers in New Zealand. Proceedings of the
European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) SIG1 Conference:
Assessment and Evaluation, Madrid, Spain. Retrieved from http://earli-sig1-conference.org/view-
program.php
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting
educational change: Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND.
Burley, W. W., Hall, B. W., Villeme, M. G., & Brockmeier, L. L. (1991, April). A path analysis of the
mediating role of efficacy in first year teachers’ experiences, reactions, and plans. Paper presented at
the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants
of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 821–832. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.95.4.821
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of
teachers’ job satisfaction and students’ academic performance: A study at school level. Journal of
School Psychology, 44, 473–490.
Cheung, H. Y. (2006). The measurement of teacher efficacy: Hong Kong primary in-service teachers.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 32, 435–451.
Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Teacher efficacy: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghai Primary
School Teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 103–121.
13
Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith
& K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and
teacher education (pp. 309–424). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of experimental
education, 60(4), 323–337.
Cousins, J. B., & Walker, C. A. (2000). Predictors of educators’ valuing of systematic inquiry in schools.
Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, (special issue), 25–53.
de la Torre Cruz, M. J., & Casanova Arias, P. F. (2007). Comparative analysis of expectancies of efficacy
in in-service and prospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 641–652.
Duffin, L. C., French, B. F., & Patrick, H. (2012). The teachers’ sense of efficacy scale: Confirming
the factor structure with beginning pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6),
827–834.
Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and commitment to
teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 81–85.
Fortman, C. K., & Pontius, R. (2000, October). Self-efficacy during student teaching. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational
Research Journal, 207–226.
Ganser, T. (1996). What do mentors say about mentoring? Journal of Staff Development, 17(3), 36–39.
Garvis, S., & Pendergast, D. (2011). An investigation of early childhood teacher self-efficacy beliefs in
the teaching of arts education. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 12(9), 1–15.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward
the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451–458.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
Glickman, C., & Tamashiro, R. (1982). A comparison of first year, fifth year, and former teachers on
efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in Schools, 19, 558–562.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and
impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507.
Gorrell, J., & Hwang, Y. S. (1995). A study of self-efficacy beliefs among pre-service teachers in Korea.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28, 101–105.
Gurvitch, R., & Metzler, M. W. (2009). The effects of laboratory-based and field-based practicum
experience on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 437–443.
Guskey, T. R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective
characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245–259.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self concept, and attitudes towards the implementation of
instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69.
Haigh, M. A., & Anthony, G. J. (2012). Induction and efficacy: A case study of New Zealand newly
qualified secondary science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(6), 651–671.
Hall, B., Burley, W., Villeme, M., & Brockmeier, L. (1992, April). An attempt to explicate teacher efficacy
beliefs among first year teachers. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco, CA.
Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement
dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 137–150.
Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the teacher
efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(3), 404.
Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: Similarities and differences in
personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants. Teaching and
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverley
Hills, CA: Sage.
Hostetler, K. (2005). What is “good” education research? Educational Researcher, 34(6), 16–21.
Housego, B. E. J. (1992). Monitoring student teachers. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38(1),
49–64.
14
Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching:
A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343–356.
Kennedy, K. J., & Hui, S. K. F. (2006). Developing teacher leaders to facilitate Hong Kong’s curriculum
reforms: Self-efficacy as a measure of teacher growth. International Journal of Educational Reform,
15(1), 137–151.
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y., & Georgiou, T. (2009).
Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 34, 67–76.
Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). Maybe I can teach those kids: The influence of contextual
factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 166–179.
Knobloch, N. A., & Whittington, M. S. (2002). Novice teachers’ perceptions of support, teacher
preparation quality, and student teaching experience related to teacher efficacy. Journal of Vocational
Education Research, 27, 331–341.
Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: Maturing the concept through research in alternative paradigms.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 341–359.
Lin, H., & Gorrell, J. (1998). Pre-service teachers’ efficacy beliefs in Taiwan. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 32(1), 17–25.
Lin, H., Gorrell, J., & Taylor, J. (2002). Influence of culture and education on U.S. and Taiwan pre-service
teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Journal of Education Research, 96(2), 37–46.
Lin, H. L., & Gorrell, J. (2001). Exploratory analysis of pre-service teacher efficacy in Taiwan. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 17, 623–635.
Malmberg, L. E., & Hagger, H. (2009). Changes in student teachers. British Journal of Educational
Mason, M. (2007). Comparing cultures. In M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative
education research (pp. 165–196). Hong Kong: Springer.
Meijer, C. J. W., & Foste, S. F. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral change. Journal of
Special Education, 22(3), 378–385.
Midgeley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and
task-related beliefs in mathematics during transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational
Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992, April). Teacher efficacy, power, and school climate: A desegregating
district’s experience. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco, CA.
Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross cultural perspectives on self-efficacy In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in
changing societies (pp. 149–176). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4),
543–578.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review
of Educational Research, 62(3), 307.
Parker, M. J., Guarino, A. J., & Wade Smith, R. (2002). Self-efficacy in a sample of education majors and
teachers. Psychological Reports, 91, 935–939.
Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011). Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacy beliefs: An
insight into the making of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(12), 45–58.
Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching
efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625–638.
Roberts, J. K., & Henson, R. K. (2001, April). A confirmatory factor analysis of a new measure
of teacher efficacy: Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale. A paper presented at the meeting of the
American Educational research Association, Seattle, WA.
Romi, S., & Daniel, E. (1999, July). Integration of students with special needs in the regular classroom:
Attitudes of preservice teachers in Israeli colleges. Paper presented at the Third International
Conference on Teacher Education. “Almost 2000: Crisis and changes in the preparation and
development of teachers.” Beit Berl College, Israel.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of student coaching on student achievement.
Canadian Journal of Education, 71, 51–65.
15
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with
strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(3), 611.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059–1069.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations
with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1),
68–77.
Smith, L. F. (2006, December). Comparing teaching efficacy in practicum students in New Zealand
and the United States. Paper presented at the conference of the New Zealand Association for
Research in Education in Rotorua, New Zealand.
Smith, L. F., Klein, P., & Mobley, M. M. (2007). Multiple perspectives of teacher efficacy. The Learning
Consultant Journal, 22, 31–56.
Smith, L. F., Corkery, G., & Buckley, J. (2009, April). The evolution of preservice teachers’ concerns
about teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Smith, L. F., Corkery, G., Buckley, J., & Calvert, A. (2012). Changes in secondary school preservice
teachers’ concerns about teaching in New Zealand. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 60–74.
doi:10.1177/0022487112449019.
Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological
antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1–30.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of
novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
Tsui, K. T., & Kennedy, K. J. (2009). Evaluating the Chinese Version of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy
Scale (C-TSE): Translation adequacy and factor structure. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,
18(2), 245.
Wenner, G. (2001). Science and mathematics efficacy beliefs held by practicing and prospective
teachers: A 5-year perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(2), 181–187.
Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiated instruction
of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 54–63.
Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 18(1), 5–22.
Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21(7), 747–766.
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy:
Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(1), 181–193.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Educational psychology and teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 35,
257–270.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81.
Woolfolk, A. E., Rossof, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about
managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137–148.
16
David A. G. Berg
University of Otago
College of Education
New Zealand
Lisa F. Smith
University of Otago
New Zealand
17
WAN HAR CHONG AND MING YING ONG
2. The Mediating Role of Collective Teacher

Efficacy Beliefs in the Relationship
between School Climate and Teacher
Self-efficacy across Mainstream and
Special Needs Schools
ABSTRACT
This study explores how prior student achievement, through school types, predicts
teacher self- and collective efficacy and perceived academic climate of 183 teachers
from mainstream primary and secondary schools and special needs schools in
Singapore. Teachers differed in their perception of self- and collective efficacy
to promote organizational changes and student achievement, and of the school
climate of the school. Mediational analyses indicated that teacher collective efficacy
mediates the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and seven aspects of school
climate except for work pressure. These findings were discussed with respect to the
socio-cognitive perspective.
INTRODUCTION
Efficacy research shows that academic achievement is not influenced by student

efficacy alone but that teachers’ efficacy also has the capability to make equally
substantial contribution to students’ motivation, achievement, and their sense of
efficacy. Situated in Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory, these beliefs are about
teachers’ appraisal of their capabilities to influence student outcomes (Wheatley,
2005). A growing body of research has demonstrated its functionality in contributing
to teachers’ persistence, resilience and efforts in teaching-related activities and
experimenting with new pedagogies, and various aspects of professional well-being
(Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003) and the reciprocal relationship
between initial teacher instructional quality and their later self-efficacy (Holzberger,
Philipp, & Kunter, 2013; Rubie-Davies, Flint, & McDonald, 2012). We undertake
this study to extend our earlier work in understanding the role of various school
context variables in fostering teacher efficacy beliefs in Singapore schools. In an
earlier study, we examined if the types of school teachers work in provide different
contextual influences to shape their perceptions of their teaching efficacy. We
found school types, as a proxy measure of student prior achievement, to predict
both collective teacher efficacy and perceived academic climate among middle
W. H. CHONG & M. Y. ONG
school teachers but this differed for those teaching in high and regular track schools
(Chong, Klassen, Huan, Wong, & Kates, 2010). We explored this issue in an Asian
context where educational achievement and expectations for student performance
are particularly demanding as compared to Western educational contexts (Chong,
Chye, Huan, & Ang, 2014). These high demands and expectations have important
implications for teacher beliefs about their practice to bring about desired
student learning outcomes. This chapter describes and discusses our findings in other
types of schools and reiterates the role of school contextual influence in shaping
teacher efficacy.
TEACHER COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
Teaching is an interpersonal activity typically performed in a group context, and as

such, teacher self-efficacy can be influenced and shaped by a number of contextual
variables in the school (e.g., Rubie-Davies, Flint, & McDonald, 2012; Yeo, Ang,
Chong, Huan, & Quek, 2008). In particular, teacher self-efficacy has been known
to be influenced by teachers’ collective beliefs in a school or faculty that they can
work together productively and effectively to influence student outcomes (Bandura,
2000). High perceived teacher collective efficacy enhances a group’s capability to
enlist administrative support, fosters creative problem solving, influences decision-
making and the individual capability for classroom management, which in turn relates
to teacher commitment (Goddard, 2001). It also makes an independent contribution to
specific learning tasks (Goddard, Logerfo, & Hoy, 2004). Specifically, research shows
that teachers’ sense of efficacy varies with the level of teacher collective efficacy, which
is able to predict variation in the former above and beyond the variance explained by
other school contextual variables such as socioeconomic status and school achievement
(Goddard & Goddard, 2001). More importantly, teacher collective efficacy has also
been shown to demonstrate indirect effects. Indeed, Chong et al. (2010) found teacher
collective efficacy to partially mediate the relationship between teacher self-efficacy
and academic climate in a sample of Singapore middle schools.
SCHOOL CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCE AND TEACHER

SELF- AND COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
To the knowledge of the authors, research examining the relationships of both

teacher self- and collective efficacy with school contextual variables remains scant.
With respect to teacher self-efficacy, Woolfolk-Hoy and Spero (2005) reported
that student SES in specific classes relates to teacher perception of support.
Teachers assigned to higher SES classrooms felt more supported and found their
teaching assignment less difficult than teachers assigned to lower SES classrooms.
However, the link between collective teacher efficacy and SES has not been
clearly established. Instead, what Tschannen-Moran and Barr (2004) had found
was that teachers in middle schools serving populations with low SES can have
20
The Mediating Role of Collective Teacher Efficacy Beliefs
either high or low collective efficacy beliefs. These beliefs varied with the school’s
academic climate. Other school processes such as shared school goals, school-wide
decision-making, fit of plans with school needs, and empowering principal
leadership have been shown to exert strong influences on these collective beliefs
(Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Gray, 2004).
A line of research that has begun to look at the relationship between teacher self-
and collective efficacy is in their respective relationship with student achievement.
For teacher self-efficacy, student academic performance has often been measured
through teachers’ appraisal of their capability in engaging students effectively
through instruction, managing disruptive student behaviours, and discipline
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Yeo et al., 2008). On the other hand,
numerous studies on teacher collective efficacy linked student achievement through
how it was fostered by sources of efficacy beliefs – mastery experiences, vicarious
reinforcement, verbal persuasion, and physiological states (Chong & Kong, 2012).
Consistent with socio-cognitive theory, mastery experiences, through student prior
achievement and their subsequent performance, have been repeatedly identified as
the major source in fostering collective teacher efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Research
indicated that teachers reported they were more efficacious when teaching high-
track students, particularly for those teaching mathematics and science, but least so
with vocational- and general-track classes (Raudenbush, Rowan, & Cheong, 1992).
In addition, those who indicated higher levels of perceived efficacy reported higher
levels of control over instructional conditions and higher levels of staff collaboration.
These differences in efficacy levels disappeared when perceived student engagement
was taken into account. That is, when students are engaged in learning, teachers
are naturally more able to manage and control class instruction, thereby reinforcing
confidence in one’s ability to teach. In low-track schools, student engagement has
been known to pose particular challenges to teachers, which can undermine their self-
efficacy (Chong et al., 2010; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Yeo et al., 2008).
Many current studies restricted the measure of student achievement to specific
subjects or as an outcome measure (Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002). That is,
teachers’ efficacy was perceived as either being shaped through their provision of
mastery experiences to the students or that it fostered specific subject achievement
(e.g., Ross et al., 2004). A major shortcoming with this is that it is usually based on
a mandated assessment scores from a single grade and subject (Goddard, 2001).
Specifically, the influence of teacher efficacy at the collective level, and not that
of the subject faculty, was inferred from one such subject-specific measure. This
may not reflect the predictor power of teacher collective efficacy as a construct
in organizing student change at the school level. To examine the role of prior
achievement in teacher efficacy beliefs, Chong, Klassen, Huan, Wong and Kates
(2010) examined schools for students with different academic tracks in Singapore.
We found that teachers assigned to high-track and regular middle schools differed in
their perception of self- and collective efficacy to promote organizational changes
and student achievement, and of the academic climate of the school. Further analyses
21
revealed that collective teacher efficacy partially mediated the relationship between
teacher self-efficacy and academic climate.
SCHOOL CLIMATE FACTORS
Socio-economic status, family characteristics, and urbanity have been known to

influence student achievement (Hoy et al., 2002; Rubie-Davies, Flint, & McDonald,
2012). While these school characteristics are useful in explaining school variations
in teacher efficacy, they are difficult to alter to those seeking to enhance student
performance or teacher efficacy beliefs. Emerging evidence has suggested that school
climate may be more amenable to change. School climate refers to the quality and
character of school life and reflects a subjective view of the learning environment at the
school level (Cohen, 2006). Essentially, school climate features that create a cohesive
school culture, one that is orderly, with a strong press for academic achievement,
where administrators are responsive to teachers’ concerns and encourage them to try
new ideas, and where teachers encourage one another in their attempts to address
student needs are important (Hoy & Sabo, 1998). Bandura (1997) posited that an
open and healthy school climate features may help to reverse an unhealthy low sense
of collective efficacy beliefs circulating among a staff of teachers.
To date, a small number of empirical studies indicated some school
organizational factors such as school mission, cooperative working relationship,
and collegiality between teachers (Fuller, Wood, Rapoport, & Dornbusch, 1982),
institutional integrity, principal influence, consideration, resource support, morale
and academic emphasis (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993) to be linked to teacher efficacy
beliefs. Correspondingly, certain school climate features have been shown to
diminish teachers’ perceived efficacy. Ashton and Webb (1986) identified excessive
role demands, poor morale, inadequate salaries, low status and lack of recognition
to contribute to lower teacher efficacy beliefs, which in turn may attribute poor
student academic performance to having lower intellectual abilities or poor home
environment instead of the quality of teaching. Lee, Dedrick and Smith (1991)
similarly found school organizational factors of principal leadership, communal
school organization, an orderly environment, and average levels of control granted to
teachers to influence their teaching efficacy. Additionally, they found teachers from
Catholic schools in the study to perceive higher levels of efficacy than colleagues in
public schools. Relatedly, Tsouloupas, Carson and Matthews (2014) have similarly
identified school cultural factors of student SES, principal and collegial support and
job autonomy aside from teacher characteristics to contribute most significantly
to the prediction of teacher efficacy in managing student misbehaviour. These
results from the small number of existing studies highlighted that organizational
differences and school types do indeed have differential relationships with teachers’
self-beliefs in mainstream schools. There appears to be no prevailing evidence to
suggest that these findings generalize to atypical school populations such as those
serving students with special needs.
22
STUDY RATIONALE
Although conceptually distinctive, collective and individual measures of teacher

efficacy should be seen as interdependent since such beliefs are socially situated,
where embedded group dynamics can inevitably influence individual appraisal
of efficacy (Bandura, 2000). Indeed, Goddard and Goddard (2001) have found
teacher self-efficacy to vary among elementary schools and that teacher collective
efficacy explains these significant school-level differences. In schools that serve
atypical student populations where the learning environment is more complex and
expectations for student learning outcomes and instructional practices are different
from mainstream school environments, it is unclear how these teacher variables relate.
Furthermore, relationships between self- and collective efficacy may operate
differently in different cultural contexts even for mainstream schools. In Asian
societies, achievement goals are strongly emphasized by parents, teachers and school,
and the need to succeed educationally and schooling is considered to be of primary
importance. High expectations and demands levied on children are also pressed upon
schools and teachers to deliver quality student outcomes (Ang & Huan, 2006; Luo,
Tamis-LeMonda, & Song, 2013). We reason that in these collectivistic societies like
many in East Asia where academic achievement, interdependence and cooperation
are greatly emphasized, teacher self-efficacy, with a positive academic climate, may
be insufficient to bring about sustained student change. Instead, personal efficacy of
teachers may be bolstered by a shared sense of collective efficacy (Caprara et al.,
2003). In our earlier study on academically high- and regular- track schools, we have
shown that collective teacher efficacy does indeed partially mediate the relationship
between teacher self-efficacy and academic climate (Chong et al., 2010). This study
attempts to validate this finding by exploring the extent to which other school types
are related to and predict teacher efficacy variables and school climate in an Asian
setting. Singapore provides an exemplary setting to investigate the interplay of these
relationships since students attending mainstream schools are streamed to different
academic tracks according to their prior achievement in elementary schools but
students with moderate to severe learning challenges attend special needs schools.
SINGAPORE EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT
There is an average of ten years of formal general education which comprised of

six years of compulsory primary education and four years or more at the secondary
level. Elementary or primary education commences in January of the year in which
a child reaches the age of seven. Mainstream schools accept children with mild
learning difficulties (such as dyslexia, Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder). The government provides a range of educational support and
facilities to enable these students to integrate into mainstream education. These include
the provision of resource educational personnel such as Allied Educator (Learning
and Behavioural Support) and teachers with training in special needs. Teachers in
23
mainstream schools are recruited by the Ministry of Education and trained by the
National Institute of Education (NIE), the national teacher training institute in the
country, before their deployment. Children with special educational needs who are
unable to attend mainstream schools because of moderate to severe disabilities would
apply to attend special schools. The education of children with disabilities remains very
much with special education (SPED) schools run by Voluntary Welfare Organizations
(VWOs) but which receive substantial funding from the Ministry of Education (MOE)
and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS). These SPED schools run different
programs catering to distinct disability groups of children (http://www.moe.gov.sg/
education/special-education/retrieved on 28.5.2015). Teachers in SPED schools are
recruited by the respective schools and are typically untrained teachers. They would
however have opportunities to obtain special education training through attendance
in a Diploma in Special Education program offered at NIE (Ministry of Education
Singapore, n.d.). Other courses are also available at the training institute to strengthen
these teachers’ capacity in special education.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 183 teachers (29% males and 71% females) from five schools in
Singapore. One hundred and three of them were teaching in 3 mainstream primary
and secondary schools and eighty were from 4 Special Needs Schools (SPED). To
allow for better comparison between school types, mainstream schools with students
having special needs and of primary and secondary levels were targeted. These are
typical neighbourhood schools. Teachers were asked to indicate their age range and
this fell between 20s and 50s, with 39% in the 30s. The mean number of years in the
teaching service was 10.58 (SD = 10.73), with 6.24 years (SD = 7.13). Majority of
the teachers were of Chinese origin with the remaining minority of Malay, Indian,
and Eurasian origin. Independent t-tests showed pre-existing differences between
special education teachers and mainstream teachers in terms of age, gender, race,
teaching experience and qualification. Approval for data collection was obtained
from Ministry of Education, Singapore.
Measures
Demographic information about years of teaching service, gender, ethnicity, and

age were obtained. Prior achievement measure was based on the type of schools the
students were attending: Mainstream or SPED school.
Teacher self-efficacy scale (TSE; Tschannen-Moran et al., 2001) consists of 24
items, with 8 items in each of three hypothesized factors:
• teacher efficacy for instructional strategies (IS),
• classroom management (CM), and
24
• student engagement (SE).

Examples of the items consist of the following:
• How much can you do to craft good questions for students? (IS);
• How much can you do to control disruptive behaviour in the classroom? (CM);
and
• How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school
work? (SE).
Participants responded to using 9-point response scale, anchored by 1 Nothing
to 9 A great deal. Higher scores indicated higher levels of perceived teacher self-
efficacy. Cronbach alphas obtained were: .91 for IS, .87 for SE, .90 for CM, and .92
or the combined scale.
School-level environment questionnaire (modified SLEQ; Rentoul & Fraser, 1983).
Teachers’ perception of School Climate was measured with a modified version of the
SLEQ with 54 items in 9 scales: Student Support, Affiliation, Mission Consensus,
Empowerment, External Control, Resource Adequacy, Work Pressure, Supportive
Leadership, and Collective Teacher Efficacy. Participants rated their responses on
a 5-point Likert scale ranging from SD (strongly disagree) to SA (strongly agree).
Cronbach’s alphas for the various subscales are: Student Support (0.78), Affiliation
(0.84), Mission Consensus (.88), Empowerment (0.67), Resource Adequacy (.70), Work
Pressure (0.75), Supportive Leadership (0.86) and Perceived Collective Efficacy (0.75).
Procedure
Official permission was obtained with the school principal and the questionnaires
were administered during a weekly staff meeting. The teachers were assured that
their responses were strictly anonymous and confidential and that there was no
right or wrong answers to the questions. They had the option not to participate. The
questionnaires were administered in English and no translation was needed.
RESULTS
Descriptive Analysis
The data were analysed using SPSS version 21. Specifically, school climate
was significantly correlated with both measures of teacher collective (M = 3.37,
SD = .38; r = .59, p < .000) and self-efficacy (M = 6.52, SD = .99; r = .24, p < .001)
in the expected directions. That is, higher teacher perception of collective and self-
efficacy correspond with higher scores on school climate. Finer analyses with each
school climate component showed teacher collective efficacy to be significantly
correlated with Student Support, Mission Consensus, Affiliation, Resource
Adequacy Empowerment and Supportive Leadership in the positive direction with
r ranging from .42 to .65. Work Pressure (r = –.16, p < .05) and External Control
25
(r = –.32, p < .000) were significantly but negatively correlated with Teacher Collective
Efficacy. Teacher self-efficacy was shown to be significantly correlated with Student
Support, Mission Consensus, Affiliation, Empowerment, Resource Adequacy and
Supportive Leadership in the positive direction with r ranging from .18 to .27. It was
also found to be negatively correlated with External Control (r = –.24, p < .001) but
not with Work Pressure (r = –.03, p = ns). Only the association with External Control
was significant. Expectantly, Teacher Collective Efficacy was significantly correlated
Teacher Self-efficacy (r = .25, p < .001) in the positive direction (Table 1).
Table 1. Correlations of teacher self-efficacy, teacher collective

efficacy and school climate factors (n = 183)
a b c d e f g h i j k
a 1
b 0.25± 1
c 0.24± 0.59± 1
d 0.21± 0.43± 0.57± 1
e 0.18± 0.43± 0.65± 0.39± 1
f 0.19± 0.65± 0.79± 0.38± 0.39± 1
g 0.19* 0.42± 0.66± 0.41± 0.32± 0.51± 1
h 0.27± 0.45± 0.68± 0.39± 0.27± 0.56± 0.48± 1
i 0.03 –0.16* 0.12 –0.13 0.1 –0.08 –0.21± –0.13 1
j –0.24± –0.32± –0.11 –0.48± –0.17* –0.16* –0.38± –0.19± 0.16* 1
k 0.18* 0.56± 0.80± 0.41± 0.50± 0.69± 0.64± 0.46± –0.20± –0.20± 1
Note: *p < .05, ±p < .001

a Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE)
b Teacher Collective Efficacy (TCE)
c School Climate Total (SC T)
d School Climate Student Support (SC SS)
e School Climate Affiliation (SC Aff)
f School Climate Mission Consensus (SC MC)
g School Climate Empowerment (SC Em)
h School Climate Resource Adequacy (SC RA)
i School Climate Work Pressure (SC WP)
j School Climate External Control (SC EC)
k School Climate Supportive Leadership (SC SL)
Independent t-tests conducted on all the variables revealed significant differences

between school types. Teachers from mainstream schools as compared to their
colleagues in special needs schools reported significantly higher scores on Collective
Teacher Efficacy and School Climate components of Affiliation, Mission Consensus,
Empowerment, Resource Adequacy and Supportive Leadership (Table 2).
26
Table 2. Means, standard deviations and range of variables (n = 183)
Variables Means (SD) Minimum Maximum
Teacher Self-Efficacy 6.52 (0.99) 2.21 8.67

Mainstream Schools 6.56 (0.94) 3.92 8.50
SPED Schools 6.46 (1.05) 2.21 8.67
Teacher Collective Efficacy 3.38 (0.38) 2.00 4.29
SPED Schools 3.27 (0.44) 2.00 4.29
School Climate Total 3.38 (0.28) 1.86 4.01
SPED Schools 3.30 (0.33) 1.86 4.01
Student Support 3.35 (0.55) 1.43 4.71
SPED Schools 3.31 (0.59) 1.43 4.71
Affiliation 4.00 (0.46) 2.42 5.00
SPED Schools 3.87 (0.52) 2.43 5.00
Mission Consensus 3.63 (0.52) 1.00 4.86
SPED Schools 3.52 (0.62) 1.00 4.86
Empowerment 2.91 (0.51) 1.29 4.14
SPED Schools 2.80 (0.54) 1.29 4.14
External Control 2.84 (0.55) 1.20 4.80
SPED Schools 2.89 (0.57) 1.20 4.80
Resource Adequacy 3.33 (0.53) 1.57 4.57
SPED Schools 3.16 (0.61) 1.57 4.57
Work Pressure 3.56 (0.55) 2.00 5.00
SPED Schools 3.53 (0.59) 2.00 5.00
Supportive Leadership 3.48 (0.66) 1.00 5.00
SPED Schools 3.36 (0.74) 1.00 5.00
27
Interestingly, the teachers from different school types did not differ significantly in
their perceived teacher self-efficacy.
The data was further analysed according to Preacher and Hayes’s (2008)
recommendations for assessing the presence of mediator effects and with the use
of bootstrapping to test for the significance of indirect effects of mediator(s). Eight
equations were tested using the macros developed by Preacher and Hayes. The
eight components of School Climate were entered separately as DVs. Simultaneous
analyses were performed for Collective Teacher Efficacy as mediator. Teacher self-
efficacy was entered as IV. The bootstrap estimates were based on 5000 bootstrap
samples.
Collective Teacher Efficacy fully mediated the effects of five School Climate
factors except for Work Pressure. A 95% bias corrected bootstrapped CI suggested
that the difference between the total and direct effects of TSE (teacher self efficacy)
on the seven School Climate components were different from zero. The directions
of the a and b paths of the analyses are consistent with the interpretation that higher
Teacher self-efficacy is associated with higher Collective Teacher Efficacy, which
in turn is associated with higher perceived Student Support, Affiliation, Mission
Consensus, Empowerment, Resource Adequacy, External Control and Supportive
Leadership (Table 3).
Table 3. Testing for teacher collective efficacy as a mediator in the relationship

between teacher self-efficacy and school climate factors (n = 183)
Path Coefficients Bootstrapping (ab path)

BC 95% CI
a b c c’ PE Boot Bias SE L U
SC T
TCE 0.10 0.41 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.07
TE 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.07
TC SS
TCE 0.10 0.54 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.10
TE 0.16 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.02
SC Aff
TCE 0.10 0.49 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.10
TE 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.02
SC MC
TCE 0.10 0.85 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.15
TE 0.11 0.02 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.03
SC Em
TCE 0.10 0.52 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.10
TE 0.95 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.02
(Continued)
28
Table 3. (Continued)
Path Coefficients Bootstrapping (ab path)
BC 95% CI
a b c c’ PE Boot Bias SE L U
SC RA
TCE 0.10 0.60 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.12
TE 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.02
SC WP
TCE 0.10 -0.24 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 0.02 -0.08 0.00
TE -0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 0.02 -0.08 0.00
SC EC
TCE 0.10 -0.39 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.02 -0.08 0.01
TE -0.16 -0.12 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.02 -0.08 0.01
SC SL
TCE 0.10 0.93 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.17
TE 0.14 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.17
Notes
a path between Teacher Self-Efficacy (predictor) and Teacher Collective
Efficacy (mediator)
b path between Teacher Collective Efficacy and School Climate Factor
(outcome)
c direct effect between Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teacher Collective
Efficacy
c’ indirect effect between Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teacher Collective
Efficacy
TSE Teacher Self-Efficacy
TCE Teacher Collective Efficacy
TE Total Effect
SC T School Climate Total
SC SS School Climate Student Support
SC Aff School Climate Affiliation
SC MC School Climate Mission Consensus
SC Em School Climate Empowerment
SC RA School Climate Resource Adequacy
SC WP School Climate Work Pressure
SC EC School Climate External Control
SC SL School Climate Supportive Leadership
PE Point Estimate
L Lower
U Upper
29
DISCUSSION
Varying Relationships between Perceived Teacher Self-Efficacy and School

