The Relationship Between Efficacy

and the Instructional Practices of

Special Education Teachers
and Consultants
Rose M Allinder

ABSIRACT: The relationship between efficacy and selected instructional vareables was explored for two types
of special education teachers. Teachers were categorized either as direct service providers, who provided direct
instruction or behavioral interventions to students with mild disabilities, or as indirect service providers, who
spent at least 50% of their time consulting, collaborating, or team teaching with general educators. Significant
positive correlations found between efficacy and three instructionally-relevant factors were for both types of
teachers. Type of service was related to only one instructional component, Instructional Experimentation.
Recommendations for teacher education are addressed.

HE of efficacy on teacher
IMPACT behavior Dembo, 1984; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). General
and student achievement has gained much teaching efficacy relates to teachers’ beliefs
attention in recent years (see Pajares, 1992). that teaching can influence student learning,
Efficacy has been defined as an individual’s whereas personal teaching efficacy represents
belief that he or she can produce an outcome teachers’ beliefs in their own ability to affect
by successfully performing necessary behav- student learning. Teachers’ sense of teaching
iors (Bandura, 1977). In an early study of the and personal efficacy may affect their thoughts
effect of teacher efficacy on the achievement of and feelings, choice of activities, amount of
low-SES students, (Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, effort exerted, and extent of their persistence
Pauly, & Zellman, 1977) found that teachers’ (Bandura, 1981). For example, teachers with a
attitudes about their own professional compe- low sense of teaching efficacy do not exert
tence appear to have a major impact on what much effort or persist for an extended period
happens to projects and how effective they are. because they do not think students are
The positive effect that teacher efficacy has on learning or can learn. Teachers with a low
student achievement has been replicated in since of personal teaching efficacy may believe
additional studies (e.g., Ashton & Webb, 1986; that although students can learn, they them-
Tracz & Gibson, 1986). selves do not have the skills or resources to
Previous research on teachers’ sense of teach them. Research indicates that teachers
efficacy indicates that it comprises two distinct who have greater efficacy persist longer when
factors:general teaching efficacy and personal questioning individual students during instruc-
efficacy (Coladarci & Breton, 1991; Gibson & tion (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), are more

86
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
pragmatic about teaching (Anderson, Green, & resource rooms is unclear. That is, little is
Loewen, 1988), are more receptive to imple- known about efficacy of teachers who provide
menting new practices such as mastery learn- indirect services to students with disabilities in
ing (Guskey, 1988), and are less controlling as general education classrooms through consul-
behavior managers (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). tation, collaboration, or team teaching.
Although previous research has docu- In recent years, the primary service delivery
mented the relationship between these teach- model for students with mild disabilities has un-
ing factors and efficacy, the existence and dergone change. Since the 1970s, the pull-out
nature of associations between these aspects of resource room option has been the predomi-
efficacy and other specific instructional vari- nant placement for students with mild disabili-
ables are less well known. Research on teacher ties (Glomb & Morgan, 1991). However several
effectiveness has identified certain instruc- questions about the effectiveness of this ap-
tional variables as being positively correlated proach in meeting the educational needs of stu-
with increased student achievement (Brophy & dents with mild disabilities have been in raised.
Good, 1986). Among these teacher effective- These questions include (a) pedagogical appro-
ness variables are enthusiasm, organization, priateness, (b) efficacy with regard to generaliz-
variation in materials and activities, business- ability of skills to general education classes, and
like orientation in dealing with students, and (c) the feasibility of meeting the needs of ever-
high levels of clarity (Rosenshine, 1971). These increasing numbers of students identified with
variables have direct impact on what happens special needs. Such questions have led educa-
during daily instruction in classrooms, which, tors and policy-makers to consider alternative
in turn, has direct impact on student learning. educational options for students with mild dis-
Even so, the relationship between these abilities (Friend, 1988; Idol, 1988). An alternative
instructionally relevant variables and efficacy used with increasing frequency is one in which
has notbeen clarified. special services are provided in an indirect fash-
Because many of the roles of general ion to students who remain in the general edu-
education and resource room special educa- cation classroom for all or most of the day (Friend
tion teachers are similar (e.g., direct interac- & Cook, 1992). Special education teachers pro-
tions with students about behavior or disci- vide indirect services to students with disabili-
pline problems, direct instruction on academic ties as consultants, collaborators, or team teach-
task), it is reasonable to assume that their ers with the general education teacher.