Climate with School Types
This study sets out to explore the interrelationships among school types, teacher
self- and collective efficacy, and various school climate factors. The finding
indicated that teachers teaching in mainstream and special needs schools varied in
both their perception of self- and collective efficacy, and school climate. Teachers
in mainstream schools were more efficacious compared to fellow teachers in special
needs schools. Specifically, they perceived greater support and acceptance from
colleagues; that greater consensus exists with regard to the overarching school
goals; greater empowerment and encouragement in decision making processes;
and that there are suitable and adequate resources to support them which include
supportive school leadership. Teachers from both school types however did not differ
in their perception about the degree of rapport between them and their students,
the external control and work pressure they experienced in school. Although the
contextual variables differ somewhat, these findings lend support to that of other
research (Goddard, 2001; Raudenbush et al.,1992) with respect to the corresponding
influence of the types of schools, which may serve as a proxy measure of student
prior achievement, on perceived teacher efficacy at both the collective and individual
levels. That is, it expanded current understanding of the role of prior achievement on
teacher efficacy beliefs by considering it from the point of view of school types
stratified according to national scores of student achievement (Goddard et al., 2004).
Socio-cognitive theory provides a framework for understanding the role of
specific contextual influences in shaping teacher efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In this
study, prior achievement as reflected in school type and student characteristics at
the point of entry may not necessarily serve to boost levels of teacher self-efficacy.
Particularly for those in special needs schools, teachers applied to these schools with
some clear ideas about why they wanted to teach children with special needs and
expectations of wide ranging student challenges in engaging them for instruction.
However, lagging motivation and rampant misbehaviours are more likely to persist
over the course of time in these schools, making it difficult for teachers to maintain
their initial levels of self-efficacy (Woolfolk-Hoy & Spero, 2005). Holzberger,
Philipp, and Kunter (2013) postulated that there may be a reciprocal relationship
between initial teacher efficacy, their instructional competence and how these factors
inform their subsequent perceived teaching efficacy. In better resourced mainstream
schools that are required to follow a national curriculum with compulsory state-
level examinations, teachers may be drawn together in working towards common
goals that would benchmark their schools’ performance against those of others in
the country. Although special needs schools do have a curriculum to follow, these
are less high-stake achievement-related goals to work towards. Teachers in these
schools are likely to be focused on everyday concerns and challenges that relate to
30
student learning such as managing instructional and behavioural issues rather than
academic work.
Teachers’ beliefs about the task of meeting the challenges in teaching are
therefore shaped in part by the attitudes of other teachers about specific resources
and constraints available to facilitate their work, and organizational expectations and
goals. As such, mainstream schools need to have higher levels of teacher collective
efficacy and school climate to promote greater press in student achievement to meet
various stakeholders’ high expectations. For teachers in special needs classrooms,
it may take more than self-efficacy to provide for students with varied learning-
related issues (Fredricks et al., 2004). Their perceived capability in working with
their students also require frequent collaborations with parents who are expected
to be more involved in their children’s training at home. Teachers in these schools
often need to come together to exchange ideas on effective ways to manage the daily
behavioural challenges posed by students, look for ways to enhance student learning
and performance that tend to be more diverse, and propose school-level changes
that would facilitate their work. Similarly, the school leadership would need the
collective feedback and support to bring about organized change in the organization.
Many of these school-level challenges relate to frequent staff turnover, high burnout
and limited resources, making it difficult to orchestrate long lasting changes that
support teachers’ efficacy. Indeed, Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, and Hoy
(1998) postulated that “teachers’ perceptions of their own capabilities (to) form in
the midst of a particular set of challenges and opportunities” (p. 241).
Mediational Role of Teacher Collective Efficacy
Mediational analyses revealed that teacher collective efficacy fully mediated teacher
self-efficacy and all school environment factors except for Work Pressure. The
finding suggests that when teachers feel efficacious about their self- and collective
capability to promote learning and instruction, they are more likely to perceive high
expectations, standards and press from the school leadership, parents and students
for academic success. Hence, schools characterized by high levels of teacher self-
and collective efficacy and school climate seemed better positioned to communicate
a press for effective teaching and learning that produces positive outcomes. Where
schools have varied student ability groupings, efforts aimed at enhancing teacher
efficacy will need to focus on specific school and teacher factors that facilitate
student learning. The teacher behaviours measured here suggest that the teachers’
perceived efficacy were related to their use of instructional strategies, ability
to manage the classroom and engage students in learning, and in administering
student discipline. On the other hand, work pressure that relates to personal and
organizational expectations in meeting work demands, may be deemed as something
that collective efficacy may be insufficient to resolve since much of the pressure is
imposed by external agencies (such as state, school and parent expectations) that are
beyond the teachers’ control.
31
Constraints with Teacher Efficacy Beliefs
In interpreting the significance of efficacy beliefs, a note of caution may be

appropriate. Although efficacy theory and research have highlighted the association
between high teacher efficacy and positive school and student outcomes, it may be
presumptuous that this will lead to enhanced learning and organizational changes.
Wheatley (2002) made a distinction between teachers’ efficacy beliefs about their
performance and their efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to learn, cautioning
that high teacher efficacy for performance need not necessarily transform into
incentives for change. Teachers who are highly efficacious with specific ways
of student instruction may see no reason for change. Similarly, schools with
high teacher collective and self-efficacy may choose to stay on a proven track
instead of exploring new ways to bring students to another level or dimension of
learning. As such, Wheatley argued that teachers’ doubts in their efficacy can serve
to provide the impetus in spearheading educational and organizational changes.
Additionally, a longitudinal analysis by Holzberger, Philipp and Kunter (2013)
may provide a tentative avenue to foster change. These researchers showed that
even among those with years of experience, teachers modify their efficacy beliefs
over the course of the school year as they use information about their competence
obtained from their instruction. As such, teacher efficacy is not necessarily stable
and may be a function of a range of school-related factors relevant in shaping
teacher competence. Tsouloupas et al. (2014) and Chong and Kong (2012) provided
further evidence to suggest that professional development may be the avenue that
affords teachers opportunities to strengthen their capacity through obtaining further
mastery experiences – a source of efficacy beliefs as postulated by Bandura (1997)
to enhance efficacy development.
To date, few studies have examined the role of teacher efficacy beliefs and school
climate as these relate to the nature of student population in cross-cultural contexts.
Despite being conceptualized in individualistic western cultures, the study indicates
that self-efficacy does have relevance for practice in the Asian educational context. It
suggests that it may be useful for Asian schools to begin paying attention to teachers’
perceptions of competence as opposed to their actual competence, and come to
appreciate that these perceptions may be valuable in predicting their capability to
facilitate student academic performance.
Limitations and Implications
A number of limitations arise from this study. First, this study utilized a self-report
instrument to measure teachers’ perceived self-beliefs. A disparity between the
subjective and objective measure of a phenomenon is to be expected. The findings
should also be interpreted in relation to the dimensions of school, teacher and student
behaviours tapped, as teaching is increasingly complex and difficult to capture as a
32
unitary construct (Tschannen-Moran et al., 2001). In addition, the self-report may

not have captured sufficient demographic information about teachers that may
have influence their self-beliefs and perceptions. This study also highlights a need
to consider how teacher efficacy and academic climate vary between schools and
classrooms as a function of student (such as, students’ perception of academic climate,
academic efficacy) and subject (e.g., teacher-centred versus learner-centred teaching
approaches) variables. In addition, our model did not test the reciprocity of effects
between school types, teacher efficacy and school climate. Future investigations
could focus on identifying precise ways in which these variables influence student
achievement and specific teaching processes.
In considering the applicability of these findings from an Asian and specifically
Singapore context, it is important to bear in mind that the implications arising for
practice may differ for different cultural contexts depending on how academic
tracking is determined. In Asian schools where academic achievement and
competition is heavily emphasized, this may largely be determined through prior
achievement scores obtained from national examinations. It can further be conflated
by student and school variability arising from special needs status of the students,
socio-economic and minority status, and other demographic factors. Consideration
should therefore be paid to these possible confounding factors for those seeking to
further understand the interplay of relationships between teacher efficacy beliefs,
school and student factors. While research has indicated the theoretical utility of these
concepts, it must be acknowledged that there is little empirical work in this regard.
Hoy et al. (2002) suggest that schools use the four sources of efficacy beliefs to guide
their practice (Bandura, 1997). First, more opportunities for mastery experiences in
various teaching-related activities could be offered to teachers. Chong and Kong
(2012) have demonstrated that providing collaborative contexts in which teachers
work together in developing Lesson Study plan can have an impact on both their
self- and collective efficacy. Second, schools could actively seek out, learn and adapt
successful practices and models from schools with similar characteristics. Third, the
school leadership could engage other schools that led successful efforts to describe
their stories of change, what they did to make it happen, and how their practices
work. Stakeholders may be more readily persuaded by actual models of change.
Fourth, schools also need to be aware that such times of organizational changes
can invoke positive and negative affective states. Ensuring avenues to support and
manage these affects are important for the schools to embrace change and cope with
uncertainty.
To our understanding, there is a dearth of research in Asian contexts that examines
the influence of such psychological variables on teacher performance. Research
efforts need to continue examining specific features of the teaching context that may
make a difference in the formation and enhancement of teacher efficacy beliefs, and
the supports that could help build strong efficacy beliefs among teachers, particularly
for those working with varied student abilities.
33
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of
teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 821–832. doi: 10.1037/0022-
0663.95.4.821
Chong, W. H., & Kong, C. A. (2012). Teacher collaborative learning and teacher self-efficacy: The case of
lesson study. Journal of Experimental Education, 80, 263–283. doi:10.1080/00220973.2011.596854
Chong, W. H., Klassen, R. M., Huan, V. S., Wong, I., & Kats, A. D. (2010). The relationships among
school types, teacher efficacy beliefs, and academic climate: Perspective from Asian middle schools.
Journal of Educational Research, 103, 183–190. doi:10.1080/00220670903382954
Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical and academic education: Creating a climate for learning,
participation in democracy and well-being. Harvard Educational Review, 76(2), 201–237.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling
psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept,
state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Fuller, B., Wood, K., Rapoport, T., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1982). The organizational context of individual
efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 52 (1), 7–25.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 467–476.
Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and
collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807–818.
Goddard, R. D., Logerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school accountability: The role of perceived
collective efficacy. Educational Policy, 18, 403–425.
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional
quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 774–786.
Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement
in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38,
77–93.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 425–446.
Lee, V., Dedrick, R., & Smith, J. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers’
efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190–208.
Ministry of Education Singapore. (n.d.). Teaching in special education schools. Retrieved May 28, 2015,
from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/special-education/teaching/
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. E. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy
of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150–167.
Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Gray, P. (2004). Prior student achievement, collaborative school
processes, and collective teacher efficacy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, 163–188.
Rubie-Davies, C. M., Flint, A., & McDonald, L. G. (2012). Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and
school contextual factors: What are the relationships? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,
270–288. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02025x
Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward
an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 36, 703–729.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective
teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189–209.
34
Tsoulaoupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., & Matthews, R. A. (2014). Personal and school cultural factors
associated with the perceptions of teachers’ efficacy in handling student misbehavior. Psychology in
the Schools, 5, 164–180. doi:10.1002/pits.21739
Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21(7), 747–766.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching:
A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343–356.
Yeo, L.S., Ang, R. P., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., & Quek, C. L. (2008). Teacher efficacy in the context of
teaching low achieving students. Current Psychology, 27, 192–204. doi:10.1007/s12144-008-9034-x
Wan Har Chong

National Institute of Education
Nanyang Technological University
Singapore
Ming Ying Ong

Cheers Learning Services
Singapore
35
UMESH SHARMA AND SINDU GEORGE
3. UNDERSTANDING TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

TO TEACH IN INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS
Abstract
Teaching in the inclusive classroom is complex. One construct that relates closely
to the teaching practices is self-efficacy of teachers. Teachers with a high sense of
inclusive teaching efficacy tend to create classroom environments where students
with a range of abilities and learning styles succeed. Research on inclusive teacher
efficacy construct is relatively new and gaining significant attention by researchers
worldwide. This chapter provides an overview of self-efficacy in general. The
chapter then provides a detailed description of inclusive teacher efficacy, how the
construct is measured and some prominent findings. A key focus of the chapter is to
review research on inclusive teaching efficacy within the Asian context with possible
implications of the research for policy makers and researchers in Asia and beyond.
Self-Efficacy
Bandura introduced the concept of self-efficacy over 30 years ago as an important

factor in human motivation. The definition of self-efficacy as people’s beliefs about
their abilities to produce designated levels of performance that has significant
influence over their lives (Bandura, 1994) reflects the important role of self-efficacy
in human agency. According to Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986, 1989),
self-referent thought of an individual acts as a mediator between her/his knowledge
and actions. Most individuals often evaluate their own experiences and thought
process through self-reflection. Bandura views people as self-organising, proactive,
self-reflecting and self-regulating rather than as reactive organisms (Pajares, 1992,
1996b). From this perspective, human functioning can be explained as the product of
a dynamic interaction between personal, behavioural and environmental influences.
In other words, how people interpret the results of their own behaviour will inform
and alter their self-beliefs as well as their environments, which in turn alter their
subsequent behaviours. This is the foundation of Bandura’s (1986) concept of
reciprocal determinism, in which behaviour, personal factors, and environmental
factors generate interactions resulting in a triadic reciprocality.
Bandura’s social cognitive model considers self-reflection as a unique human
capability, through which an individual evaluates and alters his behaviour, including
the perceptions of self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) suggested that some people have a

U. SHARMA & S. GEORGE
strong sense of self-efficacy, and others do not; some have self-efficacy that covers
many situations, whereas others have narrow self-efficacy; and some believe they
have high self-efficacy to do the most difficult tasks, while others do not. Bandura’s
key contention regarding the role of self-efficacy beliefs in human functioning is that
an individual’s motivation to do a particular task and actions may not be based on
what he or she really is, but on what he or she believes he or she can do.
Bandura (1997) argues that, as individuals’ behaviour can often be better
predicted by the beliefs they hold about their capabilities, rather than by what they
are actually capable of accomplishing. It can thus be assumed that self-efficacy
perceptions can determine what individuals do with the knowledge and skills they
have. He also acknowledges that beliefs and reality are seldom perfectly matched,
and individuals are typically guided by their beliefs when they engage with the
world. As a consequence, people’s accomplishments are generally better predicted
by their self-efficacy beliefs than by their previous achievements, knowledge, or
skills.
Teacher Self-Efficacy
A remarkable growth of teacher self-efficacy research has been noted since

Bandura published his influential work, “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory
of behavioural change”, in 1977. Extensive research supports the claim that self-
efficacy has an important influence on human achievement in a variety of settings,
including educational achievement (e.g., Pajares, 1997; Ross, 1992; Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Many well-crafted studies have been conducted in the area of teacher self-
efficacy and researchers are interested in practical application of their work.
Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998) proposed an integrated model of
teacher self-efficacy in late 1990s. They particularly emphasised the context specific
nature of teacher self-efficacy (an idea originally proposed by Bandura). They
proposed that teachers do not feel equally efficacious for all teaching situations.
For example, one may feel efficacious to teach a particular subject, or to teach a
particular group of students, and she/he may feel more or less efficacious under
different circumstances such as using a new method for teaching instead of the
traditional method.
Thus, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy insisted that while judging teachers’
self-efficacy, it is necessary to consider the teaching task, context as well as personal
competence. The integrated model identifies two broad dimensions: teaching
task and context, related with the available resources to facilitate the learning
process, and personal competence which is related with the skills, knowledge, and
personality traits of the individual (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
The interaction of these two dimensions results in the judgement about self-efficacy.
There are significant implications of the teaching task and context specificity for
38
UNDERSTANDING TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY TO TEACH IN INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS
inclusive teacher education research. The implications are discussed in greater detail
later in the chapter.
Research over the past 30 years has provided sound evidence supporting the
relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and student outcomes such as higher
academic achievement and motivation (e.g., Ashton & Webb, 1986; Caprara,
Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006; Deemer, 2008; Klassen & Chiu, 2010;
Labone, 2004; Pajares, 1996a, 1996b, 2008; Schunk, 1991). Teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs are associated with outcomes such as their instructional behaviours (Morris-
Rothschild & Brassard, 2006; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007), wellbeing (Betoret,
2006; Brouwers & Tomic, 2000), and job satisfaction (Caprara, Barbaranelli,
Borgogni, & Steca, 2003; Moè, Pazzaglia, & Ronconi, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2007). Teachers with higher self-efficacy beliefs provide more effective feedback,
show openness to innovate, and communicate effectively with each group of
students in the classroom (Emmer & Aussiker, 1990; Emmer & Hickman, 1991).
They exhibit greater levels of planning and enthusiasm (Allinder, 1994), and are
open to new ideas and more willing to experiment with innovative methods to meet
the diverse needs of the students (Cousins & Walker, 1995), and persist in following
up on students’ incorrect answers (Ashton & Webb, 1986).
There are more analogous observations reported in literature. For example,
teachers who expressed higher level of self-efficacy tend to work longer with
struggling students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), attend to the special needs of
children and work with their parents (Soodak & Podell, 1993), and make less
negative predictions about students’ abilities (Tournaki & Podell, 2005). Such
teachers also more likely to listen to students, are less ego-involved, are less
angered or insulted and more willing to solve students’ problems rather than
punish them when confronted by students (Hoy, 2001).
Teacher Self-Efficacy for Inclusive Education
Inclusive education is defined variously in the literature. Most researchers (e.g.,

Ainscow, Dyson, Goldrick, & West, 2011; Loreman, Sharma, & Forlin, 2013) agree
that inclusive education is a system issue rather than a student issue. It requires the
system to adapt and meet the individual learning needs of students rather than asking
a student to change to fit in the way schools function. Most importantly, inclusion
requires educators to teach and include all students in a range of school activities
irrespective of differences in learning abilities, styles and ethnic backgrounds of
students. According to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO, 2009) “… an ‘inclusive’ education system can only be
created if ordinary schools become more inclusive – in other words, if they become
better at educating all children in their communities (p. 8)”. Implementation of
inclusive practices thus requires educators to use practices that accommodate
students with diverse backgrounds.
39
Extrapolating teacher self-efficacy to inclusive education it can be assumed

that teachers with higher self-efficacy for implementing inclusive practices in the
classroom are likely to engage in teaching-learning practices that ensure effective
learning of students with additional learning needs compared to teachers with lower
sense of self-efficacy for implementing inclusive practices (Sharma, Loreman, &
Forlin, 2012). It is also important to recognize that teachers with general sense of high
efficacy may not necessarily have high sense of inclusive teaching efficacy (Sharma,
Forlin, & Loreman, 2012). Teaching in inclusive classroom requires teachers to
possess unique skills that may not have been acquired by them during their teacher
education programs (Sokal & Sharma, 2014). Some of the skills that teachers need
to teach effectively in inclusive classrooms include: ability to collaborate effectively
with para-professionals and parents; ability to use group teaching strategies (such
as co-operative learning, peer tutoring and differentiated instruction); ability to
use assessment for learning; and ability to accommodate curricular and teaching
activities to suit different learning styles and abilities of students (Mittler, 2000;
Sharma, 2011; UNESCO, 2009). A teacher who lacks these skills is likely to face
difficulties in including students with a range of abilities and would likely to have
poor sense of inclusive teaching efficacy. It would thus make sense to use measures
that tap into the specific skills required to teach in inclusive classrooms rather than
to use measures that may not fully address the domain of inclusive education.
Issues in Measuring Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Education
Use of problematic measures has been identified as a serious issue in self-efficacy

research by many researchers (e.g., Henson, 2002; Klassen, Al-Dhafri, Hannok, &
Betts, 2011; Pajares, 1997; Zimmerman, 1996). The use of global measures, which
assess teachers’ classroom self-efficacy as a single construct has been a main cause
for concern. Bandura cautioned researchers that ‘self-efficacy belief should be
measured in terms of particularised judgment of capability that may vary across
realms of activity, different levels of task demands within a given activity domain,
and under different situational circumstances’ (1997, p. 6). Although Bandura
specifies the multifaceted and context-specific nature of self-efficacy, researchers
have differed in defining an optimal level of specificity and many have warned
against development and with extreme situational specificity, resulting in loss of
practical utility and external validity (e.g., Lent & Hackett, 1987; Pajares, 1997;
Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) developed by Tschannen-Moran and
Woolfolk Hoy (2001) is considered one of the most congruent measures with self-
efficacy theory and the one most widely used in the field. TSES includes three factors:
self-efficacy for classroom management, self-efficacy for student engagement, and
self-efficacy for instructional strategies, addressing (a) context specificity, as the
judgments are to be made based on specific outcomes, and (b) focus on capabilities
to carry out a particular course of action.
40
Reviewing studies on self-efficacy for inclusion, it is evident that the field is

not exempt from criticisms that relate to the use of inappropriate scales to measure
inclusive teaching efficacy. Some researchers (e.g., Romi & Leyser, 2006; Weisel &
Dror, 2006) have used general teacher efficacy measures (e.g., Gibson & Dembo,
1984) to collect data on teacher efficacy in including students with diverse needs
in regular classrooms. While general teaching efficacy measures provide useful
information about overall teaching efficacy, such scales fail to tap into the specific
aspects of inclusive teaching efficacy.
Another scale used in the field is the Self-Efficacy toward Future Interactions
with People with Disabilities Scale (SEIPD), a measure of self-efficacy toward
future interactions with people with disabilities (Hickson, 1996). The scale was
designed to analyse whether an individual feels efficacious or inefficacious to
interact with people with disabilities. The 15-item scale assessed the single factor
self-efficacy towards future interactions with people with disability. Although
high reliability (α = .80) has been reported for this scale (Woodcock, Hemmings,
& Kay, 2012), the scale does not address the multifaceted nature of self-efficacy.
The scale is largely conceptualised using the medical paradigm of disability. The
scale may be of limited use if researchers truly wish to examine the teaching
efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms where learners with a range abilities
study together.
Based on TSES, a measure for teacher self-efficacy for inclusive education
was developed by Sharrma, Loremn, and Forlin in 2012 highlighting the context-
specificity of inclusion and the task-specific skills that teachers need to possess to be
successful in an inclusive setting. The scale, Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices
(TEIP), assesses perceived teacher efficacy to teach in an inclusive classroom.
The scale makes it explicit that there is a shift from the medical model to social
model of disability as the focus of the items is not on individuals with disability, but
the learning environment and teaching practices. It measures three dimensions of
teacher self-efficacy: efficacy to use inclusive instructions, efficacy in collaboration,
and efficacy in managing behaviour. This scale has been widely used across eastern
and western contexts and high internal consistence has also been reported for the
three subscales; ranging from 0.85 to 0.93 (Sharma et al., 2012). Clearly there is
need for new scales that can tap into the domain of inclusive teaching efficacy as
the construct of inclusion is being re-defined by policy makers and researchers
internationally. There is also a need for the revision of the existing scales that
measure inclusive teaching efficacy to ensure that they are contemporary with the
field of inclusive education.
Can Teaching Efficacy for Inclusive Education be Changed?
Bandura (1994, 1997) has proposed four main sources of self-efficacy beliefs:
(i) mastery experiences, (ii) vicarious experiences, (iii) social persuasion, and
(iv) emotional states. It is suggested that utilizing any of these four sources, a change
41
in self-efficacy can be instigated, although Bandura considers mastery experiences

as the most effective way of creating a strong sense of efficacy.
There is limited research that has examined how inclusive teaching efficacy
can be changed. The majority of the research on this aspect is conducted with
pre-service teachers. For example, it is reported in Israel that there was no change
in both general and personal teaching efficacies for special education trainees by
the end of their course (Romi & Daniel, 2000, as cited in Leyser, Zeiger, & Romi,
2011). Interestingly, there are discrepancies in results reported on the impact of
participation in teacher training or course work on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs to teach in inclusive classrooms. For example, there are researchers who have
observed positive effect of teacher training courses addressing issues of inclusion
such as, including students with disabilities, behaviour management, and assistive
technology on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy to work with special education
needs (Brownell & Pajares, 1999; Buell, Hallam, & Gamel-McCormick, 1999;
Lancaster & Bain, 2007). At the same time, there are researchers who have reported
no significant impact of the inclusion courses completed at the undergraduate
levels on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive education (Freytag, 2001),
despite the fact that teacher training period is the apt time to intervene and promote
more positive views and beliefs about inclusion and inclusive practices (Lambe &
Bones, 2006). Similar findings are reported in an Australian study by Woodcock,
Hemmings, and Kay (2012), where the researchers could observe no change in pre-
service teachers’ self-efficacy towards inclusion, by studying an inclusive education
subject during their teacher training programme.
It would be interesting to analyse this ‘static nature’ of self-efficacy for inclusion
from the perspectives of researchers who highlighted pre-service teachers’
apprehension to work with students with disabilities (Hemmings & Weaven, 2005;
Winter, 2006). This uneasiness in turn is apportioned to the relatively less time
that the pre-service teachers are provided with to develop mastery (by offering a
subject or unit in inclusive education), or to get vicarious experiences (by offering a
short term practicum at schools) to strengthen their self-efficacy towards inclusive
practices. As Woodcock and colleagues (2012) suggest, pre-service teachers need
more exposure to best inclusive strategies, modelled by their supervising teachers
and others in a classroom environment. This contention is further supported by
findings reporting increase in self-efficacy for inclusive practices by implementing
structured course designs using ‘Embedded Design Principles’ that followed
pedagogical approaches including explicit teaching, cooperative learning, and task
analysis in inclusive education (Fraser & Lancaster, 2012).
It can thus be concluded that for any significant change to occur in teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs just participation in a course on inclusive education may not
be sufficient. The quality of the program is also critical. Positive changes in teacher
efficacy beliefs are likely to occur in a course when the relevant content related to
inclusive education is comprehensively covered as well as when the participants
42
have opportunities to apply new knowledge and gain mastery in implementing

inclusive education (Sharma & Sokal, 2015).
Unravelling the Relationship between Teacher Efficacy

and Attitudes towards Inclusive Education
A significant body of research is emerging that has examined the relationship

between attitudes and teaching self-efficacy within the inclusion domain (Meijer &
Foster, 1988; Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998; Sharma & Sokal, 2015). There are
many studies reporting a positive relationship between teacher self-efficacy and
attitudes toward inclusive education (e.g., Meijer & Foster, 1988). In fact, teachers’
self-efficacy is identified as the strongest predictor of their attitudes towards
inclusion by some researchers (e.g., Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998). Similar
results are reported also in Israel where teachers’ self-efficacy was identified as
the best predictor of primary teachers’ attitude towards including students with
disabilities (Weisel & Dror, 2006). Studies conducted by Sharma and colleagues
in different contexts have revealed a positive relationship between teachers’ self-
efficacy and their attitudes towards inclusion (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle,
2009; Sharma, Moore, & Sonawane, 2009).
As researchers have observed negative attitudes of teachers towards inclusion as
the most significant barriers towards inclusion (e.g., Mittler, 2000) it is important to
identify the interplay between teachers’ attitude and self-efficacy. A study comparing
the relationships among teachers’ self-efficacy, attitudes, and concerns towards
inclusive education was undertaken in South Africa and Finland (Savolainen,
Engelbrecht, Nel, & Malinen, 2012). The researchers found positive correlations
between teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes, although the strength of correlation
was not high. Finnish teachers displayed a relatively stronger correlation between
their self-efficacy and attitude for inclusive education, compared to their South
African counterparts. Self-efficacy in collaborating with other teachers and parents
was the strongest predictor of attitudes in both countries.
A positive correlation between teachers’ attitude towards inclusion and their
self-efficacy in practising inclusion was reported in Tanzania (Hofman & Kilimo,
2014). Another study conducted in Canada indicated that higher self-efficacy for
collaboration was the only predictor associated with more positive attitudes about
inclusive education for students with developmental disabilities (Montgomery &
Mirenda, 2014). The results highlight the importance of both pre and in-service
education providing educators with training to be competent to maintain effective
collaboration with parents and other members of a school-based team. A study
by Sokal and Sharma (2014) of Canadian in-service teachers’ concerns, efficacy,
and attitudes about inclusive teaching revealed positive correlations among the
constructs. The researchers, however, warned against arriving at any conclusion
on the causal ordering; i.e., self-efficacy predicts attitude or vice versa. More
43
longitudinal studies are recommended to interpret the mechanisms through which

self-efficacy is related to attitudes.
There are studies that further support this positive correlation between teachers’
attitude towards inclusion and self-efficacy for inclusive practices from different
country contexts (e.g., Malinen, Savolainen, & Xu, 2012; Sharma, Forlin, &
Loreman, 2008). All these findings highlight that exposing the teachers (pre-service
and/or in-service) to inclusive classrooms will not cause a sudden dramatic change
in their self-efficacy for inclusive practices or their attitude towards inclusion. On the
other hand, if they are placed in too demanding situations in order to get maximum
exposure to the challenges faced in an inclusive classroom, the results may be rather
adverse, since negative experiences decrease self-efficacy and produce negative
attitudes (Bizer, Barden, & Petty, 2003). Provision of relevant support plays a key
role here. It is likely that abundant support from teachers with greater experience
in working with students with disability and adequate training could have positive
impact on their efficacy beliefs and attitude towards inclusion. Recent research by
Ahmmed, Sharma, and Deppeler (2013) with a large number of in-service primary
school teachers in Bangladesh identified perceived school support to implement
inclusive practices as a strong predictor of teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusion.
This research further supports the contention that support plays a significant role in
shaping participants’ efficacy beliefs. Educators who feel to be teaching in supportive
environments tend to have high sense of teaching efficacy.
Teaching Efficacy for Inclusive Education

in the Asia-Pacific Context
In recent years a number of researchers have examined the construct of teaching

self efficacy for inclusive practices within Asian context. The impact of teaching
self-efficacy for inclusion on teachers’ inclusive practices and attitudes is not any
different in non-Western contexts. For example, in a Bangladeshi study Ahmmed
Sharma, and Deppeler (2014) examined how teaching efficacy, attitudes and
perceived support would influence primary school teachers intention to include
students with disabilities in their classrooms. It was observed that Bangladeshi
teachers with higher sense of efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms had stronger
intentions to include children with disabilities in their classroom and they possessed
a more positive attitude towards inclusion when compared with their counterparts
with lower levels of self-efficacy in relation to inclusive education (Ahmmed,
Sharma, & Deppeler, 2014). The study conducted by Loreman, Sharma, and Forlin
(2013) across four countries including two South East Asian countries (Hong Kong
and Indonesia) investigated the antecedents of pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy
for inclusion. It was observed that prior teaching experience with children with
disabilities, interaction with people with disabilities, and knowledge of inclusive
education policies and legislation had significant impact on their self-efficacy for
inclusion. Interestingly participants from Hong Kong reported lower self-efficacy
44
for inclusive practices than their Indonesian counterparts. Despite the acknowledged
international differences reflected in the data, the researchers identified the need
of providing pre-service teachers with ample opportunities for direct interactions
and practical experiences with students with disabilities in inclusive settings along
with theoretical knowledge, to enhance their levels of self-efficacy for inclusive
practices.
Not many studies were reported on teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive practices
from China until recently, although Chinese legislation and policies have been
promoting inclusive approach to education since the 1980s (Liu & Jiang, 2008, as
cited in Malinen, Savolainen, & Xu, 2012). Malinen et al. investigated teacher’s
self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusion, collecting data from teachers working
in both mainstream as well as special education schools in China. Teachers with
more experience in working with children with disabilities were found to hold
more positive perceptions towards inclusion. It was also observed that efficacy
in collaboration was the only significant predictor of teachers’ attitude towards
inclusive practices, highlighting the importance of teachers’ levels of confidence in
their ability to collaborate effectively with other teachers, professionals, and parents.
Based on these findings the researchers recommend for giving more emphasis to
collaboration in teaching and planning for teaching in schools as well as in pre-
service and in-service teacher education.
Another large scale study by Malinen et al. (2013) explored practising teachers’
self-efficacy for inclusive practices, collecting data from three countries: China,
South Africa, and Finland. The Chinese teachers included those from mainstream
and special education schools, who varied in their perception of self-efficacy for
inclusion. While mainstream teachers rated themselves higher on self-efficacy for
managing students’ behaviour than their counterparts, the teachers from special
schools expressed higher efficacy in collaboration, which could be attributed to the
school context factors. It was revealed that teachers’ experience in teaching students
with disability significantly predicted their efficacies in instruction, collaboration,
and management of student behaviour which further support the contention to
provide teachers with more opportunities to get involved with inclusive practices to
enhance their efficacy for inclusion.
A study by Wang, Zan, Liu, Liu, and Sharma (2012) in Shanghai, China reported
general and special education teachers differing in their self-efficacy for inclusion.
Teachers in the mainstream school reported lower efficacy for inclusive instructional
strategies and collaboration, which was justified by the earlier observation of Ma
and Tan (2010, as cited in Wang et al., 2012) that minimal knowledge of teachers
in general schools for catering to the diverse needs of children with disabilities as
the biggest barrier to successful implementation of inclusive practices. Wang et al.
(2012) raised their concerns about the lack of training that general education teachers
receive (both theoretical and practical) through their teacher education programs.
They recommended that all preservice teachers be provided with adequate training
in implementing inclusive strategies.
45
There is existing evidence from the South Asian region for the impact of pre-
service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive practices and their levels of teaching
self-efficacy on implementing inclusive practices in schools (Ahsan, Deppeler, &
Sharma, 2013; Sharma, 2011; Sharma, Forlin, Deppeler, & Yang, 2013). Studies by
Ahmmed, Sharma, and Deppeler identified antecedent variables such as perceived
school support, previous success in teaching students with disabilities, and
interactions with students with disabilities as positive strong predictors of teachers’
attitude towards inclusion (2012) and their self-efficacy for inclusive practices
(2013). However, a recent study from Pakistan reported a contradictory outcome
(Sharma, Saukat, & Furlonger, 2015). The researchers found negative correlations
between teachers’ attitude towards inclusion and self-efficacy beliefs for inclusive
practices (Sharma, Saukat, & Furlonger, 2015). The researchers report greater
teaching experience, higher level of training, and good knowledge of inclusive
policies and legislation as key antecedent variables that predicted higher self-
efficacy of pre-service teachers. Sharma et al. (2015) also highlight the significant
difference between the attitudes of pre-service teachers (who were preparing to
teach in special education programmes and in general education programmes)
towards inclusive education. Unlike prior studies reporting pre-service teachers
preparing for special education programmes showing a more positive attitude
towards inclusion (e.g., Sharma et al., 2008), this study revealed an exactly opposite
trend—pre-service teachers preparing for general education programmes were
reported to have a more positive attitude towards inclusion than those preparing
for special schools, inviting further attention of relevant authorities to consider
restructuring the programme. Researchers found it difficult to explain the results.
It is possible that there are important contextual variables that differentially impact
on the construct of teaching efficacy and attitudes. They recommended a need
to conduct new in-depth qualitative studies to examine the relationship between
attitudes and self–efficacy beliefs.
Outlook and Future Directions
The construct of teachers’ self-efficacy has been researched for a long time. However,
there are still under-researched aspects of this complex construct. Teaching efficacy
is a complex construct and interpreting a numerical score as the true representation
of a person’s teaching efficacy score could be problematic. We have conducted a
number of studies examining teaching efficacy score within the Asian context. One
thing that has surprised us is that the majority of participants tend to rate themselves
high on inclusive teaching efficacy measures. In some ways their sense of inclusive
teaching efficacy is comparable to a majority of participants in Australia and Canada.
One could then expect that teachers’ actual practices would be similar in Eastern
(e.g. India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh) and Western countries if their efficacy
scores are comparable. However, it is not true. Although there is no published
research available to compare actual inclusive classroom practices of teachers from
46
East with those of teachers in the West, anecdotal evidence suggest that teachers
generally in the former part of the world tend to use less inclusive practices. Why
do then they tend to rate themselves highly on teaching efficacy measures? It is a
question for future research. However, it can be hypothesised that in the absence
of witnessing truly inclusive classrooms, teachers in the Eastern countries tend to
view their current practices as inclusive. It is possible that once they have seen a
truly inclusive classroom, they would have a more realistic sense of their inclusive
teaching efficacy beliefs.
In this chapter we frequently referred to attitudes and examined its relationship
with inclusive teaching efficacy. Attitudes and teaching efficacy are two highly inter-
related constructs. It may not be useful to examine one construct and ignore the
other construct. We believe that attitudes and efficacy together influence teachers’
behaviour rather than one of the two constructs. In fact, if we are truly interested in
understanding teachers’ actual classroom behaviour; we should also examine other
factors that can influence the behaviour of teachers. One such construct is support
in the teaching environment. Teachers who have high sense of inclusive teaching
efficacy, have positive attitudes towards inclusion and teach in schools where they
are fully supported are likely to include learners with a range of abilities.
Research on inclusive teaching efficacy construct is relatively new in the Asian
countries. Future research in this area can have long lasting effect on actual classroom
practices. We need to understand how socio-politico and religious factors influence
the development of teaching efficacy construct. We also need to understand the best
ways we can prepare our teachers with high sense of teaching efficacy. It may be
useful to examine level of teaching efficacy at different levels of the program and
determine if participation in teacher education and in-service education courses is
having any significant impact on their efficacy beliefs. It would also be equally
important to examine if educators’ self-reported efficacy beliefs are consistent with
their actual classroom practices.
REFERENCES
Ahmmed, M., Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. M. (2012). Variables affecting teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusive education in Bangladesh. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(3),
132–140. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01226.x
Ahmmed, M., Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. M. (2013). Impact of demographic variables and school support
on teacher efficacy in inclusive classrooms in Bangladesh. The International Journal of Diversity in
Education, 12(2), 1–14.
Ahmmed, M., Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. (2014). Variables affecting teachers’ intentions to include
students with disabilities in regular primary schools in Bangladesh. Disability & Society, 29(2),
317–331. doi:10.1080/09687599.2013.796878
Ahsan, M. T., Deppeler, M. J., & Sharma, U. (2013). Predicting pre-service teachers’ preparedness
for inclusive education: Bangladeshi pre-service teachers’ attitudes and perceived teaching-
efficacy for inclusive education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 517–535. doi:10.1080/
0305764X.2013.834036#.UmI5r1CmjO
Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2011). Developing equitable education systems.
Abbingdon, UK: Routledge.
47
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special
education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 86–95.
Ashton, P., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Teachers’ sense of efficacy, classroom behaviour, and student
achievement. In P. Ashton & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement
(pp. 125–144). New York, NY: Longman.
Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Six theories
of child development (Vol. 6, pp. 1–60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior
(Vol. 4, pp. 71–81): New York, NY: Academic Press.
Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among secondary school
teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology, 26(4), 519–539. doi:10.1080/01443410500342492
Bizer, G. Y., Barden, J. C., & Petty, R. E. (2003). Attitudes encyclopedia of cognitive science
(pp. 247–253). London, UK: Nature.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy
in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 239–253. doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8
Brownell, M. T., & Pajares, M. F. (1999). Teacher efﬁcacy and perceived success in mainstreaming
students with learning and behavior problems. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22,
154–164. doi:10.1177/088840649902200303
Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., & Gamel-McCormick, M. (1999). A survey of general and special education
teachers’ perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 46, 143–156. doi:10.1080/103491299100597
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of
teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 821–832. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.95.4.821
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as
determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level.
Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473–490. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001
Cousins, J. B., & Walker, C. (1995). Personal teacher efficacy as a predictor of teachers’ attitude toward
applied educational research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Canadian Association for the
Study of Educational Administration, Montreal.
Deemer, S. A. (2008). Review of teaching and learning outside the box: Inspiring imagination across the
curriculum. Journal of Educational Research, 101(3), 190–191.
Emmer, E. T., & Aussiker, A. (1990). School and classroom discipline programs: How well do they
work?In O. C. Moles (Ed.), Strategies to reduce student misbehavior (pp. 129–165). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(3), 755–765. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0013164491513027
Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Earle, C. (2009). Demographic differences in changing pre-
service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments, and concerns about inclusive education. International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 13(2), 195–209.
Fraser, L. Z., & Lancaster, J. (2012). Enhancing the inclusive self-efficacy of preservice teachers through
embedded course design. Education Research International, 2012, 1–8. doi:10.1155/2012/581352
Freytag, C. E. (2001, February). Teacher efficacy and inclusion: The impact of preservice experience on
beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 451180)
Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
48
Hemmings, B., & Weaven, E. (2005). The reality of undertaking an inclusive education internship. Paper
presented at the Australian Association of Special Education (AASE) Conference, Brisbane, QLD.
Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement
dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 137–150.
Hickson, F. E. (1996). Attitude formation and change toward people with disabilities (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Sydney, Australia.
Hofman, R. H., & Kilimo, J. S. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy towards inclusion of pupils
with disabilities in Tanzanian schools. Journal of Education and Training, 1(2), 177–198.
Hoy, W. K. (2001). The pupil control studies: A historical, theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of
Educational Administration, 39, 424–442.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher
gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741–756.
Klassen, R. M., Al-Dhafri, S., Hannok, W., & Betts, S. M. (2011). Investigating pre-service teacher
motivation across cultures using the Teachers’ Ten Statements Test. Teaching and Teacher Education,
27(3), 579–588. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.10.012
Lambe, J., & Bones, R. (2006). Student teachers’ perceptions about inclusive classroom teaching in
Northern Ireland prior to teaching practice experience. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
21(2), 167–186.
Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2007). The design of inclusive education courses and the self-efficacy
of preservice teacher education students. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 54(2), 245–256. doi:10.1080/10349120701330610
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of
Vocational Behaviour, 30, 347–382.
Leyser, Y., Zeiger, T., & Romi, S. (2011). Changes in self-efficacy of prospective special and general
education teachers: Implication for inclusive education. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 58(3), 241–255. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2011.598397
Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2013). Do pre-service teachers feel ready to teach in inclusive
classrooms? A four country study of teaching self-efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
38(1), 27–44.
Malinen, O.-P., Savolainen, H., & Xu, J. (2012). Beijing in-service teachers’ self-efficacy and
attitudes towards inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 526–534. doi:10.1016/
j.tate.2011.12.004
Malinen, O.-P., Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Xu, J., Nel, M., & Nel, N. (2013). Exploring teacher
self-efficacy for inclusive practices in three diverse countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33,
34–44. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.004
Martínez, R. S. (2003). Impact of a graduate class on attitudes toward inclusion, perceived teaching
efficacy and knowledge about adapting instruction for children with disabilities in inclusive settings.
Teacher Development, 7(3), 473–494. doi:10.1080/13664530300200202
Meijer, C. J. W., & Foste, S. F. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral change. Journal of
Mittler, P. (2000). Working towards inclusive education social contexts. London: David Fulton
Publishers.
Moè, A., Pazzaglia, F., & Ronconi, L. (2010). When being able is not enough. The combined value of
positive affect and self-efficacy for job satisfaction in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,
26(5), 1145–1153. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.010
Montgomery, A., & Mirenda, P. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about
the inclusion of students with developmental disabilities. Exceptionality Education International, 24,
18–32. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol24/iss1/3
Morris-Rothschild, B. K., & Brassard, M. R. (2006). Teachers’ conflict management styles: The role
of attachment styles and classroom management efficacy. Journal of School Psychology, 44(2),
105–121. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.01.004
Pajares, F. (1996a). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 325–344.
49
Pajares, F. (1996b). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4),
543–578. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1170653
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 1–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pajares, F. (2008). Motivational role of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review
of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–322.
Romi, S., & Leyser, Y. (2006). Exploring inclusion pre-service training needs: A study of variables
associated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
21(1), 85–105.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Teaching and
Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Nel, M., & Malinen, O. (2012). Understanding teachers’ attitudes and
self-efficacy in inclusive education: Implications for preservice and in-service teacher education.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 51–68. doi:10.1080/08856257.2011.613603
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4),
207–231.
Sharma, U., & Sokal, L. (2015). Can teachers’ self reported efficacy, concerns, and attitudes towards
inclusion scores predict their actual inclusive classroom practices? Australasian Journal of Special
Education. doi:10.1017/jse.2015.14
Sharma, U. (2011). Teaching in inclusive classrooms: Changing heart, head, and hands. Bangladesh
Education Journal, 10(2), 7–18.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and
concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability &
Society, 23(7), 773–785.
Sharma, U., Moore, D. W., & Sonawane, S. (2009). Attitudes and concerns of pre-service teachers
regarding inclusion of students with disabilities into regular schools in Pune, India, Asia-Pacific.
Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 319–331.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Loreman, T., & Earle, C. (2006). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes, concerns and
sentiments about inclusive education: An international comparison of novice pre-service teachers.
International Journal of Special Education, 21(2), 80–93.
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive
practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21. doi:10.1111/
j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Deppeler, J. M., & Yang, G. (2013). Reforming teacher education for inclusion
in developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Asian Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(1), 3–16.
Sharma, U., Shaukat, S., & Furlonger, B. (2015). Attitudes and self-efficacy of pre-service teachers
towards inclusion in Pakistan. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15(2), 97–105.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain
factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99(3), 611–625.
Sokal, L., & Sharma, U. (2014). Canadian in-service teachers’ concerns, efficacy, and attitudes
about inclusive teaching. Exceptionality Education International, 23, 59–71. Retrieved from
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol23/iss1/5
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special
education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66–81.
Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school attributes as
predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. The Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 480–497.
doi:10.1177/002246699803100405
Tournaki, N., & Podell, D. M. (2005). The impact of student characteristics and teacher efficacy on
teachers’ predictions of student success. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 299–314.
50
UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Retrieved May 23, 2015, from
http://www.inclusive-education-in action.org/iea/dokumente/upload/72074_177849e.pdf
Wang, M., Zan, F., Liu, J., Liu, C., & Sharma, U. (2012). A survey study of Chinese in-service teachers’
self-efficacy about inclusive education. Journal of the International Special Needs Education, 15(2),
107–119.
Weisel, A., & Dror, O. (2006). School climate, sense of efficacy and Israeli teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusion of students with special needs. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1, 157–174.
Winter, E. C. (2006). Preparing new teachers for inclusive schools and classrooms. Support for Learning,
21, 85–91.
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy:
Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(1), 181–193.
Woodcock, S., Hemmings, B., & Kay, R. (2012). Does study of an inclusive education subject influence
pre-service teachers’ concerns and self-efficacy about inclusion? Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 37(6), 1–11.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1996). Measuring and mismeasuring academic self-efficacy: Dimensions, problems
and misconceptions. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, NY.
Umesh Sharma
Faculty of Education
Monash University
Australia
Sindu George
Monash University
Australia
51
SO-JUNG SEO
4. TEACHING EFFICACY BELIEF AS A NEW

PARADIGM FOR TEACHER CAREER DEVELOPMENT
AND PROFESSIONALISM IN KOREA
ABSTRACT
The construct of teachers’ teaching efficacy is re-examined in relation to its effect

on teachers and young children in the arena of Korean early childhood education
and care (ECEC) through a review of research postulated from Bandura’s social
cognitive theory. This chapter addresses the policies and social contexts that
influence ECEC settings in Korea, paying specific attention to how the construct
of teaching efficacy among teachers in ECEC matters in the midst of the radical
changes that Korean society is experiencing. A review of Korean studies on the
factors that affect the development of teaching efficacy is presented. In addition,
a summary of recent key studies pertaining to how the direct or indirect effects
of teachers’ teaching efficacy beliefs affect both teachers and their students is
provided. The research findings reviewed herein substantiate the contention that
putting teaching efficacy beliefs into practice will pay off for teachers in ECEC and
the training program, specifically targeted for enhancing teaching efficacy beliefs,
should be provided either at the beginning stage of teacher career development or
prior to entering the teaching profession. The implications for research and policy
are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
The first five years of years of life are critical to later development, as this is the
period in which the groundwork for the physical, cognitive, and socio-emotional
development of young children is laid (Seo & Moon, 2012). During this period,
young children’s interactions with their intimate surrounding environments not
only help them advance their current developmental stage, but also affect their later
development (Park, Seo, & Bornstein, 2005; Seo & Moon, 2012).
To date, a body of compelling research evidence on the importance of quality
non-maternal care during the first five years of early childhood of life has been
consistently addressed by researchers and educators. At the core of the discussion
about the importance of early childhood education and care is the consensus that
teachers are considered potentially significant as early intervention agents, because

S.-J. SEO
young children spend a significant amount of their time in early childhood and care
settings (Arnold, McWilliams, & Arnold, 1998; Seo & Moon, 2013). Due to the
emerging recognition of the role played by teachers in early childhood education
and care (ECEC) settings, teachers and other educators in that field need to be well
equipped with both appropriate teaching skills and socio-emotional competence, so
that they can provide the behavioural and emotional support their young students
require to learn and grow (Stormont, Beckner, Mitchell, & Richter, 2005; Seo &
Moon, 2013).
In the same vein, researchers have underscored that the notion of teaching
efficacy with significant implications should take into account the formula for
quality childcare (Popa & Acedo, 2006; Lai & Lo, 2007; Locke, Vulliamy, Webb &
Hill, 2005; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). In reality, a teacher in a classroom
has only limited influence because a child’s home environment and their inherent
characteristics are large influences on his or her development. However, the
possession of inner strength based on a sense of personal competence may function
as a buffer against challenges and situations that occur in a teaching environment,
thus enabling them to cope with such difficulties. As Bandura (1997) pointed out,
effective functioning requires people to develop competency and skills and also
requires them to possess a strong belief in their efficacy to put those skills to good
use. The centre of Bandura’s contention is the question of how teachers’ individual
or contextual characteristics affect their belief in the efficacy of their teaching
and in turn, how enhancing teachers’ belief in their efficacy affects both teachers
and their students. To simplify matters, the question becomes to what extent do
teachers in ECEC improve their levels of teaching efficacy, and does enhancing
the level of their teaching efficacy directly or indirectly impact the quality of non-
maternal childcare? Thus, the construct of teachers’ belief in their efficacy has
been in the spotlight as an idea with the potential for having a big impact on both
teachers and on the children in their classrooms (Ashon & Webb, 1986; Seo &
Moon, 2013).
In this chapter, the notion that teaching efficacy among teachers in Korean
ECEC is explored through a review of the research postulated from Bandura’s
social cognitive theory. This chapter is divided into four sections: The first section
describes the policy and social contexts in which ECEC settings exist in Korea,
paying specific attention to how the construct of how teachers’ teaching efficacy
matters in the midst of the radical changes that Korean society is experiencing.
In the next section, a review of the research into the factors that affect the
development of teaching efficacy among Korean teachers in ECEC is presented;
as with much of the work presented in this chapter, the theoretical framework
is based on Bandura’s social cognitive learning theory. Then, a summary of the
research findings pertaining to how teachers’ teaching efficacy beliefs affect
themselves and their students is discussed. The implications of this are provided
in the concluding section.
54
Teaching Efficacy Belief as a New Paradigm
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE (ECEC) IN KOREA
This section describes the contexts in which ECEC exist in Korea. A short
description of ECEC’s big picture within Korea’s current policy and social
contexts is necessary to understand the deep historical split between childcare
and education, which is still evident in the unevenness and diversity of the ‘early
years’ service sector. In Korea, the early childhood and care system has been
dichotomized into the following two separate systems: Kindergartens for 3–5 year
olds and day-care centres for 0–5 year olds, under the respective supervision of
the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health and Welfare.
Korean ECEC systems have continued to develop in terms of quantity and quality
after the enactment of the Early Childhood Education (ECE) Supporting Act in
1982, and the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Act in 1991 (revised
in 2004). Due to Korea having the lowest birth rate (1.25) among Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, Korean ECEC has
been extensively supported by the government (Korean Statistics, 2015). In the last
decade, the emphasis of childcare policies under the two separate systems has shifted
from the expansion of day care facilities to low-income families in need of childcare
services to all eligible families with young children (aged 0–5 years old).
There is much room for improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and consistency
of the childcare policies for children who are 3–5 years old under the current separate
systems. In the current dichotomized system, teachers and childcare staff were found
to receive lower salaries than kindergarten teachers. Teachers employed by private
institutions were more likely to receive lower salaries than those employed by
publicly subsidized childcare settings (Kim & Seo, 2010b). It has been consistently
reported that teachers and childcare staff employed by private institutions were
found to have lower levels of both job satisfaction and teaching efficacy (Kim &
Seo, 2010b) compared to their counterparts working in the public sector.
In terms of pedagogy, there has been a distinct unevenness because the initial
training of those who work in the education (kindergarten) and childcare sectors has
differed. Kindergarten teachers have had at least three years of higher education,
while those trained for the “care” sector have normally had two years of childcare
and development educational training. Thus, these deep-rooted discrepancies in early
childhood educators have resulted in differing perceptions of the nature of early
childhood education being held by the diverse stakeholders in ECEC. The issue of
how all elements can be integrated in early childhood curriculum and pedagogy has
been debated by those stakeholders in Korea.
Why Do Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Matter?
Since 2004, there has been a social consensus and concerted effort on the part of
the Korean government to develop national standards of provision across the range
55
S.-J. SEO
of available childcare providers to ensure that young children (3–5 years old) have
equal access and entitlement to quality ECEC while maintaining parental choice.
As the initial step towards the integration of the current separate systems addressed
herein, the integrated educational curriculum was developed in 2012. This national
standard curriculum for 0–5-year-old children enrolled at ECEC entitled, Nuri
Curriculum has been implemented since 2013. The core of the Nuri Curriculum is
to introduce a common set of early childhood learning goals for all 3–5-year-old
children who receive early childhood education and care services in Korea.
With regard to the implementation of the Nuri Curriculum, the findings of the
current study showed that the level of difficulty perceived by teachers in ECEC
significantly differed according to the teachers’ background characteristics, such
as their educational background, institution type, and teaching experience (Tae &
Hwang, 2013). In consideration of the inequality in qualifications and conditions of
service, this evidence is not surprising, but it is worthwhile to note that kindergarten
teachers had more experience of practicing the Nuri Curriculum and they felt more
efficacious in teaching, compared to their counterparts who work at government-
subsidized childcare centres. Even after the implementation of the Nuri Curriculum,
the gap between kindergarten teachers and teachers from government subsidized
childcare centres remains prevalent, and its ramifications may impact the teachers
and children in ECEC.
In terms of job training and career development, the inequality in qualifications,
conditions of service and remuneration still need to be addressed. The data show that
ECEC staff generally have a high turnover rate, particularly in the private sector, and
there was a great deal of variation in both the training offered and what staff were able
to access. A stronger educational emphasis was found where there were well-trained
teachers, with teachers playing a leading role in curriculum planning and in offering a
positive pedagogical role model to less well-qualified staff (Sosinsky, Lord, & Zigler,
2007). It was evident that teacher behaviour is extensively influenced by what the
teacher brings to their situation. In Korean society, which has experienced radical social
policy developments, the characteristics of the teacher and of their context are at least
partially intertwined. It would be inappropriate to conclude here that most teachers
who work in a disadvantaged climate or circumstance simply evoke or create similar
reactions to their surroundings. However, researchers have by no means argued in
favour of simple or direct linkages from causes to effects, because these occur through
the medium of psychological and interpersonal resources and behaviour patterns.
Using this line of reasoning, an individual with a positive sense of self or self-efficacy
beliefs who is open to new ideas and experiences and believes in his or her ability to
make changes may be more likely to bring about positive outcomes.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Much of the related research work on teachers’ teaching efficacy is grounded in

Bandura’s social cognitive theory. As Bandura (1997) defined, self-efficacy is the
56
perceived belief in one’s capability to organize and execute courses of action that
are required to produce specific attainments, and this judgement is not a global trait
but a differentiated set of self-beliefs that are linked to one’s ability to function in
specific domains.
Since the late 1990s and early 2000s, Bandura’s construct of self-efficacy has
influenced thinking about the construct of teachers’ teaching efficacy in the research
of Korea. Most earlier studies that examined teaching efficacy among teachers in
primary school settings were influenced Western studies. To be specific, Ashon and
Webb (1982) were among the first researchers to apply the concepts of Bandura’s
teaching efficacy, employing a measure of teacher efficacy developed by researchers
at the RAND Corporation to assess two dimensions—general teaching efficacy and
personal teaching efficacy—of the construct.
After that, by extending the work of Ashton and Webb and incorporating
Bandura’s conceptual underpinnings, Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) scale, which has a
30-item Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES, later developed into a short version with only
16 items) to measure two dimensions of teacher efficacy was translated into Korean
and has been predominantly utilized by Korean researchers. Like Western studies,
the first dimension of TES (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) is a measure of “personal
teaching efficacy”, which represents a teacher’s belief in his or her own skill and
ability to be an effective teacher. The second dimension, general teaching efficacy,
represents a teacher’s belief that effective teaching can bring about student learning
regardless of external variables such as the home environment, family background,
or parental influence.
Most extant studies that predominantly focused on teaching efficacy beliefs
among teachers in primary school settings utilized the TES measurement (Gibson &
Dembo, 1984), except for one study by Shin (2000). Shin (2000) examined the
effects of teachers’ efficacy belief have on the development of socio-cognitive play
among Koreans using a measure of TES. In the evidence from Shin’s (2000) study
that the effects of teaching efficacy on children were mediated by teacher – child
interaction, it is worthwhile to note that the hypothesized mechanism between
teachers’ efficacy belief and their students’ outcomes was first empirically proved
in the research arena. Accelerated by Shin’s (2000) study, a stream of research
initiatives has been made to reflect the burgeoning interest in speculating about the
extent to which the construct of teaching efficacy is applicable or transferable to the
field of ECEC (Seo & Moon, 2013).
There has been a strand of research into conceptualizing the construct of a
teacher’s teaching efficacy, but the definition and measurement of this construct
has been controversial (Kim & Kim, 2010). At the centre of this debate about the
validity of teaching efficacy measurement is the question of its usefulness, because
the scope of extant measurement is too narrow. The research question of how to
re-conceptualize and adequately measure the construct of teaching efficacy has
been addressed and tested to lend support for the use of the existing measurements
that correspond to Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy. In the midst of the on-going
57
S.-J. SEO
controversy about the validation and refinement of existing Teacher Efficacy

measures, Bandura (2006) re-introduced his Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSS) with
28 items in six constructs within the two dimensions (general and domain-specific
traits) of his initial model.
Some researchers have employed Bandura’s TSS and validated it with a sample
of Korean teachers in ECEC. The Korean version of TSS was found to have four
constructs when applied to Korean teachers in ECEC:
• instructional self-efficacy,
• efficacy to influence decision-making,
• efficacy to create positive, social contexts and parental involvement, and
• efficacy to enlist community involvement (Kim & Kim, 2008).
In their follow-up study (Kim & Kim, 2013), the consistent finding is in line
with the proposition that the teacher self-efficacy construct is a multi-dimensional
and situationally-specific concept (Aston & Webb, 1982; Tschanne-Moran & Hoy,
2001).
Korean researchers have utilized both the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale
(OSTES), which was developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001), and Bandura’s
teaching efficacy scale. Shim (2007) first translated the OSTES into Korean and lent
support for the use of a Korean version of the OSTES (K-OSTES). The K-OSTES
consists of three factors with 24 items:
• efficacy for instructional strategies,
• efficacy for classroom management, and
• efficacy for student engagement.
Among the recent studies that have employed the K-OSTES, Son and Sung (2014)
examined the effects of teachers’ self-efficacy on children’s sociality with a sample
of 71 children (aged 4–5 years) through the mediating effects of job-satisfaction
and the quality of teacher–child interactions with a sample of 71 children (aged 4–5
years) and 21 teachers in Korea.
Focusing on the situational-specific concept of teaching self-efficacy among
teachers within the distinct context of Korea, Kim and Seo (2010a) proposed
the Early Childhood Teacher Efficacy Scale (ECTES), based on the premise that
Korean teachers are faced with the challenge of providing both education and home-
like loving care based on their secure attachment with their young students. The
psychometrics of ECTES were tested by a series of factor analyses, and six factors
with 59 items were proposed. The result pertaining to the concurrent validity of the
ECTES with Bandura’s Korean version of Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (K-TESE)
was satisfactory (Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients, rs = .17 – .62).
The six factors of the ECTES are:
• Provision of environmental stimulus to children,
• routine-setting,
58
• classroom management,
• teaching strategies,
• care, and
• interaction with children (Kim & Seo, 2010a).
The ECTES is a multi-dimensional and situation-specific instrument, and each
item on the ECTES is rated on a nine point scale anchored with the notations noting:
very little, some influence, quite a bit, and a great deal, with higher scores for
greater levels of teacher efficacy in ECEC. In several follow-up studies, the ECTES
was employed to investigate the relationships between teacher characteristics and
their sense of efficacy in teaching (Kim & Seo, 2010b; Song & Seo, 2011; Seo &
Moon, 2013; Son, 2014; Lee, 2014). However, a number of research issues need
to be addressed. Using the ECTES construct validation should continue to be
investigated across different populations and settings, since teaching efficacy is
situation specific by nature, and may not generalize from one setting to another.
With the valid and reliable measurement of teaching efficacy, investigations into
the effects of teacher efficacy on teacher behaviour or teaching practices, such as
use of mastery teaching strategies, and decision making in classroom organizations
and management, as well on children’s learning outcomes, should be pursued by
researchers.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Sources of Teaching Efficacy Beliefs
Coupled with the issue of the applicability of teaching efficacy to ECEC, there has
been a growing need to identify the potential factors that affect teaching efficacy
beliefs in the Korean research arena. Specifically, researchers have consistently
asserted the importance of sources that contribute to the development of teaching
efficacy beliefs among teachers in ECEC. This argument is rooted in the proposition
that efficacy beliefs appear to be somewhat resistant to change once they have been
established (Hoy & Spero, 2005; Seo & Moon, 2013). Therefore, greater knowledge
of the antecedents of efficacy beliefs among teachers improves the ability to assist
educators and practitioners foster their sense of efficacy (Seo & Moon, 2013).
Along the same lines, supporting the claim that teachers’ efficacy beliefs are best
enhanced through the effective combination of different sources for the development
of efficacy beliefs, while speculative, draws upon the following three sets of
related findings: First, a range of variables including demographic characteristics
were investigated to predict teaching efficacy beliefs among teachers in ECEC.
Several recent studies have provided consistent findings that teachers’ background
characteristics influenced the level of their teaching efficacy. In particular, the
number of years that an in-service teacher has taught was found predictive of
their teaching efficacy (Kim & Seo, 2010b; Seo & Moon, 2013). Korean teachers
59
S.-J. SEO
were found to be better able to cope with challenges and similar situations in more
mature ways when they next occurred in the classroom. As consistently evidenced
in Korean literature, one influential factor that may elicit teaching efficacy involves
direct personal experience, such as past performance with more years of teaching
experience (Anderson & Betz, 2001). Teachers’ level of education was also found to
affect their teaching efficacy belief (Han, 2015; Kim & Seo, 2010b), corresponding
to previous Korean studies (Kim & Seo, 2010b).
Few studies have investigated the influence of contextual factors on teaching
efficacy (Kim & Kim, 2010; Seo & Moon, 2013). The child–teacher ratio was
reported as a significant factor, corresponding to previous studies conducted both
in Korea and Western cultures (Kwon & Yi, 2001; Kim & Kim, 2010; de Schipper,
Riksen-Walraven, & Geurts, 2006). The existence of a supportive working climate
for teachers and their level of job satisfaction were also found to significantly affect
the teaching efficacy of ECEC teachers (Kim & Kim, 2010; Lee & Ahn, 2012,
respectively). It is interesting to note that in-service teachers’ income was found to be
a significant predictor of their teaching efficacy belief (Seo & Moon, 2013). Korean
teachers, as in other countries, are faced with increasingly intensified workloads
(Korean Association of Child Studies, 2009; Song & Seo, 2011; Seo & Moon, 2013),
but their compensation levels and work benefits are relatively low compared with
those of other professions (Korean Association of Child Studies, 2009). There have
been very few studies that explore the issue of to what extent teachers’ teaching
efficacy beliefs might be influenced by external resources and the constraints that
Korean teachers perceive.
To date, the overwhelming bulk of studies on teaching efficacy have been
conducted with in-service teachers, and relatively little is known about self-efficacy
belief among pre-service teachers in Korea. Among the very few studies that
sampled pre-service teachers, Song and Seo (2011) investigate a range of variables
that contribute to a strong sense of efficacy among pre-service teachers, followed
by Seo and Moon (2013), and Kim and Cho (2014). For pre-service teachers, prior
internship experience, the level at which they perceive their own professionalism, and
their college major specialization were found to be significant factors that affect the
level of their teaching efficacy (Song & Seo, 2011; Seo & Moon, 2013; Kim & Cho,
2014). This finding is in parallel with those gained by other studies with a sample
of in-service teachers, implying that the development of teaching efficacy may be
a result of direct experience. In a recent study by Kim and Cho (2014), pre-service
teachers’ teaching efficacy was found to be a significant factor in the level to which
they experienced reality shock as teachers in the near future. It is imperative for pre-
service teachers to possess inner strength based on a sense of efficacy in teaching
and develop strong efficacy beliefs very early in their career (Mulholland & Wallace,
2001; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Hence, there appears to be a consensus that a
strong sense of efficacy for optimal motivation in teaching may function as a buffer
against the wide range of challenges and difficulties that pre-service teachers will
face in the future.
60
Along with the findings pertaining to the effects of direct personal experiences
and background characteristics on teaching efficacy, researchers have shifted their
attention to physiological and psychological traits, or the affective dispositions
of teachers in association with their teaching efficacy beliefs. The second line
of support arises from the claim addressed by researchers who have investigated
the effects of either personal traits or personality dispositions among in-service
teachers on their teaching efficacy beliefs. Lee (2008) found that teachers’
personal dispositions towards reflective thinking, emotional adaptability, and
motivation approach were all significant predictors of their level of teaching
efficacy. Another study by Kim and Kim (2010) reported that the more teachers
perceived depression symptoms, the less efficacious they felt in their teaching,
though the depression symptoms reported by teachers in ECEC appeared to be
controversial. Furthermore, the more teachers perceived themselves as possessing
self-determination capabilities, the more efficacious they felt in implementing
instructional and disciplinary strategies and involving children in the learning
process, highlighting the importance of teachers’ capabilities as potential sources
of teaching efficacy (Kim & Kim, 2010).
The construct of teacher professionalism has been explored in teaching efficacy
literature. Researchers have paid attention to teacher professionalism as an
important dimension of teaching efficacy in Western cultures (Lai & Lo, 2007;
Tschanne-Moran & Hoy, 2007) and Korea (Kim & Seo, 2010b; Song & Seo, 2011;
Seo & Moon, 2013), but the interpretation of this construct is multidimensional
and varies between contexts and times (Popa & Acedo, 2006; Seo & Moon, 2013).
In line with the contention by Azbi and Elliot (2005), the issues of what teachers do
and how they perceive their profession as teachers have both changed significantly
over the last decade. Therefore, it is necessary to debate the meaning of teacher
professionalism within the context of changing work practices and educational
policies, and how the shared meaning of teacher professionalism is associated with
or affects the construct of teaching efficacy.
Based on the theoretical literature, the most common dimensions of professionalism
perceived by teachers across cultures and national borders are teacher efficacy
and teacher practice. Those extant studies found consistent evidence that teacher
professionalism was affected teaching efficacy as a distinct and strong factor
(Seo & Moon, 2013). By comparing pre-service and in-service teachers on their
perceived levels of teacher professionalism, Song and Seo (2011) found that pre-
service teachers were more idealistic and optimistic about the teaching profession
than their counterpart in-service teachers. However, a similar result pattern found
that teachers’ perceived level of professionalism was the most powerful predictor
in all domains of teaching efficacy for these two groups (Seo & Moon, 2013). The
proposition that if teachers strive to improve their qualifications to maintain their
career development at a satisfactory level, they could feel more professional and
efficacious when teaching needs to be tested empirically; furthermore, to what extent
does teacher professionalism contribute to their teaching efficacy and vice versa?
61
S.-J. SEO
Systematic research efforts should be made to scrutinize plausible relationships

between teacher professionalism and teacher efficacy to provide insight into the
components of effective career development.
Continuity or Changes in Teaching Efficacy Beliefs
Bandura (1997) argued that once teachers’ teaching efficacy beliefs are established,
they may often be challenged to change, because belief about the task of teaching
and personal teaching competence will likely remain unchanged unless compelling
evidence intrudes, causing them to be re-evaluated (Bandura, 1997; Oh & Seo,
2012). However, during the early phases of learning to teach, the opportunity to
change these initial levels of teaching efficacy belief may increase to some extent.
That is why researchers have focused on the teaching efficacy belief of pre-service
or novice teachers (Oh & Seo, 2012).
To address the issue of changes to preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs over time,
Seo (2015) utilized a comparable design to the original Charalambous, Philippou,
and Kyriakides (2008) research. Charalambous et al. (2008) lend empirical support
to the argument that pre-service teachers’ teaching efficacy belief would not develop
uniformly, especially in certain areas of teaching instruction (mathematics) and
classroom management during a field work course with a sample of 111 pre-service
Korean teachers. Their sample of 111 pre-service Korean teachers was divided into
four different groups based on the level of their efficacy belief in the two dimensions
of “teaching strategies” and “classroom management” (Seo, 2015). The resonance
between the results of Charalambous et al. (2008) and Seo (2015) is striking; almost
every main finding from these two studies is very similar. Specifically, the main
results were as follows: (1) The pre-service teacher’s efficacy belief of the group
(group A, n = 38), in which they had moderate mean scores in teaching strategies
and classroom management at the beginning of fieldwork were steadily strengthened
but did not intensify during the four-week internship course; (2) The efficacy beliefs
of pre-service teachers (group B, n = 32) who entered fieldwork with relatively
low efficacy belief in one dimension were intensively improved in both targeted
dimensions throughout the course; (3) The pre-service teachers’ efficacy belief in
the group (group C, n = 22) with the highest mean scores for both dimensions at
the beginning of the course were further enhanced during the course, but not as
much as their group B counterparts. (4) Finally, the group of pre-service teachers
(group D, n = 19) who scored the lowest level for teachers’ efficacy belief in
both dimensions remained low throughout the course, particularly with regard to
classroom management. For teaching strategies, it was changeable during the
course of fieldwork, compared to another dimension of classroom management.
Such replication with different populations in different cultures greatly adds to
the credibility of the findings from the Charalambous et al. (2008) study in which
there are different types of pattern in the development of pre-service teachers.
62
These findings from Seo (2015) lend empirical support for those evidenced in the
Seo and Oh (2012) study with a sample of in-service Korean teachers, for which
the level of teachers’ teaching efficacy was changeable over time. Such studies
(Seo & Oh, 2012; Seo, 2015) invite further investigation into the influential factors
that contribute to stability or changes in the levels of pre-service teachers’ teaching
efficacy, specifically about how these efficacy beliefs are formulated, sustained, and
developed throughout the course of fieldwork.
Effects of Teaching Efficacy Belief on both Teachers and Children
Over the last few decades, researchers have investigated the direct and indirect
effects of teaching efficacy on teachers and children. Intuitively, high and low
efficacy teachers exhibit different patterns of teacher behaviour in the classroom,
and this proposition has been empirically supported by Western studies with a
sample of students in primary education settings. Among the prominent recent
studies conducted in Korea, Son and Sun (2014) investigated the effects of teacher’s
self-efficacy on children’s sociality (4–5 years old) and they found that teachers’
self-efficacy belief had significant indirect effects on children’s sociality through
job satisfaction and quality teacher – child interaction. This finding suggests that
a higher level of teaching efficacy may contribute to greater job-satisfaction and
more positive teacher – child interaction, leading to children’s outcome of increased
sociability.
Han (2015) hypothesized that teachers with higher levels of teaching efficacy
would be more likely to utilize positive and responsive strategies when dealing with
children’s internal and external problem behaviours than teachers with lower levels of
teaching efficacy. The effects of teaching efficacy on positive teaching practices were
mediated by the children’s internal or external problems, as assessed by teachers. In
addition, Sohn (2014) found that there were significant effects of teaching efficacy
in pre-schoolers’ learning behaviours. The extended work by Kim and Seo (2015)
explored plausible relationships between teaching efficacy, teaching flow, and
instructional creativity, and found that teaching efficacy was significantly related to
both teaching flow and instructional creativity. The effects of teaching efficacy on
teaching flow were partially mediated through instructional creativity (Kim & Seo,
2015). The current studies were most intriguing, and expected that others would use
their descriptions and findings to motivate larger studies into the means by which
new ideas are introduced and incorporated into teaching efficacy belief systems.
Such research could have important implications for teacher training programs.
Summary
The previous section, reviews the literature that links teaching efficacy belief to
teacher behaviour, or teaching practices and child outcomes, which is followed by a
63
S.-J. SEO
brief summary of the studies on the re-conceptualization of the construct of teaching

efficacy based on Bandura’s efficacy theory. Although this chapter was not meant to
be a comprehensive review and many aspects of teaching efficacy belief were not
chosen to be addressed, there are certain issues that seem to have been neglected by
Korean researchers. Considering the efforts of teacher training programs and teacher
career development programs would be profitable in this area to improve teaching
practices by changing their efficacy beliefs. Most researchers measured efficacy
beliefs and behaviours simultaneously, and it is not clearly understood whether
efficacy beliefs lead to teacher behaviours or if these beliefs are the direct result of
specific teaching behaviours. Under what circumstances or conditions are teaching
efficacy beliefs and teaching behaviours likely linked, and what types of internal
psychological or affective traits and/or contextual factors lead to the continuation
or modification of beliefs? Longitudinal studies that investigate student teachers
before and after they enter the teaching profession could enrich our understanding
of both the development of teaching efficacy beliefs and the dynamic relationships
between efficacious beliefs and behaviours among teachers in ECEC. Beyond these
plausible relations, the direct or indirect effects of teaching efficacy on both teacher
behaviours and child outcomes should be investigated.
CONCLUSION
Given the research already reviewed, there is still a need to rationalize the new
curriculum (entitled Nuri curriculum), maintain pressure for a consistent approach,
and conduct high quality evaluations across all the sectors providing early education
and childcare (EEC) services in Korea. In recent years, the field of social policy
studies has shifted the focus of research to the issue of how social policies affect
the daily experiences of those whom they are intended to serve. Not only do young
children seem more vulnerable to the consequences of being cared for by teachers in
early childhood education and care settings, but teachers with such students are also
likely to be affected positively or negatively.
In accordance with the new trend in social policies, the improved training
program that allows teachers to deliver ECEC systems and remuneration has
assumed importance. The central idea behind this recognition is that the quality
of childcare is enhanced through positive teacher behaviour related to teaching
practices in the classroom, and the perceived confidence in teaching will be taken
into account as one of the key elements in the evaluation process. It may be more
relevant for policy makers and practitioners to consider the impact of ECEC provision
packages, rather than to separate the impact of specific features in isolation, and to
recognize that the quality of provisions and the staff qualifications within a valid
system of remuneration are determinants of better child outcomes. The following is
provided to present insights into the design and implementation of effective training
programs for teachers in ECEC.
64
Putting Teaching Efficacy Beliefs in Practice
Seo and Oh (2012) proposed a two-cluster model as an effective training program,

derived from Bandura’s theory: One cluster involves direct personal experiences
such as past performance, emotional arousal, and social persuasion, and the other
reflects indirect experiences such as vicarious learning or modelling (Anderson &
Betz, 2001). Throughout the 12-week course, the participating in-service teachers
were provided with the ECEC Specialist Program, which entails a package of both
direct and indirect components of teachers’ experiences. The most prominent features
that contributed to the effectiveness of the training program were the identification
of how teachers’ needs differed depending on their differing qualifications in more
refined ways, and the fulfilling of their needs in more innovative ways. Specifically,
individualized education plans (IEP) were set up based on the level of teacher career
development prior to their participation through a mentor – mentee system. The
group of mentors consisted of colleagues or practitioners with higher qualifications
and more working experience. Throughout the training period, each participant had
the opportunity to observe their mentor’s teaching behaviour in the classroom, while
receiving a series of small-sized group lectures. Along with offline lectures and
workshops, constant feedback and encouragement were provided by the mentors,
who visited their matching mentees’ classrooms to assess their initial levels of
teaching behaviours and classroom management and how their target behaviours
were changed over time. The blog and online community set up for the program
were operated as an effective communication tool.
The effectiveness of the training program was assessed based on three target
outcomes: Teacher efficacy belief, teacher professionalism, and the knowledge
of child development. It was statistically supported that the teachers who had
participated in the program reported that their level of teaching efficacy and their
knowledge of child development from post-tests were increased over time. With
regard to teacher professionalism, some dimensions that are related to the teachers’
perceptions were increased (e.g., belief about early childhood education and care,
taking responsibility), but other dimensions that are usually related to contextual
factors (e.g. the provision of career development opportunities, autonomy) were
unchanged (Seo & Oh, 2012).
In accordance with those quantitative results, the qualitative data analysis
obtained from both in-depth interviews with the teachers and participating teachers’
self-reflective journal entries revealed that vicarious experiences from observing
the mentors’ modelling, and verbal persuasion stemmed from activities such as
discussions, coursework, workshops, and both positive feedback and encouragement
from mentors served as effective tools for promoting a sense of teaching efficacy and
teacher professionalism. In addition, the feelings of joy or pleasure that the teachers
experienced from successfully teaching lessons in the process of training increased
the participants’ levels of both teaching efficacy and teacher professionalism.
65
S.-J. SEO
Based on information gained from successful training programs (Seo & Oh,
2012), it seems likely that effective training programs that target teachers’ efficacy
belief and teaching behaviours or practices will include several elements: First,
the primary person or mentor providing the education must establish a close
relationship with their mentee; this may be the most important element of any
successful program for teachers, especially teachers working in ECEC. Teacher
educators or mentors will need relatively small caseloads if they are to tailor their
assistance and support to the individual needs of each mentee. Novice teachers
with less than one year working experience who reported high levels of guidance
and supportive feedback from their mentors felt more efficacious in their teaching
than those with more work experience. Thus, results suggest that cooperating
mentors should receive explicit preparation on how to provide guidance to the
novice teachers with whom they will be working. Mentor teachers who share
their professionalism, pedagogical ideas, and competence should be trained for
their role to provide more supportive feedback and effective communication with
novice teachers in training programs.
Moreover, the notion of the ecology of teaching should be introduced to the
design and implementation of the training programs for teachers in ECEC, and
the support programs should be ecological in orientation. In the midst of the
emerging importance of teachers’ multiple roles as both caregivers and educators,
it is reasonable to apply an ecological perspective to ECEC teachers in Korea.
From Bronfenbrenner’s ecological perspective, the ecology of teaching may be
defined as the interplay of individual and environmental factors that together shape
teaching behaviour (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). To be optimally effective, programs
must simultaneously address the psychological needs of the teachers (their sense
of efficacy and mastery competency), the teaching behaviours that influence child
development and learning outcomes, and the contextual factors that can either
interfere with or promote the targeted outcomes of interest in training programs
(e.g., teaching efficacy, teacher behaviour, teaching practices). The last element is
that the program must be of sufficient duration to allow the participating teachers to
deal with the various stressors that may underline their teaching efficacy, and thus
teaching performance.
If possible, training programs that are specifically targeted at enhancing teaching
efficacy belief should be provided at the beginning stages of teachers’ career
development or prior to their entering the teaching profession. Thus, special attention
should be given to ongoing teacher education or career development experience to
achieve enhanced professionalism in the delivery of effective services for children.
To meet this purpose, the development of a range of appropriate levels, the content of
education, educational materials/new technologies, job structuring, and enrichment,
and the facilitation of relevant personal skills and interpersonal relationships for
both pre-service and in-service teachers should be included as a comprehensive
package for both pre-service and in-service ECEC teachers. Such efforts will be
66
even more effective if they accommodate important research trends, derived as they
are from self-efficacy theory. It is hoped that putting teaching efficacy beliefs in
practice will pay off for ECEC teachers by allowing them to demonstrate the skills
and attributes necessary for working effectively, not only directly with children, but
also with the environment, which exerts an indirect but highly potent influence.
REFERENCES
Anderson, S., & Betz, N. (2001). Sources of social self-efficacy expectations: Their measurement and
relation to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 98–117.
Arnold, D. H., McWilliams, L., & Arnold, E. H. (1998). Teacher discipline and child misbehavior in
daycare: Untangling causality with correlational data. Developmental Psychology, 34, 276–287.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1982, March). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: Toward an ecological
model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New York, NY.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Teacher’s sense of efficacy, classroom behavior, and student
achievement. In P. T. Ashton & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Teacher’s sense of efficacy and student achievement
(pp. 125–144). New York, NY & London: Longman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-
efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research
perspective. Developmental Psychology, 26, 723–742.
Charalambous, C. Y., Philippou, G. N., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). Tracing the development of preservice
teachers’ efficacy beliefs in teaching mathematics during fieldwork. Education Study Mathematics,
67, 125–142.
De Schipper, E. J., Riksen-Walrave, M., & Geurts, S. A. E. (2006). Effects of child-caregiver ratio on
the interactions between caregivers and children in child care centers: An experimental study. Child
Development, 77, 861–874.
Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
Han, S. H. (2015). Coping strategies of preschoolers’ problem behaviors: according to teacher
experiences, education levels and self-efficacy of early childhood teachers (Unpublished Master’s
thesis). Catholic University, Bucheon, Korea.
Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A
comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343–356.
Kim, H., & Cho, Y. J. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ motivation, sense of teaching efficacy, and expectation
of reality shock. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 67–81.
Kim, H. J., & Seo, H. A. (2015). The mediating effect of instructional creativity on the relationship
between teaching efficacy and teaching flow in early childhood teachers. Korean Journal of Early
Childhood Education, 151–170.
Kim, S. Y., & Seo, S. J. (2010a). Teachers’ professionalism, teaching efficacy, and their perceptions
about the integration of kindergarten and child care centers in the current early childhood professional
training system: A comparison across subjects by college major degree and work place. Korean
Journal of Child Studies, 31(3), 215–233.
Kim, S. Y., & Seo, S. J. (2010b). The construction of an early childhood teacher efficacy scale. Korean
Kim, Y. H., & Kim, Y. E. (2008). An analysis of factorial validity of Bandura’s teacher self-efficacy scale.
Korean Journal of Early Childhood Education, 28, 169–191.
67
S.-J. SEO
Kim, Y. H., & Kim, Y. E. (2010). Korean early childhood educators’ multi-dimensional teacher self-
efficacy and ECE center climate and depression severity in teachers as contributing factors. Teaching
Korean Association of Child Studies. (2009). Korean child and adolescent development report. Seoul:
Changjisa.
Korean Statistics. (2015). Annual Korean family household research report. Seoul: Korean Government
Department of Statistics.
Kwon, H. J., & Yi, S. H. (2001). An analysis of toddlers’ interaction with their peers and caregivers
according to the class size of the child care centers. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 22, 201–212.
Lai, M., & Lo, L. N. K. (2007). Teacher professionalism in educational reform: The experience of Hong
Kong and Shanghai. Compare. A Journal of Comparative Education, 37(1), 53–68.
Lee, H. J. (2014). A Study on the difficulties on teacher-parent communication perceived by the teachers
and the influence of job satisfaction on teacher-efficacy (Unpublished thesis). Kyung Hee University,
Seoul, Korea.
Lee, H. W. (2008). A study on the personality disposition of early childhood teachers affecting the
teachers’ beliefs of efficacy. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 29(2), 139–153.
Lee, J. H., & Ahn, H. J. (2012). A study on the relation among job satisfaction, teaching efficacy, and job
stress of early childhood teacher. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 33(4), 129–141.
Locke, T., Vulliamy, G., Webb, R., & Hill, M. (2005). Being a ‘professional’ primary school teacher
at the beginning of the 21st century: a comparative analysis of primary teacher professionalism in
New Zealand and England. Journal of Education Policy, 20(5), 555–581.
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing self-
efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243–261.
Oh, S. J., & Seo, S. J. (2012). Changes in student teachers’ sense of efficacy during student teaching
practicum. Korean Journal of Early Childhood Education, 18(2), 73–92.
Park, S. Y., Seo, S. J., & Bornstein, M. (2005). Mother-infant interaction styles associated with infant
development. The Korean Journal of Child Studies, 26, 15–30.
Popa, S., & Acedo, C. (2006). Redefining professionalism: Romanian secondary education teachers and
the private tutoring system. International Journal of Educational Development, 26(1), 98–110.
Rizvi, M., & Elliot, B. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of their professionalism in government primary
schools in Karachi, Pakistan. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 35–52.
Seo, S., & Moon, H. (2013). A comparative study of teaching efficacy in pre-service and in-service
teachers in Korean early childhood education and care (ECEC). Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 41(4), 363–376.
Seo, S. J. (2015). Continuity or changes in teaching efficacy beliefs among pre-service teachers over
time. Unpublished manuscript, Kyung Hee University, South Korea.
Seo, S. J., & Moon, H. J. (2012). Do Korean children’s daily routines and their mothers’ parenting stress
differ according to socioeconomic status? Social Behavior and Personality, 40(3), 481–500.
Seo, S. J., & Oh, S. J. (2012). A study of infant care teachers’ training program and its effectiveness.
Journal of Korean Child Care and Education, 8(6), 169–192.
Shim, Y. H. (2007). Effects of director’s transformation leadership at the early childhood and commitment
to teaching on early childhood teacher efficacy (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Hanyang University,
Seoul, Korea.
Shin, E. S. (2000). The effects of teacher’s efficacy beliefs about play on teacher-child interaction and
children’s play. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 20(1), 27–42.
Son, H. J., & Sun, J. H. (2014). The effects of teacher’s self-efficacy on children’s sociality: The serial
multiple mediating effects of job-satisfaction and the quality of teacher – child interaction. Korean
Son, M. H. (2014). The effects of early childhood teachers’ professional recognition and teacher-efficacy
on children’s learning behavior (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea.
Song, J. H., & Seo, S. J. (2011). The effects of pre-service teachers’ individual characteristics and
teaching professionalism on their teaching efficacy. Journal of Korean Future of Early Childhood
Education, 18(4), 293–321.
68
Sosinsky, L. S., Lord, H ., & Zigler, E. (2007). For profit/non-profit differences in center-based child
care quality: Results from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study
of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28,
390–410.
Stormout, M., Beckner, R., Mitchell, B., & Richter, M. (2005). Supporting successful transition to
kindergarten: General challenges and specific implications for students with problem behavior.
Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 765–778.
Tae, S. R., & Hwang, H. J. (2013). A study on the practicing level of the NURI curriculum for early
childhood teachers. Journal of Korean Child Care and Education, 9(3), 253–272.
So-Jung Seo
Department of Child & Family Studies
Kyung Hee University
Seoul, Korea
69
SUSANNE GARVIS AND ALI KEMAL TEKIN
5. A comparative study of early

childhood teacher self-efficacy for
arts education in Australia and Oman
Abstract
This chapter provides a comparative study of early childhood teacher self-efficacy

for arts education in two countries; Australia and Oman. Arts education is an important
part of the curriculum in both countries. Arts education is also considered important
for young children as part of their active meaning making and communication.
Student teachers in both countries completed an adapted version of the teacher self-
efficacy scale for arts education (Garvis, 2010). The findings from this study show the
similarities and differences between the two countries in regards to early childhood
teacher competence. Findings are important for understanding the importance of
teacher education programmes as well as the provision of arts education.
Introduction
Arts education is an important part of early childhood education and defined as

the group of dance, drama, media, music and visual arts within a curriculum. For
some researchers (Wright, 2010) arts education is seen as an important language that
enables young children to express themselves and it is seen even as an overarching
dimension of several educational systems of early years such as Reggio Emilia.
While arts education is found in most teacher education programs, sometimes teachers
may not feel confident or capable to provide suitable arts experiences for young
children. Beliefs about the teaching of arts education inform a teacher’s capability
to teach the arts. If beliefs are positive, the teacher is more likely to engage with arts
experiences in their classroom (Garvis & Pendergast, 2010). If beliefs are negative,
they will either limit the exposure of arts education in their classroom or ignore it all
together (Garvis & Pendergast, 2010). Many beliefs about arts education are formed
during teacher education and from personal and professional prior experience. It is
for this reason the exploration of teacher beliefs about arts education is important.
We consider it is important for early childhood educators to develop a sense of
agency, created from positive beliefs towards the arts. Aligning with the work of
Bandura (1995) we describe agency as the ability to organize, regulate and enact
behaviours that will produce desirable consequences. Human agency consists of four
core features of: (1) intentionality, (2) the ability to set goals; (3) self-reactiveness,

S. GARVIS & A. K. TEKIN
and (4) self-reflectiveness. In this chapter we are particularly interested in the current
levels of teacher self-efficacy to reflect the current beliefs of capability of future
early childhood teachers.
In this chapter, comparison is not only made within an individual country but
across two countries, Australia and Oman that provide early childhood education
programs. Comparative studies, focusing on the teacher professionalism and beliefs
are vital, both in terms of learning from other settings and going beyond the familiar
in order to highlight what is often taken for granted. The two countries, Australia
and Oman, might differ or be quite alike in terms of the values related to early
childhood education and political ideas about the importance of a supportive and rich
childhood with arts education. Since it is hard to comprehend your own country’s
policy context, comparative studies have become a powerful means by which to
uncover new perspectives (Stipek & Byler, 1997). By widening the research from
a single national context to a comparison between our two countries, we expect to
gain a richer and more complex view of what characterizes early childhood teacher
self-efficacy for arts education. Major psychological and educational concepts may
function differently in different sociocultural contexts. Therefore, this comparison
also provides an opportunity to better understand the efficacy for teaching arts in
early years in two quite different contexts in terms of language, geography, religion,
and other social structures such as customs and traditions. Thus, the present chapter
intends to highlight the relationship between teacher self-efficacy in the two
countries. The chapter will conclude with suggestions for the future development of
early childhood teacher self-efficacy for arts education.
Literature
Self-efficacy beliefs operate as a key factor in a generative system of human

competence (Bandura, 1997). Teacher self-efficacy relates to the beliefs teachers
hold about their own perceived capability in undertaking certain teaching tasks.
Bandura (1997, p. 3) defines self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organise
and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments”. Self-efficacy
therefore influences thought patterns and emotions that enable classroom actions. In
the context of education, teacher self- efficacy is considered a powerful influence on
teachers’ overall effectiveness with students (Kleinsasser, 2014). Tschannen- Moran
and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) suggest that supporting the development of teachers’ self-
efficacy is essential for producing effective, committed and enthusiastic teachers.
Teacher self-efficacy is itself influenced by four sources: mastery experiences
(serving as an indicator of capability); verbal persuasion (verbal influences on
your perceived capability); vicarious experiences (modelling and observation of
techniques); and emotional arousal (associated with the perceived capability that
influence the process and outcomes of the task attempted). The four sources undergo
a form of cognitive processing that determines how the source of information
will be weighted and influence the desired teaching task. Mastery experiences are
72
A comparative study of early childhood teacher self-efficacy
considered the most powerful influence as they provide authentic evidence of one’s
performance in a teaching situation (Bandura, 1997; Mulholland & Wallace, 2001).
Successful performance by a teacher leads to increased self-efficacy, while a failure
creates a decrease in self-efficacy. As teachers develop mastery experience that lead
to accumulating increases in teacher self-efficacy, they rely on these as memories and
interpretations of similar past teaching experiences (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk
Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
The context and areas of content are important influences on the formation
and judgements of teacher self-efficacy. Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy and
Hoy (1998) emphasise the importance of cognitive processing in the formation of
efficacy expectations. For this to occur, teachers analyse the task to be accomplished
and assess their competence in relation it. Analysis of the task is dependent on the
context of the teaching situation and the specific content.
As yet, limited research has explored the development of teacher self-efficacy
formed during enrolment in teacher education programs and during the beginning
phase of teaching. Research suggests that teacher self-efficacy tends to increase
during teacher education enrolment (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Wenner, 2001)
but decrease after graduation to the end of the first year of teaching (Moseley,
Reinke & Bookour, 2003; Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). Besides, although there have been
quite a number of research studies conducted about the self-efficacy of teachers
(e.g., Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010), there is a very limited research about the self-
efficacy of early childhood teachers (e.g., Kim & Kim, 2010) particularly in
teaching arts. More to the point, the scarcity of cross country comparative research
in this subject matter makes this study a significant inquiry to fill the gap in the
existing literature.
Context of Australia
Australia has a population of 22 million and part of the British Commonwealth. It

is an oceanic country and considered the 6th largest country by total area. Within
Australia are states and territories, each with different regulations for education.
Child care (long day care, kindergarten, preschool, outside school hours care,
occasional care) is a growing field within Australia. As of June 2014, of the 3.8
million children aged 0–12 years, 48% (or 1.8 million) usually attended some type
of child care setting (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2015). Seventy-one per
cent of 2 and 3 year olds attended formal care. Of children aged 4–5 years (around
360,600) 83% attended a preschool or a preschool program (ABS, 2015).
To accommodate the increased number of children, there is a growing need
for qualified early childhood teachers. Early childhood teachers must complete
a bachelor degree and have suitable content knowledge in a variety of learning
domains, including arts education. By the time of graduation, it is assumed that
the early childhood teacher will be responsible for the teaching and learning of arts
education.
73
Over the past 40 years in Australia, several enquires have been made into the
quality of arts education occurring in schools (New South Wales Ministry of
Education, 1974; Schools Commission/Australia Council, 1977, Australian Senate
Inquiry into Arts Education, 1995; Trends in the Provision of Music Education
in Schools, 2003; National Review of School Music Education, 2005; National
Review of Visual Education, 2008; National Audit of Music Discipline and Music
Education Mandatory Content within Pre-service Generalist Primary Teacher
Education Courses: A Report, 2009). These reports have expressed concern at
the quality and quantity of arts education occurring in schools. As yet, limited
assistance has been implemented to try and improve current problems within
teacher education and provision for arts education within schools. One of the
established problems over the last 35 years has been the lack of confidence of
generalist primary teachers.
The confidence of generalist primary teachers is informed by beliefs about their
own confidence. These beliefs are formed during pre-service teacher education and
once made, are resistant to change. If we are wanting to explore ways to improve
the provision of arts education in Australian classrooms, it is important to explore
theoretical understanding of beliefs, known as self-efficacy beliefs.
Few studies in Australia have investigated the impact of teacher self-efficacy
for the arts during pre-service teachers’ education. Of the handful of studies that
have been conducted, they have explored beginning teachers who are qualified
in primary education and early childhood education (Garvis & Pendergast, 2010,
2011) and pre-service teachers (Lemon & Garvis, 2013, 2014). These studies
highlighted the low levels of perceived capability for teaching the arts compared to
English and maths.
Specifically focusing on early childhood teachers, Garvis and Pendergast
(2011) also noticed patterns between arts strands. Within the arts strands, early
childhood teachers had a higher self-efficacy score for teaching visual arts, followed
by music, compared to the remaining strands, with media scoring the lowest on
the self-efficacy scale. The study also revealed that not all of the five strands are
incorporated in the regular weekly teaching of the arts, with music and visual arts
the most likely to be included. Dance was the least included of the strands.
The standards teachers hold for what constitutes good teaching also influences
teacher self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1988). From this
studies by Garvis and Pendergast (2010, 2011) and Lemon and Garvis (2013,
2014) it could be deduced that early childhood teachers considered English and
maths to be more important for constituting ‘good teaching’ compared to the arts.
Teaching beliefs of good teaching may also influence the number of hours given
to teaching a particular subject during the week. While these study did not test this
relationship statistically, it can be predicted that if teachers had lower beliefs about
the importance of the arts in the classroom, they would spend less time teaching
the arts.
74
Context of Oman
A member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the Sultanate of Oman is a

Muslim-Arab country located in the south-eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula and
neighbouring Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on the north, Yemen on
the west, the Arabian Sea on the south, and the Gulf of Oman on the East with a
population of 4,118,028, 56% of whom are Omani and 44% are expatriates (National
Center for Statistics and Information, 2015). The Sultanate’s major national income
is derived from two underground resources: oil and natural gas. The country has
been referred to have two fundamental stages in terms of its educational stance.
The first stage included the period until the onset of Sultan Qaboos Bin Said’s ruling.
Before 1970, only three formal schools existed in the whole country; today there are
1,052 public schools enrolling 563,236 students (Oman Cultural Office, n.d.). Once
Sultan Qaboos bin Said, came into the power in 1970, he initiated an Education
Renaissance that has led to great efforts to improve the education standards in the
country. Yet while education costs total 24% of total government expenditures
(United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2008), several education variables,
including preschool enrolment rate (8.25%; UNICEF, 2008), are not at the desired
levels. Significant attempts are being made to increase this enrolment rate. For
example, the Omani government recently began to establish kindergarten classes
attached to public elementary schools in order to include this period of education in
the public system. This application is in its pilot phase. Moreover, Omani parents are
becoming more enthusiastic about having their children start their education as early
as possible (Tekin, 2014). This demand from families has been echoed in the field of
educational entrepreneurship, leading the private sector to found many institutions
that enrol students as early as the preschool years.
Following these developments, Sultan Qaboos University (SQU), the premier
higher education institution in the country, took an important step and established
an Early Childhood Education Department (ECED) in 2007, which has been
recently recognized by the NAEYC (National Association for the Education of
Young Children). Although, a university degree is not required to practice early
childhood education in Oman, the ECED at SQU has become a major source of
qualified early childhood teachers in the country. The graduates of this program are
expected to become teachers and other practitioners in this field, and this fact makes
their self-efficacy to teach an important phenomena related to pupils’ education. The
program of ECED includes subjects of arts in early childhood education. The pre-
service teachers enrolled in this program are also expected to practice teaching arts
to young children during their extensive clinical practice at the Child Care Center
(CCC) which is a lab school in SQU besides other early childhood education settings
in the capital, Muscat.
The CCC is also an early childhood education setting which embraces arts in
early childhood education and thus has made it an important part of its curriculum.
75
The national curriculum in the Sultanate also covers the elements of arts education
such as music, dance, and drama. The pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy is of
great significance for their positive performance in teaching young children and
particularly arts. Their beliefs are critical as these beliefs have significant impact
in forming their professional development and shaping their teaching behaviours
as suggested by Bandura (1986). In turn, their self-efficacy beliefs will influence
their teaching performance and the young children’s achievement.
Although there have been a quite number of research conducted on the issue in
Western countries, there is no research conducted about Omani early childhood
teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching arts. The scarcity of such research is not limited
to Oman, but also to all Arab countries. As all social concepts and applications in
the society are subject to change within the chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979)
through an interaction with the environment and society (Vygotsky, 1978), teachers
beliefs in arts education also may be expected to evolve and be dependent on the
social context to some extent. Therefore, this study attempts to fill a critical gap
in the existing literature as it also examines the differences of self-efficacy levels
in teaching arts between two different participant groups from different countries
with different social milieu. Moreover, comparing the results obtained from the
Omani participants with their Australian counterparts provides an exceptional
opportunity to understand the phenomena in different contexts in a broader sense
and understanding. By addressing these issues, this study will potentially contribute
to the improvement of early childhood education and ideas serving the quality
of education at both local and international levels. Thus, this study is of great
importance.
Focus of Study
This study is focused on the levels of early childhood teacher self-efficacy for arts
education in two countries, Australia and Oman. The research question is:
What are the levels of early childhood teacher self-efficacy for arts education
in Australia and Oman?
Method
Ethical approval had been granted for this project. In Australia, an information letter
and the survey was administered to all students. Students provided consent to the
survey by completing and returning the survey to an anonymous drop box on campus.
In Oman, ethical procedures for the study were followed and the participants were
provided information about the study and asked to complete and return the surveys
within to the investigator.
The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2001) was adapted for the context of arts education (Garvis, 2010) and used
76
for this study. The Scale consists of 24 questions in its long form. The scale has
repeatedly shown excellent internal consistency reliability. The full teacher self-
efficacy scale has been reported with reliabilities of 0.92 to 0.95 (Woolfolk Hoy,
Hoy, & Kurz, 2008). Within the larger scale is also three sub-scales; student
engagement, classroom management and instructional strategy. These allow for
further investigation within the scale.
Questions related to school support made up a sub-section of the questionnaire.
Using a 9 point continuum with anchors at 1 Nothing, 3 Very Little, 5 Some Influence,
7 Quite A Bit, and 9 A Great Deal. Respondents were asked to rank their self-efficacy
for music, dance, drama, media, visual arts, English and maths.
Sample items include:
Efficacy for Instructional Strategies
In drama:
• To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when
students are confused?
• How well can you implement alternative teaching strategies in your classroom?
Efficacy for Classroom Management
• How much can you do to control disruptive behaviour in the classroom?
• How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy?
Efficacy for Student Engagement
• How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork?
• How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work?
Data was analysed using descriptive statistics to determine means across the two
countries. Data was cleaned and entered into a suitable software program.
Participants
The number of participants in Australia was 206. Students were completing either
a Bachelor of Education (73%) or a Graduate Diploma of Education (27%). The
majority of students (85%) were aged between 20–24 years. Both programs in
Australia had been approved by teacher registration bodies. Students needed to
complete between 60 and 80 days of professional experience along with theoretical
subjects studied at the university.
The Bachelor of Education program allowed students to be qualified in both
early years and primary education The total population of students enrolled was
246. Students undertake a four year programme in which they undertake 80
professional experience days. The graduate diploma of education allowed the
students to complete their studies in 1.5 year. The program was for people who
already had a qualification in a non-education degree. The students in this particular
77
program undertake 60 days of practicum. Data was collected from the participants
during their first semester.
In Omani context, since a particular group of people, Omani early childhood
pre-service teachers, were of interest, the selective sampling method was used
in this study as suggested by Coyne (1997). A total of 90 teacher candidates
were enrolled in the ECED program at SQU. However, only 63 were registered
in department courses, and the rest were enrolled in the foundation program at
SQU. The students in the foundation year were excluded since they were engaged
exclusively in language courses, and thus not believed to be knowledgeable
enough about the research topic. Sixty-three early childhood pre-service teachers
were contacted in person, given the modified version of the TSES and an
informed consent form, had the purpose of the study explained to them, and were
informed about the procedure. They were given two weeks to complete and return
the survey. Although participation was voluntary, a high number of pre-service
teachers – 61 – agreed to join the study, and subsequently completed and returned
the survey. Finally, the surveys were filed and kept confidential in a password-
protected personal computer.
Students were also asked about their previous experience with arts activities. The
two countries differed slightly as seen in Table 4 below. While more participants
from Australia suggested that had previous experience with music, participants from
Oman suggested they had more experience with visual arts. Past experience with arts
education appears dependent on cultural and contextual notions.
Table 4. Previous experience
Previous experience with the arts percentages

Australian pre-service teachers Oman pre-service teachers
(n = 206) (n = 61)
Music 43.0% 27.9%

Dance 24.9% 9.8%
Drama 33.9% 19.7%
Media 26.5% 41.0%
Visual arts 31.4% 63.9%
Past experience with arts education appears dependent on cultural and contextual
notions. It may also be dependent on prior experiences during schooling and which
arts strands were encouraged or delivered.
Findings
From both countries, there was similar reported scores and rankings of the subjects
based on teacher self-efficacy beliefs. For the Australian cohort, the ranking of
78
Table 5. TSES mean scores
TSES mean scores

(n = 206) (n = 61)
Music 4.22 4.93
Dance 4.18 4.86
Drama 4.88 5.94
Media 5.45 6.29
Visual arts 5.82 6.55
English 7.28 6.85
Math 7.07 6.81
teacher self-efficacy competence was English, Math, Visual arts, Media Drama,
Music and Dance. For the Oman Cohort the ranking was also English, Math, Visual
Arts, Media, Drama, Music and Dance. This suggests that the students in Australia
and the students in Oman share similar competence beliefs towards arts education as
well as English and math. Findings are shown in Table 5.
The sub-scales within the survey were also explored in regards to student
engagement, classroom management, and instructional strategies (Table 6, Table 7
and Table 8). Participants in both countries suggested they had stronger teacher
self-efficacy for classroom management compared to the other subscales. In
addition, small differences in mean appeared between both countries for student
engagement and instructional strategies.
In regards to student engagement, Omani participants had higher teacher self-
efficacy compared to Australian participants for the arts subjects, however the
Australian participants had slightly higher levels for English and Math.
Table 6. Student engagement
Student engagement mean scores

(n = 206) (n = 61)
Music 4.16 4.81

Dance 4.14 4.67
Drama 4.86 6.02
Media 5.46 6.30
English 7.22 6.91
Math 7.04 6.89
79
Table 7. Classroom management
Classroom management mean scores

(n = 206) (n = 61)
Music 4.33 5.10

Dance 4.22 5.01
Drama 4.92 5.95
Media 5.47 6.26
English 7.34 6.74
Math 7.11 6.65
Again with classroom management, the Oman participants had higher reported
levels of classroom management with the art subjects, however the Australian
participants had a higher ranking of their teacher self-efficacy for English and Math.
The last subscale also revealed a similar trend, with Oman participants ranking
the arts subjects higher for their teacher self-efficacy than the Australian cohort,
whereas, the Australian participants again ranked their teacher self-efficacy for
English and Math higher than Omani cohort.
Table 8. Instructional strategies
TSES mean scores

(n = 206) (n = 61)
Music 4.19 4.89

Dance 4.18 4.90
Drama 4.87 5.85
Media 5.42 6.31
English 7.29 6.91
Math 7.06 6.88
The descriptive results will be further discussed in the next section.
Discussion
Teacher self-efficacy is an important motivational construct that allows teachers

to have the perceived capability to complete a task successfully. In this chapter
80
we have explored the teacher self-efficacy beliefs of early childhood pre-service

teachers who will become future early childhood teachers in their respective
countries. We have been able to provide a snapshot of what future practice for arts
education may look like within early childhood education settings.
One of the profound findings of the current study was that the mean for the
teacher self-efficacy scale for each of the art strands (dance, drama, music, media
and visual arts) and English and Math appeared in the same order for both Australian
and Omani participants, suggesting that the students, as a group, from both countries
shared similar beliefs about the different subjects of early education. Furthermore,
English and Math appeared to have the strong teacher self-efficacy beliefs compared
to the arts, suggesting that the ‘core’ subjects of English and Math compared to the
arts subjects may have a similar relationship. The experiences for the arts subjects
were also similar, regardless of the sociocultural differences across the countries.
One possibility may be the structure of subjects within the curriculum, schooling
system and teacher education program within both countries. For example, it may be
a traditional system where more time allocation is given to the ‘core subjects’, where
arts subjects may not be considered as academic or as rigorous. More to the point,
the current educational systems and curriculum seem to credit more importance on
subjects other than arts. For example, in Omani context, the students are asked Math
and English questions in university entry exams along with the other subjects such
as history and science, however, they are not supposed to answer any questions in
arts. Thus, it suggests that the priorities of national educational policies may also
have effects on the importance of arts subjects, which, in turn affect the individual
beliefs about them. Another possibility could be that the students in both contexts
may have had a stronger background in the two countries with English and Math
through their own schooling compared to the arts subjects. Hence, the future early
childhood teachers of both countries appear to believe they have more competency
in teaching English and Math compared to the arts strands.
Such beliefs may be problematic once the pre-service teachers enter the field.
If they have higher levels of perceived competence for English and Math, it may
mean that these subjects are taught in favour of arts subjects, as the teachers
believe they can do these subjects better. One situation could be that over time, as
teachers continue to gain confidence in teaching English and Math, confidence for
the arts strands may even decrease if they are not engaged with regularly within
the classroom. One fear could be the absence of some or all of the art strands within
the classroom if confidence is not supported as the practice of teaching a subject
feeds the sense of efficacy for teaching it. Thus, it may have an adverse effect
on teaching arts in early years, in turn deprives young children of the benefits of
learning through arts.
In both countries, the performing arts requiring some form of movement (dance,
drama and music) scored the lowest in the rankings of teacher self-efficacy. One
hypothesis could be that these subjects require active performance movement
that requires an immediate audience, where visual arts and media do not require
81
a level of direct performance. To some future teachers, the active performance

may create much emotional arousal for fear of failing or being scared in front of
children or peers. Children and peers may also provide negative verbal feedback
about the performance that would cause embarrassment among their peers which
is very critical if their ages as young adults are also taken into consideration in the
sense of social acceptance, Hence, the fear of failure of performing an art results in
avoidance of such activities and develop less positive beliefs towards those particular
subjects requiring to perform in person, again contributing to lower level of teacher
self-efficacy. The exact cause however is unknown. There needs to be more
research to be conducted to fully understand the exact reasons. What is known
from this study however is that the pre-service teachers in both countries exhibited
similar beliefs about the performing arts compared to the other arts strands.
The subscales provided further insight into student engagement, classroom
management and instructional strategies. While the Oman participants reported
higher levels for classroom management, instructional strategies and student
engagement with the arts subjects, Australian participants reported a higher
ranking of their teacher self-efficacy with English and math with the three subscales.
Again, a possible explanation could be the strong Australian focus on English and
Math within the school curriculum as well as teacher education. English and Math
are also formally assessed in national standardised tests in year 3, 5, 7, and 9 of
school meaning Australian teachers needs to focus on these two areas of learning
because of the school ranking system. The focus on English and Math may have a
‘push down effect’ into early childhood education. The participants from Australia in
this study appeared to have strong perceived capabilities for instructional strategies,
student engagement and classroom management within the core subjects. Another
reason for Omani participants having less elf of efficacy particularly for English can
be that it is not their native language. Omani government and society are well aware
of the importance of the English language since it is widely used in almost every
aspect of Omani life. In line with this trend, today’s parents are more interested in
having their children acquire English language skills as early as possible because
they see the demands of the globalizing world context and contemporary trends
in society and are willing to ensure that their children are ready to be successful
members of a future society in which speaking English is a necessity to social
and economic survival (Tekin, 2014). Omani early childhood pre-service teachers
are also well aware of this fact and they hold positive attitude towards English
education in early years (Tekin, 2015). Owing to these developments, the early
childhood pre-service may focus on English teaching rather than arts subjects but
still look behind in terms of their efficacy in English teaching compared to their
Australian counterparts. Hence there needs to be further research evidence to detect
the reasons for Omani participants having relatively less self-efficacy for teaching
English along with Math.
Further research is needed to track the beliefs of the pre-service teachers as they
complete their teacher education and move into early childhood settings. It would
82
be interesting to know how levels of perceived capability change over time and if
a similar hierarchy of subjects continues. If they do, it may suggest that more work
is needed within teacher education to challenge current beliefs about arts education
and to support positive experience that will lead to enhanced early childhood teacher
self-efficacy for arts education. If early childhood teachers are expected to teach
a number of different subject areas, it is hoped that they have suitable levels of
competence and confidence to do so. It should also be noted quantitative research
methodologies were used in this study. Thus, it is very important to conduct different
research studies by employing other types of research approaches such as qualitative
inquiries, including case or phenomenological studies.
Limitations
A major limitation impacting on the findings is the self-reporting style of data

collection, which is fundamental to the survey style employed in this study. Actual
observations of the early childhood teachers, as well as qualitative data in the
forms of interviews and field notes has the potential to enrich the understanding
of the early childhood teachers. Self-selection is another possible limitation
of the results for this study. It is possible that the early childhood teachers who
volunteered for involvement in the study were more efficacious than their peers
for some subjects. The study was also limited to Australian and Omani participants
as it was contextual. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized to all contexts,
however, the findings and recommendations can be benefited while conducting
research in other contexts or while making comparisons between different
countries. Nevertheless, this study provides a rare insight into the personal self-
efficacy beliefs of early childhood teachers.
Conclusion
Arts education is an important area for young children. The success of arts
education within early childhood education however is dependent on the beliefs
and confidence of the early childhood teacher. This chapter has explored early
childhood teacher self-efficacy for arts education across two countries, Australia
and Oman. The comparison has allowed patterns to emerge about the role of
teacher self-efficacy in both countries, and the perceived competence for each of
the sub-scales. Such research is important within education to develop a better
understanding of sociocultural contexts in relation to teacher self-efficacy beliefs.
This study has shown that the pre-service students involved in the study in the
two countries shared many beliefs about teaching each of the arts strands and the
importance of English and Math.
Future research must continue to explore comparative studies between different
countries to undercover new perspectives and to develop a richer understanding of
what characterizes early childhood teacher self-efficacy for arts education. We hope
83
this study can act as a starting point for such comparisons and provide guidance for
other interested in comparative teacher self-efficacy studies.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2015). 4402.0- Childhood education and care, Australia, June
2014. Retrieved August 17, 2015, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4402.0
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or
clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 623–630.
Garvis, S. (2010). An investigation of beginning teacher self- efficacy for the arts in the middle years of
schooling (Years 4–9) (PhD Thesis). School of Music, University of Queensland, QLD.
Garvis, S., & Pendergast, D. (2010). Supporting novice teachers of the arts. International Journal of
Education and the Arts, 11(8). Retrieved February, 11, 2011, from http://www.ijea. org/v11n8
Garvis, S., & Pendergast, D. (2011). An investigation of early childhood teacher self-efficacy beliefs in
the teaching of arts education. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 12(9), 1–15.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research
Journal, 93, 279–300.
Kim, Y. H., & Kim, Y. E. (2010). Korean early childhood educators’ multi-dimensional teacher
self-efficacy and ECE center climate and depression severity in teachers as contributing factors.
Kleinsasser, R. C. (2014). Teacher efficacy in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 44, 168–179.
Lemon, N., & Garvis, S. (2013). What is the role of the arts in a primary school?: An investigation of
perceptions of pre-service teachers in Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(9).
Lemon, N., & Garvis, S. (2014). I didn’t realize the value of art museums and galleries: Perceptions of
pre-service teachers. Journal of Museum Education, 39(1), 28–41.
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing
self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243–261.
National Center for Statistics and Information. (2015). Monthly statistical bulletin. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsi.gov.om/NCSI_website/book/mb/Feb2015/T2.pdf
Oman Cultural Office. (n.d.). Education in Oman. Retrieved from http://www.omani.info/education.htm
Stipek, D., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they preach?
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(3), 305–325.
Tekin, A. K. (2014). Omani young children’s language proficiencies: The outcomes of a bilingual
education program. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(22), 784–791. doi:10.5901/
mjss.2014.v5n23p784
Tekin, A. K. (2015). Early EFL education is on the rise in Oman A qualitative inquiry of parental beliefs
about early EFL learning. English Language Teaching, 8(2), 35–43. doi:10.5539/elt.v8n2p35
UNICEF. (2008). Education statistics: Oman. Retrieved from http://www.childinfo.org/files/MENA_
Oman.pdf
84
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenner, G. (2001). Science and mathematics efficacy beliefs held by practicing and prospective teachers:
A 5-year perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(2), 181–187.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: The development and
test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 821–834.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. E. (2000). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LO.
Wright, S. (2010). Understanding creativity in early childhood. London: Sage Publications.
Susanne Garvis
University of Gothenburg
Sweden
Ali Kemal Tekin

Sultan Qaboos University
Oman
85
STUART WOODCOCK AND ANDREA REUPERT
6. Inclusion, classroom management

and teacher self-efficacy in an
Australian context
ABSTRACT
Accepting, celebrating and accommodating students with diverse educational needs

within an inclusive framework is at the heart of current Australian educational
policy. In order to embrace diversity and inclusivity, teachers need to have the belief
in their own capability to teach inclusively. This chapter will focus on general issues
associated with inclusive education, with a particular focus on early career teachers
and their (in)ability to effectively manage classrooms, including student behaviour.
The importance of teacher self-efficacy will be highlighted alongside previously
unpublished data on teacher self-efficacy in relation to classroom management.
Implications for practice will conclude this chapter.
INTRODUCTION
Inclusive education can be defined as providing an active and equitable education to

all children, regardless of their gender, cultural or religious background or learning
needs (Mitchell, 2014). Accepting, celebrating and accommodating students with
diverse educational needs is at the heart of current Australian educational policy
(Hardy & Woodcock, 2015). For example, the Northern Territory Department of
Education and Training Philosophy of Inclusion for Students with a Disability
(2009) states that teachers must adjust the curriculum, assessment practices, teaching
styles and physical environment to provide for the needs of all students. However,
implementing inclusive education practices is not easy, and may require significant
shifts to teachers’ attitudes and beliefs; such changes then need to be followed by
adjustments to the classroom environment to facilitate real improvements (Sharma,
Loreman, & Forlin, 2012). In order to embrace diversity and inclusivity, schools must
commit to the transformation of learning environments to make the implementation
of inclusive practices smooth and effective (Savolainen, Engelbrecht, Nel, &
Malinen, 2012). This chapter will focus on general issues associated with inclusive
education, with a particular focus on early career teachers and their (in)ability to
effectively manage classrooms, including student behaviour. The importance of
teacher self-efficacy will be highlighted alongside previously unpublished data on

S. WOODCOCK & A. REUPERT
teacher self-efficacy in relation to classroom management. Implications for practice

will conclude this chapter.
While there are many stakeholders involved in inclusive education, a key person
is the classroom teacher. A teacher’s beliefs about inclusion and their confidence in
meeting the needs of the students in his or her class is a critical component to fully
realising the promise of inclusion. In educational research, teacher confidence is
often referred to as teacher self-efficacy, defined as a teacher’s belief in his or her
own capability to organise and execute specific teaching tasks in a particular context
(Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy 1998). However, as self-efficacy is
contextual, it differs from self-confidence or self-esteem which are usually regarded
as personal traits or general beliefs one has about him or herself. In comparison,
self-efficacy involves the perception of one’s capabilities rather than actual level of
ability (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). For example, if a teacher is faced
with a classroom management issue and they believe they are able to manage this,
they are more likely to respond in a consistent way; students will then see these
teachers as comfortable and confident. Conversely, teachers who do not believe they
can manage disruptive classrooms, may be less consistent in the way they discipline
students, more likely to feel inadequate and more likely to believe that children are
misbehaving intentionally (Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004). The premise that a
teacher’s self-efficacy is a determinant of teaching behaviour is critical information
for initial and in-service teacher education programs.
Teacher self-efficacy is a dynamic concept and does not remain stagnant
throughout an individual’s career. Instead, teacher self-efficacy varies across
different contexts, environments and subjects, often as a function of class
composition (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000; Guo, Justice, Sawyer, &
Tompkins, 2011). A teacher’s level of self-efficacy impacts on his or her ability
to be an effective educator and contributes to motivation (Tuchman & Isaacs,
2011). Teachers with higher levels of teacher self-efficacy have been found to be
more resilient and will try harder to help all students reach their potential, than
teachers with lower levels of teacher self-efficacy (Pendergast, Garvis, & Keogh,
2011). Hastings (2012) found that Australian teachers who experienced feelings
of high teacher self-efficacy were more likely to attribute student success to their
own possession of the required teaching skills, rather than to the natural abilities
of students, the impact of resources, or luck. This finding is important because
it emphasizes the active role that teachers need to assume when working with
students with diverse needs (such as students with specific learning disabilities)
(Woodcock & Vialle, 2011).
Teacher self-efficacy has been associated with other key variables, for example,
the readiness of teachers to acquire new and important teaching skills. Seminal
research by Fritz and colleagues (1995) found that professional development courses
impact more positively on teachers with a high level of teacher self-efficacy than
those with a low level of teacher self-efficacy. Fritz et al. (1995) explain these
results by suggesting that those with a high level of teacher self-efficacy, compared
88
Inclusion, classroom management and teacher self-efficacy
to teachers with low levels of teacher self-efficacy, are more likely to risk new
procedures and attempt implementation of the new training techniques in their
classroom. Conversely, some studies have found that teachers with a low sense
of teacher self-efficacy resist the idea of including students with diverse needs in
mainstream classes and were anxious about having to do so. These teachers were less
confident in their capability to cater to the specific needs of children and therefore
often resisted new programs or the implementation of intervention programs to
cater for their educational needs (Chacon, 2005; Korevaar, 1990).
The more competent teachers feel in educational settings, the higher their sense of
personal teaching efficacy (Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). Teachers
who are confident in their classroom abilities and are knowledgeable in the field of
inclusive education have been found to be more understanding of individual student
differences and are unlikely to make generalisations or inaccurate judgements of
students based on preconceptions or misjudged first impressions (Arthaud, Aram,
Breck, Doelling, & Bushrow, 2007). Recent Australian research found that pre-
service teachers with a higher sense of teacher self-efficacy gave more positive
feedback to students, felt less frustrated towards them, and held higher expectations
of student achievement than their counterparts with a lower sense of teacher self-
efficacy (Woodcock & Emms, 2015). Teachers who assume external factors are more
influential than their own teaching skills, believe that they cannot effect much change
in a classroom, especially with low-achieving students. Such beliefs may reinforce
low expectations and perpetuate low student outcomes, and are associated with high
levels of teacher stress, burnout and early exiting from the profession (Durgunoglu &
Hughes, 2010). On the other hand, teachers with a high level of teacher self-efficacy
are likely to have higher end-of-year goals of their students (Allinder, 1995), be
motivated and persevere through the everyday trials and challenges of teaching
(Stripling, Ricketts, Roberts, & Harlin, 2008). Thus, it is perhaps unsurprising that
teacher self-efficacy has been found to be consistently related to student achievement
(Cakiroglu, Cakiroglu, & Boone, 2005; Woodcock & Emms, 2015).
Given the importance of inclusive education in Australia, it is vital for teachers
to feel competent and confident in catering for the needs of students with diverse
needs (Woodcock & Emms, 2015). A key skill in the delivery of an inclusive
education is the ability to effectively manage the classroom, including student
behaviour. Classroom management is a term sometimes used interchangeably
with discipline or behaviour management. Effective management of the classroom
entails “actions teachers take to create an environment that supports and facilitates
both academic and social-emotional learning” (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006, p. 4).
The purpose of such management practices is to “establish and sustain an orderly
environment so students can engage in meaningful academic learning” and “enhance
students’ social and moral growth” (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006, p. 4).
As classrooms in Australia have become more diverse and inclusive, classroom
management issues for teachers have also increased (Vaughan, 1995). Classroom
management and associated discipline issues are one of the primary reasons for
89
teacher stress and teacher attrition (Bromfield, 2006). In North America, the
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF, 2003) found
one-third of new teachers leave the profession within three years, while Jalongo
and Jeider (2006) found that as many as half of all teachers leave by the end of their
fifth year. One of the main determinants of job satisfaction for teachers is teacher
self-efficacy, perhaps due to its importance as a buffer for stress (Ware & Kitsantas,
2007). A teacher’s feeling of self-efficacy for teaching inclusively diverse classes
may in turn influence students’ feelings of self-efficacy and their development
in that area (Corkett, Hatt, & Benevides, 2011). High teacher self-efficacy is
particularly important as educators may feel over-whelmed and under resourced
when catering for students with diverse needs. In sum, teacher efficacy is a key
determinant influencing teacher retention and the success of inclusive education,
including student outcomes.
CHALLENGES TEACHERS FACE IN INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS
Despite the benefits of inclusive education in Australia, there are many challenges
and barriers for teachers in addressing the needs of students in an inclusive setting.
At a systems level, Forlin and Chambers (2011) suggest that the use of national
teaching standards, which results in a greater emphasis on examination results and
increased bureaucratic demands, may make a commitment to inclusive education
difficult. The lack of a long term commitment to inclusive education, ineffectual
leadership and inadequate attempts to collaborate with parents are other barriers
for working inclusively (Reupert, Deppeler, & Sharma, 2015). Thus, despite a
relatively broad and international evidence base for best practices in inclusive
education, Grima-Farrell, Bain and McDonagh (2011) insist that there is still a
pervasive disconnect between the research and the reality of classrooms.
Teachers have suggested that a lack of time, inadequate training and resources
and a lack of school support to be some of the main challenges when working
within an inclusive framework (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Woodcock & Hardy,
in press). Others have indicated that some teachers find it difficult to develop
individualised learning plans for students within the overall class group (Konza,
2008). Similarly, some teachers believe that adjusting for students with special
educational needs compromises the learning of others, draws negative attention to
student differences and/or fails to prepare students for the ‘real world’ (Avramidis &
Norwich, 2002). Many teachers, while philosophically accepting of inclusion, are
resistant to the inclusion of students with significant difficulties including emotional
or behavioural disorders (Konza, 2008). A general lack of a teacher’s belief in their
capability in this area leads to a reluctance to work with students with a variety
of learning needs; as Konza (2008, p. 43) summarises, many teachers “do not see
themselves as having the skills to teach students with widely varied abilities, nor do
they have the desire to do so”.
90
Challenges Faced by Early Career Teachers
The Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (2013, p. 1) state

that “Quality teaching is essential to student learning and quality initial teacher
education is critical to creating a high-quality teaching workforce”. Notwithstanding
these arguments, one area that appears to be wanting is the preparation of teachers
in working with diverse students including their skills to effectively manage the
classroom and student behaviour. Both pre- and in-service teachers consider that
their training in this area is inadequate (Bartak & Fry, 2004) with significant gaps
found between teaching practices and educational policy (Eraclides, 2001). While
a one semester pre-service course may successfully raise awareness and introduce
new teaching strategies, they are rarely able to promote teacher confidence and
expertise (Woodcock, Hemmings, & Kay, 2012). These inadequacies are especially
pertinent when teaching students with challenging behaviours and is a key factor in
the failure of inclusive training programs (Konza, 2008).
Several studies have found that pre-service and beginning teachers report being
underprepared in classroom management (Atici, 2007; Hemmings & Woodcock,
2011; Stoughton, 2007). This feeling of inadequacy is confirmed by the views
of parents, principals and mentor teachers who describe early career teachers
as not having the appropriate skills to manage their classrooms (Department of
Education Science and Training, 2002). Other studies in this area examine the
classroom management strategies employed by pre-service teachers, and arguably
just as important, the skills they do not employ. Repeated studies in Australia,
Canada, the UK and Malaysia demonstrate that pre-service teachers lack the skills
to prevent student misbehaviour, and instead rely on strategies that are reactive
and aim to deal with challenging or disruptive student behaviour (Reupert &
Woodcock, 2010, 2011; Zakaria, Reupert, & Sharma, 2013). Moreover, there is
some evidence to suggest that the way that pre-service teachers deal with student
misbehaviour is not effective; for example, one study based in Malaysia found
that primary pre-service teachers would counsel a student who was exhibiting
challenging behaviour one to one (Zakaria, Reupert, & Sharma, 2013). While such
one to one interactions might be considered an act of caring (Kemp & Reupert,
2012), in the long term these actions are essentially ineffective, as they are time
consuming, and may instead reinforce inappropriate behaviour (Everston &
Weinstein, 2006).
It is important for teachers to acquire evidence based and effective classroom
management approaches and strategies for their own wellbeing and teacher
retention. Student misbehaviour can impact negatively on the professional resilience
of beginning teachers (Department of Education Science and Training, 2002) and
is rated by teachers, particularly early career teachers, as the greatest concern in
their teaching, often leading to burnout, job dissatisfaction and early exit from the
profession (Australian Education Union, 2008; Ingersoll, 2001).
91
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Classroom Management
As the push for inclusively diverse schools and classrooms continues in

Australia, the importance of effective classroom management is needed not
only to establish order and reduce teacher stress (Hastings & Bham, 2003) but
because such approaches have a direct impact on student outcomes; teachers who
maximise student engagement in academic activities, minimize time in transition
or dealing with problem behaviours, resulting in greater student achievement
(Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004). Previous research has found that pre- and in-
service teachers who believe that they have the capability to make a difference in
student achievement tend to favour more humanistic and less controlling ways of
managing students’ behaviour, as opposed to those with less confidence in their
capability to make a difference to a student’s academic outcomes (Leroy, Bressoux,
Sarrazin, & Trouilloud, 2007). Thus the relationship between teacher self-efficacy
and how they manage classrooms and student behaviour is worthy of further
exploration.
Below we present previously unpublished data that investigates the relationship
between (i) beginning teachers’ self-efficacy regarding their capacity to teach
inclusively in diverse classrooms and (ii) how often they employ specific classroom
management skills.
THE CONTEXT OF THE CURRENT STUDY
In the current study, associations between newly graduated teachers’ sense of teacher
self-efficacy and how often they used various classroom management strategies
were examined. The newly graduated teachers that participated in this study all
taught within New South Wales, Australia and had recently completed a four year
teacher training degree. All participants were primary school teachers (teaching
students from 5–12 years of age). Similar to teachers across Australia, majority
of the participants were female. In total, 154 primary teachers completed a survey
questionnaire that included two instruments, namely, the Teacher Sense of Efficacy
Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the Survey of Behaviour
Management Practices (SOBMP; Reupert & Woodcock, 2010).
The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) was developed by Tschannen-
Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) and examined three specific dimensions of
teacher self-efficacy (instructional strategies; student engagement; and, classroom
management) which according to Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001,
p. 801) “represent the richness of teachers’ work lives and the requirements of
good teaching”. Teacher self-efficacy for instructional strategies focuses on
teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities to provide effective instructional strategies
based around examples such as implementing various strategies in the classroom,
crafting good questions to students, responding to student questions, and, being
able to gauge student comprehension of what they have learnt. Teacher self-
92
efficacy for student engagement centres on teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities to

engage students in the learning such as helping students value learning, motivating
students who show low interest in schoolwork, help students think critically, help
foster student creativity, and, get through to the most difficult students. Finally,
teacher self-efficacy for classroom management involves teachers’ beliefs in their
capabilities to manage classrooms effectively such as controlling for disruptive
behaviour, getting students to follow classroom rules, establishing a classroom
management system, responding to defiant students, and, making expectations
about student behaviour clear. The only adaptation to this part of the instrument
from Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s (2001) original questionnaire was
the wording at the beginning in that the overarching question was based on an
inclusive classroom. The participants responded to a number of statements within
each specific dimension. Responses were in the form of a 9 point Likert-scale
ranging from 0 (not at all) through to 8 (a great deal). The higher a respondent’s
score, the more efficacious they were towards that statement. A factor analysis
(Cronbach’s alpha) was carried out resulting in the same three dimensions all
resulting in acceptable reliability scores (>.80).
The SOBMP was developed by Reupert and Woodcock (2010) and analysed
five specific classroom management skills (prevention, rewards, differentiation,
initial correction and later correction strategies). The SOBMP scale was developed
to reflect “a wide variety of behaviour management strategies, ranging from
rewards and prevention through to corrective strategies, based on an extensive
review of behaviour management textbooks and research” (Woodcock & Reupert,
2013, p. 88). Preventative strategies consisted of strategies commonly considered
to prevent behavioural issues from arising, such as establishing routines, seating
arrangements, and class rules. Reward strategies included the provision of stickers,
extra time on the computer, school based merit system and so on. The initial
corrective classroom management strategies included items involving mild or low
intrusive corrective strategies such as proximity control, signalling, and re-directive
statements. In comparison, later corrective strategies focused on relatively more
intrusive strategies such as time out and behavioural contracts. The items pertaining
to differentiation included strategies that involved modifying the curriculum to suit
the learning needs and/or interests of students. The participants responded to a
number of statements within each specific classroom management skill. Responses
were in the form of a 5 point Likert-scale ranging from 0 (not at all) through to 4
(extremely). The higher a respondent’s score, the more frequently they employed
that particular strategy. A factor analysis (Cronbach’s alpha) was carried out
resulting in the same five specific classroom management skills all resulting in
acceptable reliability scores (>.80).
In order to compare the frequency of use of the behaviour management strategies
between the newly qualified teachers in relation to their level of teacher self-efficacy
towards instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management,
the participants had to be separated into two groups of primary teachers for each
93
dimension of teacher self-efficacy. One group of participants consisted of those

with a higher level of teacher self-efficacy and the other group consisted of those
with a lower level of teacher self-efficacy. Participants were separated into a higher
and lower group where a natural break occurred between their self-efficacy mean
scores. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were performed to examine
the comparisons between the newly qualified teachers’ level of teacher self-efficacy
and how often they used particular management strategies.
EARLY CAREER TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY AND CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
Overall, there were significant differences between newly qualified teachers with
regards to their level of teacher self-efficacy and how often they used certain
management strategies. More specifically, as can be seen in Table 9, significant
differences between those teachers with a higher and lower sense of teacher self-
efficacy in both student engagement and instructional strategies can be seen, in terms
of how often they used preventative strategies. Those teachers with a higher level of
teacher self-efficacy applied these more frequently within their classroom, including
strategies such as verbally acknowledging positive behaviour, negotiating class rules
along with students and teaching appropriate behaviours as part of a lesson.
Additionally, newly qualified teachers with a higher sense of teacher self-
efficacy towards student engagement and instructional strategies used rewards more
frequently than those with a lower sense of teacher self-efficacy in these areas. There
were also significant differences in the frequency of differentiated strategies between
the two groups of newly qualified teachers; those teachers who held a higher level
of teacher self-efficacy for student engagement and instructional strategies changed
(adapted and differentiated) the curriculum more frequently than those teachers who
held a lower sense of teacher self-efficacy.
There were no significant differences between the two groups of newly
qualified teachers in regards to the frequency of the initial or the latter correctional
strategies employed. With regards to the third dimension of teacher self-efficacy
for classroom management, there were no significant differences found between
levels of self-efficacy and how often they employed any of the five behaviour
management areas.
In sum, results indicate that high self-efficacy in engaging students and delivering
effective instructions is associated with how often teachers employed preventative
and differentiation strategies and rewards. Those with high self-efficacy in student
engagement and instructional strategies used prevention based strategies (such as
dealing with transition times, managing seating arrangements), differentiating the
curriculum to suit the learning needs of students as well as rewards (e.g. stickers and
more computer time for positive behaviour) significantly more than those teachers
with low self-efficacy in those areas.
It is critical that teachers spend their time and energy on encouraging positive,
productive behaviour rather than remediating inappropriate student behaviours.
94
Table 9. Teacher self-efficacy in relation to frequency use of

behaviour management strategies
Variable Prevention Rewards Differentiation Initial Later

correction correction
Student Low M 2.32* 2.62* 2.42* 2.69 0.87
engagement SD 1.07 1.41 1.23 1.31 0.98
High M 2.83* 3.08* 3.00* 2.86 1.14
SD 0.71 0.96 0.97 0.89 1.02
Instructional Low M 2.32* 2.70* 2.48* 2.76 0.93
strategies
SD 0.9 1.24 1.14 1.15 0.94
High M 2.94* 3.13* 3.03* 2.9 1.17
SD 0.74 1.04 0.98 0.92 1.04
Classroom Low M 2.48 2.7 2.65 2.78 1
management
SD 1.02 1.29 1.1 1.15 0.99
High M 2.71 2.99 2.95 2.95 1.18
SD 0.69 0.97 0.99 0.88 1.03
* = Significant
The use of prevention and differentiation strategies as well as rewards will do

much to prevent behavioural issues from occurring in the classroom (Bambara &
Kern, 2005; Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, & Sugai, 2008). The data collected in
this study found that teachers who believed in their capability in engaging students
and providing effective instruction were more likely to use strategies that aim to
prevent student misbehaviour and differentiate the curriculum for students, which
are both essential skills when teaching inclusively. This is perhaps unsurprising,
given the close association between effective pedagogy and classroom management.
It is important to promote the mastery of new career teachers in student engagement
and delivering effective instruction given the close association of these skills to the
use of positive classroom management.
The close association between effective teaching and effective classroom
management is further explored by Christine Richmond (2007) in her influential
book, Teach more, manage less. She argues that teachers have two main conversations
with students; (i) those that focus on learning and promoting students to engage with
the curriculum or (ii) conversations that focus on managing students, such as those
discussions that ask students to pay attention or be quiet. These two conversation
modes are depicted in the following figures.
As Richmond (2007) summarises, it is essential for teachers to know how to
engage students with the curriculum and to minimise managing conversations or in
other words, to teach more and manage less (Figure 1). These arguments complement
95
Figure 1. Dominant learning Figure 2. Dominant managing

conversation conversation
one of the key findings from our study, which suggest that the higher the level of
teacher self-efficacy in engaging students and in giving effective instructions within
an inclusive classroom (both very much part of a teacher’s learning conversation)
is associated with the use of positive classroom management and is more likely
to prevent misbehaviour from occurring. However, Richmond (2007) cautions that
there will always be situations where teachers need to develop skills in managing
classrooms, including managing the sometimes challenging behaviour of students,
especially given the complexities of classrooms where there is a wide range of
students with different learning needs and social-emotional competencies. Thus,
while teachers need to be confident in using these learning conversations they also
need to have access to skills to manage low level disruptive behaviour, such as
talking out of turn and dealing with student noncompliance.
Another finding from this study was that teachers who have a higher sense of
teacher self-efficacy (in instructional strategy and student engagement) do not use
any of the correction strategies (initial or later) more frequently than those with a
lower sense of teacher self-efficacy. This may be due to those teachers with a higher
level of teacher self-efficacy towards engaging students and delivering effective
instruction spend more time on preventative strategies, resulting in inclusive
classrooms becoming positive and preventative than corrective.
It is somewhat surprising that teacher self-efficacy for classroom management
did not appear to be related to the frequency of any of the classroom management
strategies included in the SOBMP. The results can perhaps best be explained by
closely examining the survey items. The items listed within the TSES – classroom
management scale included a broad range of areas of classroom management in
comparison to the more specific strategies covered in the SOBMP scale. For
example, in the TSES – classroom management scale, some of the broad strategies
included ‘control disruptive behaviour in the classroom’; ‘calm a student who
is disruptive or noisy’; ‘follow classroom rules’; and, ‘establish a classroom
management system’ (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). However, many
of the items from the SOBMP, included specific strategies and covered a wider
range of both prevention and corrective strategies. For example, in the SOBMP,
96
some of the specific prevention strategies included ‘verbally acknowledge positive

behaviour’, ‘negotiate class rules along with students’ and, ‘establish a regular
routine’. Furthermore, some of the specific corrective strategies included ‘ask the
student to come to you’, move yourself closer to the student’ and ‘use non-verbal
body language’ (Reupert & Woodcock, 2010).
A number of limitations apply in interpreting the findings of the above study.
Causality remains unclear; for instance, it could be that teachers who feel more
efficacious may implement more prevention based classroom management
practices, or conversely, that teachers who implement more prevention based
classroom management practices feel more efficacious. The self-reported nature of
the data drawn the SOBMP may not be indicative of what these teachers actually
do when in the classroom and future studies might include observational data. A
further limitation is a focus on primary, Australian teachers and other studies need to
examine different types of teachers from other countries.
IMPLICATIONS
Notwithstanding the shortcomings of this particular study, a number of implications

might be drawn both from the data collected here and other studies. Professional
development programs are needed for teachers to develop research informed,
prevention focused classroom management approaches if the move towards
inclusion is to be successful. At the same time however, knowing about teaching
and being able to demonstrate effective teaching is insufficient. Unless early
career teachers believe in their own capabilities to cater for diverse inclusive
classrooms, they may, as some researchers have found, leave teaching altogether
(NCTAF, 2003). We know that teacher self-efficacy is a powerful predictor of how
and whether a teacher will act (Gibbs, 2003). As Gibbs (2003, p. 3) points out,
“Effective teachers believe that they can make a difference in children’s lives, and
they teach in ways that demonstrate this belief”. He continues by arguing that what
teachers know and do, is largely mediated by what they think and believe. Thus,
professional development, both at the pre- and in-service level needs to not only
focus on teaching effectively, but also on developing teachers’ awareness of their
self-efficacy and how to enhance it.
Elliott, Isaacs and Chugani (2010) provide some guidance for supporting early
career teachers with particular advice directed to principals as front line managers:
• Ensuring that the first year of teaching is not a game of “education survivor”
(p. 141) and that teachers at this stage of their career need support and supervision
so that they feel improvement in their confidence levels;
• Assess early career teacher self-efficacy and learning needs, especially in core
competence areas such as classroom management;
• Limit the time teachers experience low levels of confidence. When or if issues
arise, teachers need to be comfortable to ask for help and support needs to be
97
forthcoming; this sends the message that such issues are normal for early career
teachers and ensures the problem is broken into smaller, more manageable pieces
which in turn can increase self-efficacy;
• Conduct targeted observation, provide timely feedback and schedule additional
observation to ensure progress; and,
• Build mentoring programs for new teachers and matching a mentor’s strengths
with a new teacher’s needs.
Understanding and promoting the development of teacher self-efficacy is
important for teacher morale and retention. An important factor in developing self-
efficacy is, perhaps not surprisingly, experience or what Bandura (1977) called
performance accomplishments. Hoy (2000, as cited by Protheroe, 2008, p. 43)
picks up this argument by suggesting that “some of the most important influences
on the development of teacher efficacy are mastery experiences during student
teaching and the induction year” and so “the first years of teaching could be critical
to the long-term development of teacher efficacy”. Successful and authentic mastery
experiences help promote the beliefs an individual has about his or her performance.
Thus, it is critically important that new career teachers are provided with
opportunities for the successful use of prevention focused classroom management
strategies including the ability to differentiate the curriculum according to students’
learning needs and interests.
Vicarious experiences are another source of self-efficacy and provide opportunities
for an individual to observe another, who has the necessary skills to perform any
given task. This is particularly powerful when the observer believes he or she has
the attributes similar to the role model (Cagle & Hopkins, 2009) Protheroe (2008)
suggests that a new career teacher might observe another teacher using a particularly
effective strategy, and so feel more confident in its use. Thus it is important to
identify mentors who have particular strengths in classroom management, especially
those who are prevention focused, rather than selecting mentors merely based on
availability and/or willingness. Pathways and incentives to mentor early career
teachers is also required. Given that many teachers with low self-efficacy leave the
professional in the first five years (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007) it is important
that more is done to promote these mastery and vicarious experiences for new teachers
in the area of prevention focused, research informed classroom management.
CONCLUSION
For inclusion to be more successful, teacher self-efficacy regarding inclusion

(specifically focusing on the ability to engage students and employ effective
instructional strategies) needs to be considered, monitored, and supported for new
teachers as they transition through their first few years of teaching. Furthermore,
given that teachers who believe that they are capable of teaching all students in
inclusive, supportive ways, are more likely to exhibit teaching behaviours that
98
support this goal, it is essential that there are support mechanisms established
to promote and develop teacher self-efficacy within a differentiated inclusive
framework. Such efforts will not only promote teacher wellbeing and retention but
also potentially positively impact on student achievement. Further research needs
to be undertaken regarding how teachers might improve inclusive practice, and the
forms of professional learning which actively promote a positive and productive
disposition towards the learning of all students.
REFERENCES
Allinder, R. (1995). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and curriculum-based
measurement and student achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 16(4), 247–254.
Arthaud, T., Aram, R., Breck, S., Doelling, J., & Bushrow, K. (2007). Developing collaboration skills in
pre-service teachers: A partnership between general and special education. Teacher Education and
Atici, M. (2007). A small-scale study on student teachers’ perceptions of classroom management and
methods for dealing with misbehaviour. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 12(1), 15–27.
Australian Education Union. (2008). New educators survey 2008. Results and report. Southbank Vic:
AEU.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2013). Australian professional standards
for teachers. Retrieved November 6, 2015, from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-
standards-for-teachers
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the
literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.
Bambara, L., & Kern, L. (2005). Individualized supports for students with problem behaviours.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bartak, L., & Fry, J. (2004). Are students with special needs in mainstream classes adequately supported?
Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9(1), 16–21.
Bromfield, C. (2006). PGCE secondary trainee teachers and effective behaviour management: An
evaluation and commentary. Support for Learning, 21(4), 188–193.
Cagle, K., & Hopkins, P. (2009). Teacher self-efficacy and the supervision of marginal teachers. Journal
of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 2(1), 25–31.
Cakiroglu, J., Cakiroglu, E., & Boone, W. (2005). Pre-service teacher self-efficacy beliefs regarding
science teaching: A comparison of pre-service teachers in Turkey and the USA. Science Educator,
14(1), 31–40.
Chacon, C. T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in
middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 257−272.
Corkett, J., Hatt, B., & Benevides, T. (2011). Student and teacher self-efficacy and the connection to
reading and writing. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(1), 65–98.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do
different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286–302.
Department of Education Science and Training. (2002). An ethic of care: Effective programmes for
beginning teachers. Canberra: Department of Education Science and Training.
Durgunoglu, Y., & Hughes, T. (2010). How prepared are the U.S. pre-service teachers to teach English
language learners? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(1),
32–41.
Elliott, E., Isaacs, M., & Chugani, C. (2010). Promoting self-efficacy in early career teachers: A principal’s
guide for differentiated mentoring and supervision. Florida Journal of Educational Administration &
Policy, 4(1), 131–146.
99
Eraclides, G. (2001, March 28–30). Teachers’ needs in supporting students with a disability in the
classroom: A research report. Proceedings of the Australian Vocational Education and Training
Research Association Conference, Adelaide, Australia. (ERIC Document number ED456273.)
Evertson, C., & Weinstein, C. (2006). Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and
contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Forlin, C., & Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: Increasing knowledge
but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 17–32.
Fritz, J., Miller-Heyl, J., Kreutzer, J., & MacPhee, D. (1995). Fostering personal teaching efficacy through
staff development and classroom activities. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 200–208.
Gibbs, C. (2003). Explaining effective teaching: self-efficacy and thought control of action. Journal of
Educational Enquiry, 4(2), 1–14.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and
impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507.
Grima-Farrell, C., Bain, A., & McDonagh, S. (2011). Bridging the research-to-practice gap: A review
of the literature focusing on inclusive education. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 35(2),
117–136.
Guo, Y., Justice, I., Sawyer, B., & Tompkins, V. (2011). Exploring factors related to preschool teachers’
self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 961–968.
Hardy, I., & Woodcock, S. (2015). Inclusive education policies: Discourses of difference, diversity and
deficit. The International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(2), 141–164.
Hastings, P. (2012). Early career teachers’ self-efficacy for balanced reading instruction. Australian
Hastings, R., & Bham, M. (2003). The relationship between student behaviour patterns and teacher
burnout. School Psychology International, 24, 115–127.
Hemmings, B., & Woodcock, S. (2011). Preservice teachers’ views of inclusive education: A content
analysis. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 103–116.
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American
Educational Research Journal, 38, 499–534.
Jalongo, M., & Heider, K. (2006). Editorial teacher attrition: An issue of national concern. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 379–380.
Kemp, H., & Reupert, A. (2012). “There’s no big book on how to care”: Primary pre-service teachers’
experiences of caring. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(9), 114–127.
Konza, D. (2008). Inclusion of students with disabilities in new times: Responding to the challenge. In
P. Kell, W. Vialle, D. Konza, & G. Vogl (Eds.), Learning and the learner: Exploring learning for
new times. Wollongong, Austrialia: University of Wollongong. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from
http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/36/
Korevaar, G. (1990). Secondary school teachers’ courses of action in relation to experience and sense of
self efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Boston, MA.
Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P., & Trouilloud, D. (2007). Impact of teachers’ implicit theories and
perceived pressures on the establishment of an autonomy supportive climate. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 22(1), 529–545.
Mitchell, D. (2014). What really works in special and inclusive education: Using evidence based teaching
strategies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2003). No dream denied: A pledge to America’s
children. Retrieved November 6, 2015, from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/no-dream-denied_
summary_report.pdf
Northern Territory Department of Education and Training. (2009). DET philosophy of inclusion for
students with a disability. Retrieved November 6, 2015, from http://www.education.nt.gov.au/__data/
assets/pdf_file/0005/11678/DET_PhilosophyOfInclusion.pdf
Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011). Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacy beliefs: An
insight into the making of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(12), 45–58.
100
Protheroe, N. (2008, May/June). Teacher efficacy: What is it and does it matter? Principal, 42–45.
Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://www.naesp.org/resources/1/Pdfs/Teacher_Efficacy_
What_is_it_and_Does_it_Matter.pdf
Reupert, A., & Woodcock, S. (2010). Success and near misses: Pre-service teachers’ use, confidence
and success in various classroom management strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26,
1261–1268.
Reupert, A., & Woodcock, S. (2011). Canadian and Australian pre-service teachers’ use, confidence
and success in various behaviour management strategies. International Journal of Educational
Research, 50, 271–281.
Reupert, A., Deppeler, J., & Sharma, U. (2015). Perspectives of parents of children with Autism
Spectrum Disorder. Australian Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 85–96.
Richmond, C. (2007). Teach more, manage less: A minimalist approach to behavior management.
Sydney: Scholastic Publications.
Rimm-Kaufman, S., & Sawyer, B. (2004). Primary-grade teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes towards
teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the “Responsive Classroom”
approach. The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 321–341.
Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Nel, M., & Malinen, O. (2012). Understanding teachers’ attitudes and
self-efficacy in inclusive education: implications for preservice and in-service teacher education.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 51–68.
Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A
research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59–74.
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive
practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21.
Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom
management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31,
351–380.
Stoughton, E. (2007). ‘How will I get them to behave?’: Pre service teachers reflect on classroom
management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1024–1037.
Stripling, C., Rickets, J., Roberts, T., & Harlin, J. (2008). Pre-service agricultural education teachers’
sense of teaching self efficacy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(4), 120–130.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of
novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Tuchman, E., & Isaacs, J. (2011). The influence of formal and informal formative pre-service experiences
on teacher self-efficacy. Educational Psychology, 31, 413–433.
Vaughan, M. (1995). Inclusive education in Australia: policy development and research In P. Potts,
F. Amstrong, & M. Masterson (Eds.), Equality and diversity in education 2: National and international
contexts (pp. 238–248). London: Routledge.
Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional
commitment. Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 47–48.
Woodcock, A., Hemmings, B., & Kay, R. (2012). Does study of an inclusive education subject influence
pre-service teachers’ concerns and self- efficacy about inclusion? Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 37(6), 1–11.
Woodcock, S., & Emms, J. (2015). The relationship between teacher self-efficacy and attributions of
the educational outcomes of students with specific learning disabilities. The International Journal of
Learner Diversity and Identities, 22(3), 1–15.
Woodcock, S., & Hardy, I. (in Press). Probing and problematizing professional development for inclusion:
Teachers’ perceptions of inclusion. Teaching and Teacher Education.
101
Woodcock, S., & Reupert, A. (2013). Does training matter? Comparing the behaviour management
strategies of pre-service teachers in a four year program and those in a one year program. Asia-Pacific
Woodcock, S., & Vialle, W. (2011). Are we exacerbating students’ learning disabilities? An investigation
of preservice teachers’ attributions of the educational outcomes of students with learning disabilities.
Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 223–241.
Zakaria, N., Reupert, A., & Sharma, U. (2013). Malaysian primary pre-service teachers’ perceptions of
students’ disruptive behaviour. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(3), 371–380.
Stuart Woodcock
Faculty of Human Sciences
Macquarie University
Australia
Andrea Reupert
Monash University
Australia
102
DONNA PENDERGAST AND KATHERINE MAIN
7. Teacher self-efficacy and

junior secondary
Exploring a Moment of Reform in Queensland Schools
Abstract
In 2015 all Queensland schools engaged in the biggest education reform in the
last 50 years with Year 7 students moving from primary into high school settings.
Aligned to this change, all government schools implemented Junior Secondary for
Years 7–9. This required the active adoption of six guiding principles which impacted
directly on expectations of teacher practice. To prepare for this reform, in 2014 the
Department of Education, Training, and Employment (DETE) commissioned the
Junior Secondary Leading Change Program (hereafter the Program) for delivery to
the Principal and two school leaders of each of the 259 state high school leadership
teams across the state. The Program was developed to build capacity in participants
to lead effective change processes in schools, including serving as pedagogic leaders
for classroom teachers.
This chapter outlines the development of the Program which incorporated
a number of reflection and evaluation components for the leadership team
participants. One component was to consider leaders’ perceptions of teacher self-
efficacy with regard to implementation of the junior secondary guiding principles.
This was investigated through the administration of a survey at two points during
the Program – the first at the beginning of the Program. The purpose of this survey
was to provide a stand-alone base point for each school which was compared to a
second iteration of the survey administered at the end of the Program. The importance
of understanding teacher self-efficacy was regarded to be a direct reflection of the
likely success of the reform over time, as the focus of change had a strong component
of classroom practice.
Reform in the junior secondary years in Queensland
Australia’s education systems are undergoing reform in policy and practice. Each of
the eight states and territories are responsible for funding and regulating education
within their jurisdiction, alongside some overarching national commitments.
One of these is The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young
Australians (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth

D. PENDERGAST & K. MAIN
Affairs [MCEETYA], 2008), which identified enhancing middle years teaching and
learning practices as a priority to ensure young adolescents have the best education
opportunities. It is argued that early adolescence and the transition to secondary
school is “a time when students are at the greatest risk of disengagement from
learning. Student motivation and engagement in these years is critical, and can be
influenced by tailoring approaches to teaching” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 10). Hence,
ensuring that schools and, specifically classroom teachers, know how to plan a
developmentally appropriate educational experience for young adolescents where
classroom practice moves beyond the taken-for-granted notions of adolescents and
adolescence is essential (Vagle, 2012).
According to the publication, Junior Secondary—Theory and Practice (Australian
Council for Educational Research, 2012) the key challenges in the junior secondary
years are closely linked to the nature of the changes that occur during early
adolescence, along with the challenges associated with transition between primary
and secondary school.
These following key challenges have been identified as impacting on the school
experiences of students:
• the need to manage a heterogeneous student population without sacrificing
inclusiveness;
• a decline in student academic performance;
• high incidence of disengagement, disruptive behaviour, boredom and
disconnection from schooling;
• a ‘knowledge gap’ between what is taught and the kind of content that would
engage early adolescents and match their cognitive skills;
• transition often entails major change, such as larger school size, more emphasis
on teacher control and discipline, disrupted peer relations, more impersonal
relationships between student and teachers, and different expectations of students’
performance. The transition experience can be different for different students,
depending on individual factors and contextual factors.
Until 2015, Queensland, Australia, where this Program was implemented,
had Year 7 students located in primary schools in all state (public) and non-state
(independent) schools. This positioning of Year 7 in primary schools was inconsistent
with most other states and territories, and concerns were repeatedly raised about
Queensland students’ literacy and numeracy scores against national and international
benchmarks (Daraganova, Edwards, & Sipthorp, 2013; Luke et al., 2003; Goos
et al., 2008; Lingard & Sellar, 2013). In addition, the introduction of a Prep year
in 2007 followed by a lift to the entry age of schooling in 2008 by six months with
the cut-off moving from the end of the calendar year to the middle of the year,
brought Queensland into line with other states. The overall effect of the lifting of
the school commencing age was that students are on average six months older in
each year level, so that, for example, more than half of those students in Year 7 will
turn 13 during that year. In addition, many students have also completed a Prep year
104
Teacher self-efficacy and junior secondary
which has provided an additional year of formal schooling making them older and
better prepared for a secondary school setting.
These combined factors provided the impetus to shift all Year 7 students to
secondary schools and, in addition, in public schools, to use this as an opportunity to
introduce Junior Secondary for Years 7–9. Junior Secondary is a philosophical and
practical shift in the way these year levels have traditionally operated in schools and
to make them more suited to young adolescent learners, with a clear focus on quality
teaching. The approach is guided by The Junior Secondary Guiding Principles
outlined in A Flying Start for Queensland Children (Department of Education and
Training [DET], 2010), and is one of the most significant reforms undertaken in the
history of Queensland education. The six Junior Secondary Guiding Principles are:
1. Distinct identity: Junior Secondary students will be encouraged and supported to
develop their own group identity within the wider high school. This can involve
dedicated school areas and events.
2. Quality teaching: Teachers working with students in the Junior Secondary years
will be given the skills they need through additional professional development, so
they can support young teens through these crucial early high school years.
3. Student wellbeing: We will meet the social and emotional needs of Junior
Secondary students with a strong focus on pastoral care. For example, schools
could provide a home room to support students as they adjust to new routines and
greater academic demands.
4. Parent and community involvement: We want parents to stay connected with their
students’ learning when they enter high school. Parent involvement in assemblies,
special events, award ceremonies and leadership presentations will be welcomed.
5. Leadership: Schools will be encouraged to create leadership roles for students in
Years 7, 8 and 9. Dedicated teachers experienced with teaching young adolescents
will lead Junior Secondary supported by the principal and administration team.
6. Local decision-making: The needs of each school community will influence how
Junior Secondary is implemented in each school.
The introduction of Junior Secondary is a pedagogical reform as it is about “an
intentional approach to teaching and learning that is responsive and appropriate to the
full range of needs, interests and achievements of middle years students in formal and
informal schooling contexts” (Middle Years of Schooling Association, 2008, p. 1).
With research evidence showing that teacher quality is the most important factor in
improving outcomes for students (Dinham & Rowe, 2007; Hargreaves, 1994),
Quality Teaching is critical to the effectiveness of Junior Secondary. As such, a
key consideration for all Junior Secondary schools is Quality Teaching for young
adolescents. According to the Grattan Institute (Jensen, Hunter, Sonnemann, &
Cooper, 2014):
• improving teaching effectiveness outweighs the impact of any other school
education program or policy in improving student performance;
105
• a student exposed to great teaching can achieve in half year what a student
exposed to poor teaching can achieve in a full year; and
• because the impact of highly effective teaching is cumulative, relatively modest
increases in effectiveness can make a big difference in student learning.
The guiding principle related to quality teaching specifically points to the need
for reforms in the way teaching and learning would occur in Junior Secondary
classrooms. Hence, teacher self-efficacy became an important aspect of the Program
design consideration, which is now outlined.
Junior Secondary Leading Change Program

The key objective of the Program was to provide state high school leadership teams
with a Program that built their capability to lead effective change processes in
schools, specifically in preparation for the transition of Year 7 to Junior Secondary
by the start of 2015. The Program was designed (Pendergast et al., 2015) around the
core features of professional development (PD) (Desimone, 2009) and aimed to:
• build school leadership team capability to lead change in transitioning Year 7 to
high school;
• build school leadership team capability to lead the introduction of Junior
Secondary in all state high schools;
• provide support to school leadership teams with the school’s development
and implementation of action plans for transitioning Year 7 to high school and
introducing Junior Secondary in all state high schools;
• ensure all state high schools were ready for inclusion and integration of
Year 7 students into high school from January 2015 (Pendergast et al., 2014).
The Program was delivered in three stages to three school leaders (including the
principal) from each of the 259 state high schools in Queensland with Years 7–9.
It was designed for schools commencing the journey as well as for other purpose-
designed schools, including 20 that had been pilot schools that had begun their
journey of reform in 2012. In this way the Program aimed to work with all schools
to further progress the development of their Junior Secondary program. The model
of delivery was implemented for each of the seven regions of the state, hence seven
two-day conferences and seven one-day conferences marked the beginning and
then end of the Program, with coaching between these key events, as outlined in
Table 10. The Program was conceptually built around a distinct theoretical model
known as the Educational Change Model (ECM) (Pendergast, 2006) and aligned
with the core features of effective professional development (Desimone, 2009).
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Program as a professional development
program and its effect on teacher and leader efficacy was argued to be vital to ensure
that school leaders have the skills and resources necessary to implement and sustain
the successful introduction of Junior Secondary.
106
Table 10. Leading change development program project stages
Stage Activity Timeline (2014)
1 Two-day professional learning conference for school April–June

leaders
Delivered seven times to each of the regions in the state.
The focus was for 3 school leaders from each school
to determine their school’s current phase of reform by
being guided through a range of sessions that utilised a
comprehensive suite of resources available to all schools
via provision of a loaded USB device as well as access to
a purpose-built interactive website. Resources provided
theoretical information and evidence-based research related
to adolescent learners, the six Guiding Principles, the
Education Change Model and quality teaching strategies.
Information, PowerPoint presentations, and activities were
developed for twenty-eight topics ranging from effective
practices for adolescent learners to building teams within
schools.
2 Implementation with coaching support, including May–September
development and/or further refinement of an Action Plan
and webinars
All 259 schools were placed into one of 22 clusters that were
negotiated with advice from regional representatives. Each
cluster included approximately 10 schools and was allocated
two professional coaches. For 3–4 months the coaches were
available for direct support to assist schools with their Junior
Secondary ‘Action Plans’ as well as providing feedback and
advice on three structured milestones.
In addition to the coaching process, four webinars were
presented on topics that were most frequently requested
by school leaders during the two-day conferences and the
coaching dialogues.
3 One-day workshop for school leaders September–October
These were co-delivered in the seven regions and
constituted the final phase of the Program. It provided an
opportunity for the school leadership teams to reflect on and
share their Action Plan achievements and their readiness
for the change in 2015. These workshops were structured
around the concept of educational Best Practice, with a
focus on three key themes: Transition; Quality Teaching;
and Evidence-based Practice. Schools were given
opportunities to network and to share their successes in
their program implementation efforts, with schools invited
to present a snapshot of Best Practice in one of the three
targeted areas.
107
Teacher Efficacy
If the Program of reform had any chance of success, understanding teacher self-
efficacy regarding their confidence and competence to implement the six guiding
principles, and importantly the principle related to Quality Teaching is important to
investigate. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) explained that a teacher’s sense of
efficacy is their belief or “judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired
outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who
may be difficult or unmotivated” (p. 783). Teacher efficacy can be categorised into
two types: general teacher efficacy – “teachers’ beliefs in the ability of teachers in
general to influence student outcomes” and personal teacher efficacy – “teachers
beliefs about their own ability to affect student outcomes” (Wheatley, 2002, p. 6).
Mourshed, Chijioke, and Barber (2010) investigated the factors that enable systems
to improve, identifying teacher self-efficacy through the building of the instructional
skills of teachers and management skills of principals as one of six ‘must haves’
for effective reform. For school-wide change, there must be a strong multi-partner
professional development focus on middle years curriculum and pedagogy (quality
teaching) as well as a strong and focused leadership for effective and sustained change.
The connection between professional learning and improved student learning is central
to the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) Charter (2012)
and features the concept of teacher self-efficacy or effectiveness to enact new learning.
The Charter notes that “[I]mproving student outcomes is the ultimate goal of teachers
and school leaders, and of the professional learning they undertake” (p. 4). With
teachers and school leaders noted as both the subjects and agents of change (Main,
2013), Desimone and Garet (2015) noted that where strategies and ideas delivered
through PD are aligned with leadership priorities there is an increased “ability,
willingness, and motivation” by teachers to modify their practices.
Teacher efficacy is a multi-faceted construct that has significant implications for
teacher practices and student outcomes. Ingvarson, Meiers, and Beavis (2005) found
a correlational link between teachers’ sense of efficacy and teachers’ improved
practices and a causal link between teachers’ improved practices and improved
student outcomes. Where a school has the structures, programs and leadership in
place, teachers are also able to access other sources that further enhance their sense
of self-efficacy.
With a major focus for the Junior Secondary reform agenda around Quality
Teaching, leadership teams were asked to consider the efficacy of their teacher
cohort. Each leadership team was provided with the instrument and asked to discuss
and then, as a team, agree on the rating for each of the questions.
Method
There are a range of instruments that have been developed to collect data about
teacher self-efficacy. The Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Skaalvik &
108
Skaalvik, 2007, 2010) was selected for this purpose as it was deemed to be suitable
for administration in the context of the study and most relevant to the focus of the
Program. Leadership teams were invited to complete the survey to provide a snap-
shot of their perceptions of the preparedness (sense of efficacy) of their teachers to
teach in Junior Secondary at that point in time.
The Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) is a 24
item Likert type scale consisting of six dimensions with 4 items in each dimension.
The dimensions are:
• instruction;
• adapting education to individual students’ needs;
• motivating students;
• keeping discipline;
• cooperating with colleagues and parents; and
• coping with changes and challenges.
Responses were given on a 7-point scale from Not certain at all (1) to Absolutely
certain (7). These ratings were converted to a scale from zero to six for the purposes
of calculation. The six sub-scales are extensively described and validated elsewhere
(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). An example of an item on the Norwegian Teacher Self-
Efficacy Scale is How certain are you that you can provide realistic challenge for
all students even in mixed ability classes?
The survey also includes two further series of questions relating to:
• working in teams, and
• beliefs
with seven and five questions respectively. Responses were given on a 6-point
scale from false (1) to true (6). These ratings were converted to a scale from zero to
five for the purposes of calculation.
The purpose of this survey was to provide a stand-alone base point for each school
so that school leaders could shape the professional learning opportunities provided
to their staff.
The identical evaluation survey was administered at two Stages in the Program.
The first data collection point was during the two-day learning conference; the
second at the end of the one-day workshop. After the second administration, the
leadership team were provided their first survey responses and they were invited to
compare the two sets of responses.
Findings
A total of 245 (92% response rate) and 145 (56% response rate) completed surveys
were collected at the seven two-day conference and seven one-day workshops
respectively. These responses were collaboratively provided from each leadership
team. Table 11 shows overall means, and by region, of the six subscales of the
109
Table 11. Average scores for the six subscales of the Norwegian Teacher
Self-Efficacy Scale (two day conference and the one day workshop)
Event Regiona Dimensionb

IN AD MD DI CO CH WT BE
1 3.9 3.4 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.1 3.7 1.5
2 3.8 3.3 3.3 3.9 4.2 3.9 3.5 1.4
Two day conference
3 4.0 3.7 3.6 4.1 4.6 4.0 4.0 1.7

4 3.8 3.3 3.3 3.8 4.3 3.8 3.6 1.4
5 3.6 3.2 3.0 3.6 4.1 3.7 3.5 1.6
6 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.9 4.5 3.9 3.7 1.6
7 4.1 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.4 4.0 3.8 1.4
TOTAL 3.9 3.5 3.4 4.0 4.4 3.9 3.7 1.5
1 4.4 3.8 3.9 4.4 4.6 4.2 3.8 1.2

2 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.9 4.4 3.9 3.6 1.5
One day workshop
3 4.2 3.8 3.8 4.2 4.8 4.0 3.8 1.6

4 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.9 4.3 4.1 3.6 1.6
5 4.0 3.5 3.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.6 1.7
6 4.6 3.9 3.7 4.0 4.6 4.1 3.6 1.4
7 4.4 3.8 3.6 5.0 4.3 3.9 3.8 1.3
TOTAL 4.2 3.7 3.7 4.2 4.5 4.0 3.7 1.4
a
Regions randomly allocated a number to ensure anonymity
b
IN – Instruction. AD – Adapting instruction to individual needs. MO – Motivating students.
MD – Maintaining discipline. CO – cooperate with colleagues and parents. CH – Coping with change.
WT – Working in teams. BE – Beliefs
Note: M
eans range from a possible minimum of 0 to a maximum of 6 for IN, AD, MO, MD, CO and CH,
and a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 5 for WT and BE
Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale and the two other areas investigated. The
scores range from a minimum score of 0 to a maximum score of 6. A higher score
indicates the belief in the leadership team that their staff are more capable (greater
sense of efficacy) in each subscale. At the beginning of the program (i.e., at the two-
day conference) overall, leadership teams across the state rated their teachers lowest
(M = 3.4, SD = 0.9) on their ability to motivate students, and highest (M = 4.4,
SD = 0.83) in their ability to cooperate with colleagues and parents. At the end of
the Program (i.e., at the one-day workshop) the lowest overall mean had risen to 3.7
and was observed in the dimensions of motivating students, adapting education to
individual students’ needs. No statistically significant difference was detected in any
of the six scales between regions. It is important to note that the proper interpretation
110
Table 12. Significance test for leaders’ perceptions of teacher efficacy
Dimension 2 Day conference 1 Day workshop Sig.

M SD M SD
Instruction 4.0 0.8 4.3 0.8 *
Adapting instruction to individual needs 3.5 1.0 3.7 1.0 *
Motivating students 3.5 0.9 3.7 0.9 *
Maintain discipline 4.0 0.9 4.2 1.4
Cooperate with colleagues and parents 4.4 0.8 4.5 0.8
Cope with change 4.0 0.8 4.0 0.9
Working in teams 3.7 0.7 3.7 0.6
Beliefs 1.5 0.7 1.4 0.7
Note: Sig = significant
for the Beliefs scale should be reversed, i.e., leadership teams believed the locus of
control in for example, developing students’ abilities, motivating students etc., was
well within their control (M = 1.50, SD = 0.73).
Using identifiers from the survey responses, data from 130 of the schools could
be matched for both survey 1 and survey 2. This data was then compiled and a
pairs-wise t-test was conducted on the 130 schools that responded to the Norwegian
Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale at both the two day conference and one day workshop
(see Table 12). A statistically significant difference (at the p = 0.05 level) was
observed in three of the dimensions: instruction, adapting instruction to individual
needs; and motivating students. This is in keeping with school leaders identifying
the need to focus on quality teaching at the beginning of the program (i.e., at the
two-day conference) once they got back to school and indicates that this had indeed
been the case.
Discussion and Conclusion
The shift of Year 7 and introduction of Junior Secondary has a clear agenda to focus
on quality teaching. This is reflected in the six Guiding Principles. The Program
designed and implemented to support the major reform included an extensive series
of opportunities and support for school leaders to develop capabilities to enhance
their teacher capabilities with respect to teaching in the junior secondary setting.
Data produced at two points in time – at the commencement of the Program and
at the end of the Program – related to teacher self-efficacy, provided important
insights into the perceptions by leaders of the efficacy of their staff to implement the
Junior Secondary agenda, particularly with respect to the Quality teaching Guiding
Principle.
111
Where direct comparisons could be made, the areas reported by leaders to be

least effective at the outset of the Program were: adapting instruction to individual
needs; and motivating students. Both of these dimensions were reported to have
improved by the end of the Program, with statistically significant shifts to the
averages reported. The dimension of instruction was also identified as having tested
for statistical significance. Importantly, all of the remaining dimensions were also
reported by leaders to have improved. These results support findings by Desimone
and Garet (2015) around the positive influence that leadership in schools have
on teachers’ implementation of ideas and strategies when they are aligned with
leadership priorities. This bodes well for the implementation of the reform agenda
and is an affirming insight into the value and contribution of the Program.
References
Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (2012). Junior secondary – Theory and practice.
Brisbane, QLD: Queensland Government, Department of Education and Training.
Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2012). The Australian charter for the
professional learning of teachers and school leaders. Carlton South, VIC: Main.
Daraganova, G., Edwards, B., & Sipthorp, M. (2013). Growing up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study
of Australian Children. Using National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN)
data in the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) (Technical Paper No. 8). Canberra,
ACT: Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs.
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2010). A flying start for Queensland children: Education
green paper. Brisbane, QLD: Author.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better
conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the
United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263.
Dinham, S., & Rowe, K. (2007). Teaching and learning in middle schools: A review of the literature.
Camberwell, VIC: ACER.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goos, M., Mills, M., Gilbert, R., Gowlett, C., Wright, T., Renshaw, P., … Honan, E. (2008). Longitudinal
study of teaching and learning in Queensland state schools (Stage 1). Brisbane, QLD: Department of
Education, Training and the Arts.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1994). The new professionalism: The synthesis of professional and institutional
development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 423–438.
Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development
programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 13(10), 1–28.
Jensen, B., Hunter, J., Sonnemann, J., & Cooper, S. (2014). Making time for great teaching (Report
No. 2014-3). Australia: Grattan Institute.
Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2013). ‘Catalyst data’: Perverse systemic effects of audit and accountability in
Australian Schooling. Journal of Educational Policy, 28(3), 634–656.
Luke, A., Elkins, J., Weir, K., Land, R., Carrington, V., Dole, S., … Stevens, L. (2003). Beyond the
Middle: A Report about literacy and numeracy development of target group students in the middle
years of schooling (Vol. 1). Brisbane, QLD: McMillan.
Main, K. (2013). Australian middle years’ reform: A focus on teachers and leaders as the subjects and
agents of change. In I. R. Haslam, M. S. Khine, & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Large scale reform and social
capital building: The professional development imperative (pp. 180–197). London, UK: Routledge.
112
Middle Years of Schooling Association. (2008). MYSA position paper. Middle schooling: People,
practices and places. Brisbane, QLD.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MYCEETYA].
(2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved from
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_
for_Young_Australians.pdf
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep
getting better. New York, NY: McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/
how-the-worlds-most-improved-school-systems-keep-getting-better/
Pendergast, D. (2006). Fast-tracking middle schooling reform: A model for sustainability. Australian
Journal of Middle Schooling, 6(2), 13–18.
Pendergast, D., Flanagan, R., Land, R., Bahr, M., Mitchell, J., Weir, K., … Smith, J. (2005). Developing
lifelong learners in the middle years of schooling. Brisbane, QLD: The University of Queensland.
Pendergast, D., Main, K., Kanasa, H., Barton, G., Hearfield, S., Geelan, D., & Dowden, T. (2014). An
ongoing journey: Evaluation of the junior secondary leading change development program. Brisbane,
QLD: DET.
Pendergast, D., Main, K., Barton, G., Kanasa, H., Geelan, D., & Dowden, T. (2015). The education change
model as a vehicle for reform: Shifting year 7 and implementing junior secondary in Queensland.
Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 15(2), 5–19.
99(3), 611–625.
Vagle, V. (2012). Not a Stage! A critical re-conception of young adolescent education. New York, NY:
Peter Lang Publishing.
Donna Pendergast
School of Education and Professional Studies
Griffith University
Australia
Katherine Main
School of Education and Professional Studies
Griffith University
Australia
113
OLLI-PEKKA MALINEN
8. Teacher efficacy research

in mainland china
abstract
The top performance of Shanghai students in the OECD PISA study brought
more international attention toward mainland Chinese teachers. At the same, the
availability of non-Chinese research concerning Chinese teachers is limited. This
chapter will provide a review of the mostly Chinese language research on teacher
efficacy in mainland China. The review shows that the similar problems such as the
use of invalid measurement scales, which have troubled teacher efficacy research
internationally, exist also in China. At the end of the chapter, suggestions how to
improve the situation are provided.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been a growing international interest towards mainland
Chinese education system in general, and Chinese teachers in particular due to the
top performance of Shanghai students in the OECD’s latest PISA surveys. One
widely stated explanation behind the Shanghai students PISA success has been
the assumedly high quality of the teaching force (Tucker, 2014). This has led other
countries and international organizations to turn their eyes to mainland Chinese
teachers when seeking solutions for improving students learning outcomes (OECD,
2015). One concrete example of this type of approach is the Shanghai-England
teacher exchange program initiated and financed by the Department of Education of
England (Department for Education, 2014). At the same time one must keep in mind
that Shanghai teachers represent only a small fraction of the 12 million pre-school,
primary school or secondary school teachers in China (Ministry of Education of the
People’s Republic of China [MOE], 2015).
Considering the rising international attention to mainland Chinese teachers,
it is unfortunate that the availability of non-Chinese language research literature
concerning teachers in mainland China is still quite limited. In this respect teacher
self-efficacy is no exception since the vast majority of Chinese teacher efficacy
research has been published only in local academic journals. This chapter aims to
offer at least partial solution to this demand. The topic will be discussed under four
different themes. First, in order to help to position the Chinese research I will give a
short introduction to the international teacher efficacy research. Second I will review

O.-P. MALINEN
shortly the features of conceptual teacher efficacy articles that have been published
in Chinese academic journals. Third, we will focus on empirical teacher efficacy
studies and view them from the perspective of measurement instruments, research
questions, and research findings. Fourth, I will conclude the chapter by outlining
future directions for improving the research in this area.
TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY RESEARCH INTERNATIONALLY
Internationally, teacher efficacy research has been conducted in two strands.

Tschannen-Moran, Hoy and Hoy (1998) named these partly intertwined lines of
research as RAND strand and the Bandura strand. The RAND strand of teacher
efficacy research was born in the 1970s, when the RAND Corporation expanded
their questionnaire with two items that were considered to be dealing with teacher
efficacy. The first RAND item: “When it comes right down to it, a teacher really
can’t do much because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on
his or her home environment” deals with the influence of environmental factors that
are largely outside teachers’ control on students motivation and learning. Teacher
beliefs concerning the influence of this type of external factors have been usually
called general teaching efficacy (GTE). The second RAND item: “If I really try
hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students” deals
with teacher beliefs about the influence of their own teaching on student learning.
This type of beliefs have been called personal teaching efficacy (PTE) in the RAND
strand of teacher efficacy research.
The Bandura strand of teacher efficacy research is more tightly connected to
Bandura’s (1977) theory on self-efficacy. Studies that follow this strand consider
teacher efficacy as one specific domain of self-efficacy. This means that teacher self-
efficacy can be defined as teachers’ or sometimes pre-service teachers’ “individual
beliefs in their capabilities to perform specific teaching tasks at a specified level of
quality in a specified situation” (Dellinger, Bobbett, Olivier, & Ellett, 2008, p. 752).
Researchers working along the Bandura strand of teacher efficacy research often
divide teacher self-efficacy into several dimensions that represent different aspects
of teachers’ work in schools. These dimensions are often related to classroom
management, instruction, engaging students, and collaborating with colleagues and
parents (Chan, 2008a, 2008b; Klassen et al., 2009; Malinen et al., 2013; Romi &
Leyser, 2006; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007; 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2001, 2007).
TEACHER EFFICACY RESEARCH IN MAINLAND CHINA
This section aims to describe the existing teacher efficacy and particularly teacher
self-efficacy research in mainland China. The objective is not to provide
comprehensive review of all the research in this area, but rather to offer a general
picture of the tendencies, research questions and research tools used during the
116
Teacher efficacy research in mainland china
20 years period from mid-1990s to mid-2010s. The amount of English language

literature on this topic is very limited. Therefore, the cited references have been
published mainly in local Chinese language academic journals.
Selection of the Articles
In the beginning, the China Academic Journals (CAJ) Full-text Database of the
China Knowledge Resource Integrated (CNKI) Database was searched for articles
with “jiàoshī (teacher, literary form) or lǎoshī (teacher, colloquial form)” and
“zìwǒ xiàonénggǎn (self-efficacy) or jiàoxué xiàonénggǎn (teaching efficacy)” in
the title. This resulted to 523 hits that were examined with following procedure.
First, the articles were sorted with “downloads” and “cites” functions of the CNKI
Database to identify the most widely read and cited articles. Second, all articles
with words “shùpíng, zòngshù or huígù (review)” or “zǒngjié (summary)” in their
title were identified and their abstracts examined in order to find review articles that
would already summarize the existing research. Third, the remaining article titles
were skimmed through and selected abstracts were read to identify different types
of studies that would form an adequately diverse but reasonable-sized sample of
Chinese teacher efficacy research.
About 20 full-text papers from the CAJ Full-text Database were selected to
a more thorough reading. The number of closely examined Chinese language
articles later grew when some articles from the references of review papers were
included to the reading list. In addition, three English language articles (Yin, Lee,
Jin, & Zhang, 2013; Cheung, 2008; Yu, Wang, Zhai, Dai, & Yang, 2015) and my
own doctoral dissertation (Malinen, 2013) that investigated teacher self-efficacy
in mainland China were included to the reading list. The end result of the article
selection process was in total 30 Chinese and English language full-text articles
that were published in years 1995–2015. The selected teacher efficacy papers
form roughly three groups: conceptual papers, empirical research papers and
review papers that summarize Chinese and international (mostly North American)
research.
CONCEPTUAL ARTICLES
The examined conceptual papers are non-empirical articles that usually introduce
some internationally studied aspect of teacher efficacy and/or teacher self-efficacy
to Chinese readers. These articles often use some of the most widely cited English
language self-efficacy and teacher efficacy texts (e.g. Bandura, 1997; Gibson &
Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998) as their main references. Generally,
the conceptual papers first report the main ideas of these English texts or their
Chinese translations. The authors then use those ideas as a starting point for their
own non-empirically based claims about teacher efficacy and its adaptation in the
context of China.
117
O.-P. MALINEN
Some examples of these conceptual papers are Hong and Pang’s (2006b)
general introduction to the concept of teacher self-efficacy, the same authors’
(Hong & Pang, 2006a) article about the impact of teacher self-efficacy on child’s
development, and the paper by Guo and Li (2008) on the training strategies of
teacher self-efficacy. The claims that the authors make in their articles sometimes
go far beyond the actual research evidence provided by the referenced texts. For
example Guo and Li (2008) have only three English language articles and two
short Chinese language articles in their references and they have not collected
any empirical data. With this limited evidence base they provide comprehensive
instructions concerning strategies for improving teacher self-efficacy in Chinese
educational system.
EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Measurement Instruments
The examined empirical papers mostly follow the RAND strand of teacher
efficacy research or apply a mixture of RAND and Bandura strands. Studies that
conceptualize teacher efficacy strictly along the Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-
efficacy are much more infrequent. One important reason behind the prevalence
of the RAND strand seems to be the structure and content of the most popular
measurement instrument. In mid-1990s Yu, Xin and Shen (1995) developed an
instrument named Teaching efficacy scale (Jiàoshī jiàoxué xiàonénggǎn liàng
biǎo). According to the developers of the scale it was developed on the basis of the
Teacher Efficacy Scale by Gibson and Dembo (1984). Similar to the Gibson and
Dembo (1984) scale the Chinese Teaching efficacy scale consists of two sub-scales
that are named as Personal teaching efficacy (Gèrén jiàoxué xiàonéng) and General
teaching efficacy (Yībān jiàoyù xiàonéng). Since its development Chinese Teaching
efficacy scale has been the most popular Chinese teacher efficacy measure.
The Gibson and Dembo (1984) measure, that was a model for the Chinese scale,
used to be internationally the most widely applied teacher efficacy instrument.
Nevertheless, it has been criticized from the instability of its factor structure and
the unclear meaning of the two factors (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Gibson
and Dembo (1984) state that their scale is based on Bandura’s conceptualization
of self-efficacy so that the Personal teaching efficacy factor represents self-efficacy
and General teaching efficacy factor represents outcome expectations. Bandura
(1978), however, emphasized that self-efficacy and outcome expectations are
separate structures, even though they can influence each other. Therefore, it is
questionable if they can be included in the same scale. Additional empirical evidence
that self-efficacy and outcome expectations cannot be counted as dimensions
of the same structure is that they have been found to have only small correlation
in China (Li, Yang, & Shen, 2007; Yin ,Lee, Jin, & Zhang, 2013) and elsewhere
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
118
Regardless of these theoretical and psychometrical weaknesses Teaching

efficacy scale (Yu, Xin, & Shen, 1995) with its 27 items has continued to be
widely used instrument in Chinese teacher efficacy research. It seems, however,
that from about 2005 onwards there has been an increase in the number of studies
that use scales measuring more strictly teacher self-efficacy. These instruments
include Cheung’s (2008) translation of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy (TSE) Scale
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) the combination of Bandura’s Teacher Self-
Efficacy Scale (Woolfolk Hoy, 2015) and TSE scale by Liu, Meng and Zhang (2004),
the adaptation of the Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2007) by Zhu and Wang (2009), and the Mainland Chinese version of the Teacher
Self-Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) Scale (Malinen et al., 2013).
Research Questions of Empirical Papers
Only a few empirical studies have had research questions related to the structure
of teacher efficacy in Chinese context. As already mentioned, the first Chinese
studies conducted in mid-1990s (e.g. Xin, 1996; Yu, Xin, & Shen, 1995) came to
the conclusion that teacher efficacy consists of two dimensions namely personal
teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy. Most of the subsequent studies
have taken this two-dimensional structure more or less for granted (Wang,
2008). Only more recently there have been studies that present alternative factor
structures of teacher self-efficacy (e.g. Zan, Liu, Wang, & Sharma, 2012; Zhu &
Wang, 2009). Instead of factor structure of teacher efficacy most studies have been
focusing more on the relationship between teacher efficacy and other variables
which are assumed to affect teacher efficacy or being affected by it (Tan, 2006;
Wang, 2008).
The factors, whose connection to teacher efficacy has been investigated, can be
divided roughly into two groups. The first group is external factors that include
for example school characteristics, teacher relations, teacher-student relationship,
students study habits, teacher’s educational qualifications and the length of teaching
career (Wang, 2008). The second group, internal factors, includes for example
teacher’s values, self-concept, job satisfaction and burnout (Wang, 2008). The
authors of the empirical papers often claim to be studying the effect of these factors
on teacher efficacy or the effect of teacher efficacy on these factors. Yet, the studies
are based exclusively on cross-sectional data, which does not strictly speaking
enable such causal inferences. In addition, the authors do not often provide clear
theory-based justification for the selection of the variables and the assumed direction
of causality. Therefore, the investigated studies provide information mostly about
correlational, not causal relationships, between teacher efficacy and other factors.
Additionally, it is often not clear how the variables that are included in the models
represent (if they represent) Bandura’s (1977) four sources of self-efficacy. Keeping
these limitations in mind we can now move to examine some of the most interesting
findings of Chinese teacher efficacy studies.
119
O.-P. MALINEN
Research findings of empirical papers
Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Classroom Practices
Li and Liu (2000) applied research design that partly replicated the widely cited
Gibson and Dembo (1984) study. They first collected questionnaire data from nearly
600 in-service and pre-service teachers from Hubei province. Then the primary
school teachers were put in order according to their teacher efficacy scores, and
three teachers with highest scores and four teachers with lowest scores were selected
for classroom observation.
The classroom observations showed that there were statistically significant
differences between the two groups in the use of instruction time, feedback
behaviours and questioning style. During the observed lesson teachers with higher
efficacy scores spent significantly more time focusing on academic activities while
those with lower efficacy scores spent more time on non-academic tasks. There
were statistically significant differences between the two groups also in teacher
feedback behaviours. Teachers with low efficacy scores responded to student
answers more often by simply repeating what the student had said or by continuing
teaching without any response. Teachers with high efficacy score responded to
student answers more often by giving a short approving or disapproving comment
before their continued teaching. There were also statistically significant differences
between the groups in the style of questions that the teachers used. Teachers with
high efficacy scores asked more often questions that required higher-level cognitive
reasoning from the students and did not have one simple correct answer.
Relationship of Teacher Self-Efficacy and Student Outcomes
The study by Liu, Meng and Zhang (2005) is still one of the few Chinese studies
that have investigated the relationship between teacher efficacy and student
outcomes. They studied the effect of classroom management self-efficacy on
students’ attitudes towards learning in Beijing city and Shanxi province. The study
used questionnaire data from 109 primary school classes that consisted of 109 head
teachers (bānzhǔrèn),1 and 3066 students. Their analysis showed that teacher self-
efficacy in classroom management predicted positively variation between primary
school classes in student attitudes toward learning, when the teaching grade of the
teacher was accounted for. In addition, teacher efficacy in classroom management
moderated the relationship between student’s academic efficacy and attitudes toward
learning.
Teacher Self-Efficacy as a Mediator of Teacher Variables
Teacher efficacy has also been found to act as a mediator between different teacher
variables. Yin, Lee, Yin and Zhang (2013) studied the mediating role of teacher
120
efficacy in a relationship between teacher empowerment and teachers’ trust in their

colleagues. The sample consisted of 1646 teachers from six municipalities that were
located in Chongqing, Guizhou, Yunnan, Tianjin, Henan and Fujian province.
Yin and others (2013) found that personal teaching efficacy (PTE) mediated
the effect of trust in colleagues into teacher empowerment. In their final, fully
mediated model, the effect of PTE to the three teacher empowerment factors
(professional growth, participation in decision making, and perceived impact on
other colleagues) was exceptionally high (standardized regression coefficients
ranged from .76 to .87). Such high connection between variables suggests that the
personal teaching efficacy and teacher empowerment scales may actually measure
the same latent construct. Closer look to the individual items of the teacher
empowerment scale (Klecker & Loadman, 1996; Short & Rinehart, 1992; Yin,
Jin, & Lee, 2009) indeed confirms that their wordings are very close to the concept
of teacher self-efficacy.
Yu, Wang, Zhai, Dai and Yang (2015) studied the mediating role of self-efficacy
between teacher work stress and job burnout. The sample consisted of 387 middle
school teachers. The location the teachers’ school(s) is not reported in the article.
Yu and others (2015) measured self-efficacy with the 10-item General Self-Efficacy
Scale that was adapted to Chinese by Zhang and Schwarzer (1995). Even though
the validity of such a broad construct as general self-efficacy has been questioned
by several scholars including Bandura (2012) himself, General Self-Efficacy Scale
has been utilized in many studies across the world. Job burnout was measured by
the 15-item Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996) and
perceived stress was measured with the 14-item Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen,
1986). The three scales have in total 39 items but Yu and others (2015) report that
their model had only nine measured variables, without providing any explanation
what happened to the remaining 30 measured variables.
The authors found that general self-efficacy partly mediated the effect of
perceived stress to job burnout. They conclude that, “when they are faced with a
greater level of pressure in their work, teachers tend to develop lower self-efficacy
and feel tired of working.” (Yu et al., 2015, p. 705). Nevertheless the reliability
of the finding is shadowed by the above-mentioned ambiguities concerning the
methodology of the study.
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Inclusive Education
In my own doctoral dissertation (Malinen, 2013) I studied Chinese pre-service

teachers’ and in-service teachers’ self-efficacy related to inclusive education. The
pre-service teacher sample consisted of 554 students from two normal universities
that are located in Beijing and Chongqing and one special education college
situated in Beijing. The in-service teacher data was collected from 451 primary and
middle school teachers working in 132 different schools in Beijing. The teacher self-
121
O.-P. MALINEN
efficacy was measured with the mainland Chinese translation of the Teacher Self-
Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) Scale (Malinen, Savolainen, & Xu, 2012).
The analysis showed that teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices seemed to
be multidimensional construct that can be divided into at least three factors which
were named as Efficacy in inclusive instruction, Efficacy in collaboration, and
Efficacy in managing behaviour. Previous experience in teaching students with
disabilities explained significantly in-service teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive
practices. The level of self-efficacy was also connected to the type of school
connected to the type of school (special education or mainstream education school)
so that special education school teachers had higher self-efficacy in collaboration
whereas mainstream school educators felt themselves more capable in managing
student behaviour. When the effect of different self-efficacy dimensions on teachers’
attitudes towards inclusive education was tested, the only self-efficacy factor that
significantly predicted attitudes was efficacy in collaboration.
Among pre-service teachers, major subject was connected with self-efficacy. The
students majoring in education, early childhood education, and special education
on the average had relatively low self-efficacy for inclusive practices compared to
other major subject groups. This counter-intuitive finding may be explained so that
educational sciences majors who are likely to receive more training about inclusive
education may hold more realistic efficacy beliefs which reflect more accurately
their actual level of competence. When the relationship between self-efficacy and
attitudes was tested, there was a relatively strong positive connection between pre-
service teachers’ teacher self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusive education.
CONCLUSIONS
In their international review of studies published in years 1998–2009 Klassen,

Tze, Betts & Gordon (2011), identified that major problems hampering the teacher
efficacy research were (1) the lack of attention to measuring the sources of self-
efficacy, (2) the use of invalid research instruments, (3) the lack of research on the
connection between teacher efficacy and student outcomes, and (4) the research’s
limited contribution to school practices. The reading of 30 Chinese teacher efficacy
studies from years 1995–2015 suggests that these problems are relevant also in the
context of mainland China.
One additional challenge concerning Chinese teacher efficacy research is its
limited contribution to international literature. The studies are mostly written in
Chinese for mainland Chinese readers, and conducted by all-Chinese researcher
teams. There is certainly a great need for publishing in Chinese, a language that
is read by over one billion people. Yet, a closer collaboration with international
researchers and bringing research more accessible to non-Chinese readers would
benefit both international and mainland Chinese research. International scholars
could learn from the best Chinese studies and connection to the international research
community would enable Chinese researchers to develop their own work further. For
122
example the use of what Klassen and others (2011, p. 36) call “conceptually troubled
measures” still seems to be quite common in Chinese studies. At the same time in
international journals, there has already been a considerable shift to measurement
scales that have more solid theoretical background and psychometrical qualities.
Another suggestion for improving mainland Chinese teacher efficacy research in
the future is the adoption of more sophisticated research designs and more ambitious
research questions. All articles that were reviewed for this chapter were based on
cross-sectional data and in most cases the data was collected only from in-service
or pre-service teachers. By collecting longitudinal data the researchers would be in
a better position to study causal relationships between teacher efficacy and other
constructs. The research could also try to design intervention studies with the
purpose of studying the effect of their intervention on teacher efficacy and related
outcomes. In addition more studies like the one by Liu, Meng and Zhang (2005) that
combine both teacher and student data in the same analysis are certainly needed.
This chapter offered an introduction to the existing research on teacher efficacy
in mainland China. It started with a short description of teacher efficacy as an
international research topic, continued with a non-comprehensive review of Chinese
research papers and ended with bringing up a few suggestions how to improve
mainland Chinese teacher efficacy research. I am confident that this chapter has
given readers a better understanding of the status of teacher efficacy research in
mainland China. I also hope that it will provide ideas how to improve research in
the future.
Note
1
In Chinese schools each class usually has a head teacher bānzhǔrèn. In addition to teaching her subject
(most commonly Chinese language and literature or mathematics), bānzhǔrèn works as a director of a
class and has the main responsibility of managing the class and communicating with families.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(4),
237–269.
Chan, D. W. (2008). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in
Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 28(2), 181–194.
Chan, D. W. (2008). General, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy among Chinese
prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4),
1057–1069.
Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Teacher efficacy: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghai primary
in-service teachers. Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 103–123.
Cohen, S. (1986). Contrasting the hassles scale and the perceived stress scale: Who’s really measuring
appraised stress? American Psychologist, 41(6), 716–718.
Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-self. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 751–766.
123
O.-P. MALINEN
Department for Education. (2014, November 4). Elite teachers travel from Shanghai for pioneering
maths exchange. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/elite-teachers-travel-from-
Shanghai-for-pioneering-maths-exchange
Gao, H., & Chen, X. (2012). Ziwo xiaonenggan: Xin jiaoshi jiaoxue chengzhang de nei quli [Self-efficacy:
driving force of growth for new teacher]. Xiandai Jiaoyu Kexue [Modern Education Science], (1),
50–57.
Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
Guo, M., & Li, B. (2008). Jiaoshi ziwa xiaoneng gan ji qi peiyang celüe [Teacher self-efficacy and its
training strategies]. Dangdai Jiaoshi Jiaoyu [Contemporary Teacher Education], 1(3), 29–31.
Hong, X., & Pang, L. (2006a). Jiaoshi ziwo xiaoneng gan dui ertong fazhan de zuoyong ji qi jizhi
[Teachers’ perceived self-efficacy on children’s development]. Jiaoshi Fazhan Yu Jiaoshi Jiaoyu
[Teacher Development and Teacher Education], 47(6).
Hong, X., & Pang, L. (2006b). Lun jiaoshi ziwo xiaonenggan de benzhi, jiegou yu tezheng [Teacher’s
perceived self-efficacy: Its nature, structure and characteristics]. Jiaoyu Kexue [Education Science],
22(4), 44–46.
Huang, X. (2005). Zhongwen “jiaoshi xiaonenggan liangbiao” de xin, xiaodu yanjiu [Reliability and
validity of the Chinese version of “teacher efficacy scale”]. Xinli Fazhan Yu Jiaoyu [Psychological
Development and Education], (1), 115–118.
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y. F., & Georgiou, T. (2009).
Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 34(1), 67–76.
Klecker, B., & Loadman, W. E. (1996). An analysis of the school participant empowerment scale (short
and rinehart, 1992) based on data from 4091 teachers in 183 restructuring schools (Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association). Washington, DC: ERIC.
Li, H., & Liu, H. (2000). Jiaoshi xiaonenggan ji qi dui jiaoxue xingwei de yingxiang [Teacher efficacy
and its impact on the teaching behavior]. Jiaoyu Yanjiu Yu Shiyan [Educational Research and
Experiment], (1), 50–55.
Li, J., & Li, Y. (2014). Nongcun jiaoshi jiaoxuexiaonenggan xianzhuang yu xuexiao zuzhi fenwei de
guanxi [The status of reacher’s teaching efficacy in rural schools and its relationship with school
organizational climate]. Zhongguo Jiankang Xinli Xue Zazhi [China Journal of Health Psychology],
22(7), 1009–1011.
Li, S. (2012). Guonei jiaoshi jiaoxue xiaonenggan yanjiu shuping [Review of the domestic teacher
efficacy research]. Qianyan [Forward Position], (18), 180–182.
Li, Y., Yang, X., & Shen, J. (2007). Jiaoshi jiaoxue xiaonenggan he gongzuo juandai de guanxi [The
relationship between teachers’ sense of teaching efficacy and job burnout]. Xinli Kexue [Psychological
Science], 30(4), 952–954.
Liu, H., Meng, Q., & Zhang, L. (2004). Jiaoshi jiti xiaoneng he ziwo xiaoneng dui gongzuo yali yingxiang
zuoyong de tiaojie: Duo shuiping fenxi yanjiu [Teachers’ collective efficacy and self-efficacy as
moderators of the impact of work stress: A multi-level study]. Xinli Kexue [Psychological Science],
27(5), 1073–1076.
Liu, H., Meng, Q., & Zhang, L. (2005). Banzhuren jiaoshi banji guanli xiaonenggan dui xuesheng xuexi
taidu ji qi yu xueye xiaoneng jian guanxi de yingxiang [The effects of head teachers’ classroom
management self-efficacy on students’ attitudes towards learning and its relationship with academic
efficacy]. Xinli Fazhan Yu Jiaoyu [Psychological Development and Education], (2), 62–67.
Liu, X. (2004). Zhiye yali, jiaoxue xiaonenggan yu zhong xiaoxue jiaoshi zhíyè juandai de guanxi
[Relationships between professional stress, teaching efficacy and burnout among primary and
secondary school teachers]. Xinli Fazhan Yu Jiaoyu [Psychological Development and Education],
2, 56–61.
Liu, Y., Wu, Y., & Xing, Q. (2009). Jiaoshi yali yingxiang zhiye juandai: Jiaoxue xiaonenggan de tiaojie
zuoyong [The influences of teacher’s stress on job burnout: the moderating effect of teaching efficacy].
Xinli Fazhan Yu Jiaoyu [Psychological Development and Education], (1), 108–113.
124
Malinen, O. (2013). Inclusive education from teachers’ perspective examining pre- and in-service
teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes in mainland China. Joensuu, Finland: University of Eastern
Finland.
Malinen, O., Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Xu, J., Nel, M., Nel, N., & Tlale, D. (2013). Exploring
teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices in three diverse countries. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 33, 34–44.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). The Maslach burnout inventory (3rd ed.). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
MOE (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China). (2014, December 15). Ge ji ge lei xuexiao
xiao shu, jiao zhigong, zhuanren jiaoshi qingkuang [Number of schools, educational personnel and
full-time teachers by type and level]. Retrieved from http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/
htmlfiles/moe/s8493/201412/181591.html
OECD. (2015). Results from TALIS 2013 – 2014: Shanghai (China) country note. Paris, France: OECD.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS-2014-country-note-Shanghai.pdf
Pang, L., & Hong, X. (2005). Jiaoshi zìwo xiaonenggan: Jiaoshi zizhu fazhan de zhongyao neizai dongli
jizhi [Teacher’s perceived self-efficacy: an important inherent motive mechanism in teacher’s self-
development]. Jiaoshi Jiaoyu Yanjiu [Teacher Education Research], 17(5), 43–46.
Qu, W. (1999). Jiaoshi jiaoxue xiaonengxian yu jiaoxue xiaoguo de guanxi [Relationship between
teaching efficacy and teaching effectiveness]. Jiaoyu Kexue [Education Science], (4), 42–44.
Romi, S., & Leyser, Y. (2006). Exploring inclusion preservice training needs: A study of variables
associated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
21(1), 85–105.
Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). School participant empowerment scale: Assessment of level of
empowerment within the school environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4),
951–960.
99(3), 611–625.
Tan, Z. (2006). Jin shi nian lai guonei guanyu jiaoshi jiaoxue xiaonenggan yanjiu zongshu [A summary
of the domestic research on teacher teaching efficacy during the last decade]. Meitan Gaodeng Jiaoyu
[Meitan Higher Education], 24(4), 62–65.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective
teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189–209.
Tucker, M. (2014, January 30). Shanghai: Teacher quality strategies. Retrieved from
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2014/01/Shanghai.html
Wang, J. (2008). Guo nei wai guanyu jiaoshi xiaonenggan yanjiu de huigu yu zhangwang [Review
and prospects of the domestic and foreign research on teachers’ sense of efficacy]. Jiaoyu Daokan
[Journal of Educational Development], (6), 7–9.
Wang, L., & Liu, T. (2012). Jiaoxue zhi hun de ziwo xiaonenggan: Jiaoshi fazhan zhong buke hushi de
jiji dongji [Perceived self-efficacy, the soul of teaching: the indispensable positive motivation for
teachers’ development]. Waiguo Yuwen [Foreign Language and Literature], 28(2), 139–144.
Wei, Y. (2008). Dui zhongwai ershi nian jiaoshi xiaonenggan yanjiu de zongjie yu fenxi [A summary
of teacher self-efficacy in China and foreign countries in the past 20 years]. Hubei Shifan Xueyuan
Xuebao (Zhexue Shehui Kexue Ban) [Journal of Hubei Normal University (Philosophy and Social
Science)], 28(6), 121–125.
125
O.-P. MALINEN
Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2015). Instruments. Retrieved from http://anitawoolfolkhoy.com/instruments/

Xin, T. (1996). Lun jiaoshi de jiaoxue xiaonenggan [Personal teaching efficacy: its structure and
determinants]. Yingyong Xinlixue [Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology], 2(2), 42–48.
Xu, F., Zhu, C., Huang, W., & Cao, L. (2005). Zhong xiaoxue jiaoshi zhiye juandai de xiangguan yinsu
tanjiu [Teachers’ job burnout and related factors in primary and secondary schools]. Zhongguo Xinli
Weisheng Zazhi [Chinese Mental Health Journal], 19(5), 324–326.
Yin, H., Jin, Y., & Lee, C. (2009). Xinren yu fuquan wenhua zai kecheng gaige zhong de zuoyong [The
impact of trust and empowerment culture on curriculum reform]. Shoudu Shifan Daxue Xuebao
(Shehui Kexue Ban) [Journal of Capital Normal University (Social Sciences Edition)], (1), 125–132.
Yin, H., Lee, J. C., Jin, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2013). The effect of trust on teacher empowerment: The mediation
of teacher efficacy. Educational Studies, 39(1), 13–28.
Yu, G., Xin, T., & Shen, J. (1995). Jiaoshi jiaoxue xiaonenggan: jiegou yu yingxiang yinxu de yanjiu
[Teacher’s sense of teaching efficacy: its structure and influencing factors]. Xinli Xuebao [Acta
Psychologica Sinica], 27(2), 159–166.
Yu, X., Wang, P., Zhai, X., Dai, H., & Yang, Q. (2015). The effect of work stress on job burnout among
teachers: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Social Indicators Research, 122(3), 701–708.
Zan, F., Liu, C., Wang, M., & Umesh, S. (2011). Shanghaishi zaizhi jiaoshi ronghe jiaoyu ziwo xiaonenggan
de diaocha yanjiu [On the investigation into in-service teachers’ self-efficacy in inclusive education in
Shanghai]. Zhongguo Teshu Jiaoyu [Chinese Journal of Special Education], (5), 3–9.
Zhang, J. X., & Schwarzer, R. (1995). Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: A Chinese adaptation of the
general self-efficacy scale. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 38(3),
174–181.
Zhou, Z., & Han, Y. (2014). Teshu jiaoyu jiaoshi yiban ziwo xiaonenggan xianzhuang ji qi yu hexin ziwo
pingjia de guanxi [General self-efficacy of special education teachers and its relation to their core self-
evaluation]. Jiaoshi Jiaoyu Yanjiu [Teacher Education Research], 26(3), 55–60.
Zhu, X., & Wang, J. (2009). Zhongxue jiaoshi ziwo xiaoneng, jiti xiaoneng he gongzuo juandai guanxi
[Relations between teachers’ self-efficacy, collective efficacy and job burnout]. Ningbo Daxue Xuebao
(Jiaoyu Kexue Ban) [Journal of Ningbo University (Education Edition)], 31(2), 84–88.
Olli-Pekka Malinen
Niilo Mäki Institute
Jyväskylä, Finland
126
ABOUT THE ContributoRS
David A. G. Berg, EdD, is a lecturer in education and the associate post-graduate

coordinator at the University of Otago College of Education. He is an experienced
primary school teacher and former primary deputy principal/head teacher. He has
taught in schools in England, Nepal, and New Zealand and been employed as a
university-based teacher educator in New Zealand and England. His research
interests include teacher self-efficacy beliefs, pre-service teachers’ concerns about
teaching, formative assessment, initial teacher education, study skills, and the work
of teacher educators. David is a reviewer for a number of international journals. He
works with undergraduate and postgraduate level initial teacher education students,
both in schools and university settings. Currently, David teaches assessment to
undergraduates and supervises and teaches postgraduate students studying and
researching education topics. David was born and brought up in Liverpool, England
and now lives in Dunedin, New Zealand.
Wan Har Chong, PhD, is an Associate Professor with the National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Her research interests
include self processes (specifically self-efficacy and self-regulation), positive
adolescent development, program evaluation of at-risk populations in early
childhood and youth programs, and implementation science. She is the principal
investigator in a number of national funded projects and publishes internationally
with peer-reviewed journals. She serves on several editorial broads of international
peer-reviewed journals. Email correspondence on this chapter can be addressed to
her at [email protected].
Susanne Garvis is a professor of child and youth studies at the University

of Gothenburg, Sweden. She holds a PhD, MEd (early childhood), M Higher
Education, B Music (Hon), BEd, GC Higher Education and an AMUSA. At the
University of Gothenburg she teaches doctorate, master and bachelor level courses
in methods and early childhood education. Her research is around the lives of
children, families and teachers within early childhood settings. She has a specific
interest in narrative methods as well as working with teacher self-efficacy. She has
worked in Australian universities before moving to Sweden in 2015. Susanne has
been the leader of several research projects and has published many books, articles
and conference papers connected to her research. She is the current co-ordinator for
Early Childhood – KAM group at the University of Gothenburg and the co-ordinator
for the early childhood group within the Nordic Education Research Association.
Sindu George is a teaching and academic research associate in the Faculty of

Education at Monash University, Australia. Previously she served as lecturer at
127
ABOUT THE contributoRS
the Faculty of Education, University of Calicut, India. She also possesses teaching
experience in secondary education in Australia, the UK, and India. Her research
interests include motivation, teachers’ classrooms instructional behaviours, teacher-
student relatedness, science education, teacher education, and inclusive education.
She is specialised in quantitative research including scale validation, multivariate
analyses, and structural equation modelling. She serves as reviewer for AERA
Open; and formerly served as Associate Editor for various journals including The
International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum and International Journal of
Behavioral Sciences. Sindu is currently involved with two research projects at
Monash University: Pacific indicators for disability inclusive education (Pacific
INDIE) project, and study on career motivations and aspirations of teacher education
students.
Katherine Main is a Senior Lecturer and Program Leader in the School of

Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University. She teaches undergraduate
and postgraduate courses on middle schooling/junior secondary and has advised
national and state government education authorities during the development and
implementation of the Australian National Curriculum. She was an integral member
of the Griffith team that delivered the Leading Change Development Program to all
258 state high school leadership teams in preparation for Year 7s moving into high
school in 2015 and the formation of Junior Secondary programs. She also delivered
the Junior Secondary Modules to almost 1000 teachers which were designed to
upskill and prepare teachers to teach in Junior Secondary. Katherine’s research
interests include targeted professional development to support middle years reform
together with teacher efficacy and the collective efficacy of teacher teams. She is also
currently evaluating a reengagement programs for disengaged young adolescents.
Olli-Pekka Malinen, PhD, is an Academy of Finland postdoctoral researcher and

a project manager at the Niilo Mäki Institute, Jyväskylä, Finland. In 2013, his PhD
dissertation “Inclusive education from teachers’ perspective: Examining pre- and
in-service teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes in mainland China” received the
Finnish Educational Research Association dissertation award. Dr Malinen is fluent
in Mandarin and has both studied and conducted fieldwork in China. In addition
to his role as a researcher, he is involved in teacher professional development and
is a member of the Niilo Mäki Institute leadership team. His academic interests
include, teacher efficacy, positive behavior support, inclusive education, Chinese
education system, and international and comparative research in education. Malinen
has published his work in both nationally and internationally in journals such as The
Finnish Journal of Education, Teaching and Teacher Education and The Curriculum
Journal.
Ming Ying Ong, MA, is a registered Educational Psychologist and Fellow Therapist.
She is a Director of Cheers Learning Services – an organization serving children and
128
youths with special needs. Ming Ying graduated from the Nanyang Technological
University with a Master of Arts (Applied Psychology. A former educator with
more than 10 years of teaching experiences in both mainstream and special schools,
Ming Ying is also trained in the Orton-Gillingham, ABA and TEACCH Approaches.
She is an adjunct lecturer at the College of Allied Educators, Singapore. Her email
correspondence is [email protected].
Donna Pendergast is Dean of the School of Education and Professional Studies

at Griffith University. She has an international profile in the field of middle years
education, also known as Junior Secondary. Her work focuses on school leadership
for middle years reform, along with developing capabilities to enhance teacher
efficacy to effectively teach young adolescent learners. Her journey in middle years
education has included: leading and developing the first dedicated teacher education
program in Australia; influencing state and national policy directions; conducting
state and national evaluations; developing a reform model which is currently
employed by several Australian states to guide the reform of teaching and learning in
the middle years; leadership of competitive research tenders commissioned by state
and federal authorities valued at more than $2.5 million; more than 100 publications
in the field.
Andrea Reupert, PhD, is an Associate Professor at Monash University, Clayton,

Australia and Programs Director of Psychological Programs at the Krongold Centre.
Andrea has an established track record in the area of pre-service teacher education
in classroom management, across Australia, Canada, the UK and Malaysia, with
a particular focus on the strategies pre-service teachers are using (and not using)
during their professional experiences. Together with her team, Andrea has been
involved in several funded projects of inclusive education that included the design
and piloting of various multi-media platforms that aim to promote the capacity of
teachers in inclusive education.
So-Jung Seo is a professor in the Department of Child & Family Studies at

Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. She earned her both undergraduate (BS) and
graduate degrees (MA and PhD) from Michigan State University, in the US with a
specialization in early childhood education. After graduation, she has advised and
served as a consultant on numerous government-subsidized early child education
and care (ECEC) settings as well as parenting support programs in Korea. She
has taught and conducted research on effects of teaching practices (teacher-child
interaction) mediated by teaching efficacy on young children. Recently, Seo
completed her longitudinal research titled, “Development and Validation of the on-
line version of the Korean Early Child Development Screening Test for 0–3 years
old with a sample of 6,383 Korean young children. The standardized development
test early intervention program has been provided by trained teachers in ECEC. Her
research interests span effects of quality ECEC on primary stakeholders in Korea.
129
Umesh Sharma is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Monash

University, Australia. He is the chief co-editor of the Australasian Journal of
Special Education. He is author of about 100 academic articles, book chapters
and edited books that mainly focus on various aspects of inclusive education. His
most recent co-authored/co-edited books include: A Guide to Promoting a Positive
Classroom Environment (Sense Publishers), and Special Education International
Perspectives: Practices across the Globe (Emerald Books). Umesh has written
policy documents for Ministries of Education in Australia, Bangladesh, India,
Solomon Islands, and New Zealand on education of children with disabilities. He is
leading a large international project across 14 Pacific countries. The project is aimed
at developing a set of contextually specific inclusive education indicators. He was the
recipient of Dean’s award for Excellence in Innovation and External Collaboration.
His main areas of research interests are inclusive education in developing countries,
inclusive teacher education and attitude and efficacy measurement.
Lisa F. Smith, EdD, is Professor of Education and Dean, University of Otago

College of Education. Her research focuses on assessment issues related to
standardised and classroom testing; preservice teacher education with regard to
teaching efficacy, concerns about teaching, and learning to become assessment
capable; and, the psychology of aesthetics. She serves on the editorial boards of
several peer-reviewed international journals, on the Board of Governors of the
International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, and as a Fellow of the American
Psychological Association. Lisa co-founded the APA Journal, Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. She has received honours including the Rudolf
Arnheim Award for Outstanding Achievement in Psychology and the Arts from
Division 10 of the American Psychological Association, the Gustav Theodor
Fechner Award for lifetime contribution to the field of empirical aesthetics from
IAEA, and teaching awards in both hemispheres.
Ali Kemal Tekin is an Assistant Professor at the College of Education in Sultan

Qaboos University and NAEYC program reviewer. He completed his PhD in 2008
from Pennsylvania State University on Curriculum and Instruction, Emphasis on
Early Childhood Education. His research focuses on early bilingual education,
assessment of young children, family involvement, teacher efficacy and motivation,
and sociology in education. His journal articles include Early EFL Education Is
on the Rise in Oman: A Qualitative Inquiry of Parental Beliefs about Early EFL
Learning (English Language Teaching, 2015), Improving Child Rights in the Gulf:
Expectations from the Brand-new Child Law in Oman (Children and Youth Services
Review, 2015), Omani Young Children’s Language Proficiencies: The Outcomes of
a Bilingual Education Program (Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2014),
The Epistemological Perspectives on Action Research (Journal of Educational and
Social Research, 2013), Father Involvement in Early Childhood Education (ICER,
130
2012) and Parents’ Motivational Belief about their Involvement in Young Children’s
Education (Early Childhood Development and Care, 2011).
Stuart Woodcock, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at Macquarie University, Australia

in inclusive education and educational psychology in the Faculty of Human
Sciences. Stuart initially trained as a teacher in England. Since then he has taught
in England, Canada and Australia in primary and secondary schools, teaching in
a variety of settings including mainstream, special education and behaviour units.
He currently lectures in a range of areas, including inclusive education, classroom
and behaviour management, and educational psychology, teaching at undergraduate
and postgraduate levels. His research areas focus on teacher self-efficacy, inclusive
education, behaviour management, and, students with specific learning disabilities.
131

Susanne Garvis, Donna Pendergast (Eds.) - Asia-Pacific Perspectives On Teacher Self-Efficacy-SensePublishers (2016) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Susanne Garvis, Donna Pendergast (Eds.) - Asia-Pacific Perspectives On Teacher Self-Efficacy-SensePublishers (2016) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Susanne Garvis, Donna Pendergast (Eds.) - Asia-Pacific Perspectives On Teacher Self-Efficacy-SensePublishers (2016) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Teacher Self-Efficacy

Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Teacher Self-Efficacy

ISBN: 978-94-6300-519-7 (paperback)

Published by: Sense Publishers,

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review.

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2016 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

About the Contributors 127

We wish to acknowledge the contribution made by Joy Reynolds to the production

Figure 1. Dominant learning conversation 96

Table 1. Correlations of teacher self-efficacy, teacher collective

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

Organisation of the Book

Educational research is often judged to be good based on having a strong

S. Garvis & D. Pendergast (Eds.), Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Teacher Self-Efficacy, 1–17.

research pertaining to preservice and in-service teacher self-efficacy beliefs. Next,

and the influence of cultural preferences on the formation of teacher self-efficacy

TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS

Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy’s (1998) model of teacher self-

Tschannen-Moran et al.’s (1998) model of teacher self-efficacy has been widely

Significant Findings from Teacher Efficacy Research

As we have identified, research into preservice teacher self-efficacy beliefs is

TEACHER EFFICACY RESEARCH IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

A MIXED METHODS MODEL

2. The Mediating Role of Collective Teacher

Efficacy research shows that academic achievement is not influenced by student

TEACHER COLLECTIVE EFFICACY

Teaching is an interpersonal activity typically performed in a group context, and as

SCHOOL CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCE AND TEACHER

To the knowledge of the authors, research examining the relationships of both

SCHOOL CLIMATE FACTORS

Socio-economic status, family characteristics, and urbanity have been known to

Although conceptually distinctive, collective and individual measures of teacher

SINGAPORE EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT

There is an average of ten years of formal general education which comprised of

Demographic information about years of teaching service, gender, ethnicity, and

• student engagement (SE).

Table 1. Correlations of teacher self-efficacy, teacher collective

Note: *p < .05, ±p < .001

Independent t-tests conducted on all the variables revealed significant differences

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and range of variables (n = 183)

Variables Means (SD) Minimum Maximum

Teacher Self-Efficacy 6.52 (0.99) 2.21 8.67

Table 3. Testing for teacher collective efficacy as a mediator in the relationship

Path Coefficients Bootstrapping (ab path)

Varying Relationships between Perceived Teacher Self-Efficacy and School

Mediational Role of Teacher Collective Efficacy

Constraints with Teacher Efficacy Beliefs

In interpreting the significance of efficacy beliefs, a note of caution may be

Limitations and Implications

unitary construct (Tschannen-Moran et al., 2001). In addition, the self-report may

Wan Har Chong

Ming Ying Ong

3. UNDERSTANDING TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

Bandura introduced the concept of self-efficacy over 30 years ago as an important

S. Garvis & D. Pendergast (Eds.), Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Teacher Self-Efficacy, 37–51.

A remarkable growth of teacher self-efficacy research has been noted since

Teacher Self-Efficacy for Inclusive Education

About the Contributors 127

Figure 1. Dominant learning conversation 96

Table 1. Correlations of teacher self-efficacy, teacher collective