degree of efficacy might be similar to that of The goals of both direct and indirect service
general education teachers. Furthermore, re- providers are similar: To improve the classroom
source room teachers’ use of behaviors performance of students with mild disabilities in
identified in the teacher effectiveness literature the general education classroom (Reisberg &
(Brophy & Good, 1986; Rosenshine, 1971) Wolf, 1988). In reaching this goal, however, their
appears to be similar to that of general practices vary. Whereas direct service providers,
education teachers (Leinhardt, Zigmond, & such as resource teachers, spend the majority of
Cooley, 1981; Sindelar, Smith, Harriman, Hale, their time engaged actively with students, indi-
& Wilson, 1986). Given that both sense of rect service providers spend the majority of their
efficacy and the use of these instructional time consulting, collaborating, or team teaching
variables are strongly correlated with student with general education teachers (Dettmer, Thur-
achievement (e.g., Ashton, 1984; Brophy & ston, & Dyck, 1993).
Good, 1986), these results are encouraging for Indirect serviceproviders fill many roles
students with special needs. and require expertise in many areas, including
Inquiry into the nature of efficacy, its task analysis, instructional adaptation, curricu-
relationship with other variables, and ways to lum alternatives, and classroom management
affect it holds promise for maximizing achieve- (e.g., Conoley & Conoley, 1988). In addition,
ment for students with disabilities who receive the instructional variables for enhancing daily
instruction in resource rooms. However, the instruction (i.e., instructional experimentation,
nature of these relationships for the growing enthusiasm, planfulness and organization, con-
number of special education teachers who do fidence during instruction, fairness in instruc-
not provide direct services for students in tion, and innovativeness) are expected of

87

Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

special education teachers who consult and tary students with specific learning disabilities,
collaborate with general education teachers. mild mental handicaps, or behavior disorders.
Because their main role is not direct service Teachers were sent a packet of information
provider, however, they may not experience that included a cover letter explaining the
first-hand the reciprocal relationship with purpose and nature of the study, a question-
students that appears to be important to a naire, and a return envelope. Three hundred
teacher’s sense of efficacy (Ashton & Webb, thirty-three questionnaires were returned after
1986; Denham & Michael, 1981). Thus, their the first mailing, resulting in a response rate of
sense of efficacy may or may not be similar to 42%. In response to a second mailing, an
teachers who provide direct service. additional 102 questionnaires were returned. A
The roles of special education teachers who total of 437 questionnaires was returned,
provide either consultation or direct services may resulting in a return rate of 55%.
vary in other potentially important ways. Previ- To identify special education teachers who
ous research has indicated that special educa- provide direct and indirect services to students
tion teachers who provide direct service via a with mild disabilities, the demographic ques-
resource room model are highly similar to gen- tion regarding percentage of time spent in
eral education teachers with respect to impor- each of these roles was used. A direct service
tant instructional components. Given that re- provider was defined in the informational
search has failed to establish clearly the packet as &dquo;one who is primarily responsible
effectiveness of the resource room model (e.g., for providing instruction or behavioral inter-
Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; Glass, 1983), it appears ventions with students with special needs,
that the current practices of direct service pro- either by working with students individually or
viders may not be sufficient to meet the needs of in a small group for part of the students’
students with mild disabilities. Therefore, it is school day. This is done frequently through a
important that special education teachers know ’pull-out model’.&dquo; For purposes of the current
and implement a variety of instructional adapta- study, those teachers who indicated that they
tions to meet the needs of students with mild spent 100% of their time in this role com-
disabilities. This ability may be of even greater prised the direct service group. Seventy-three
importance for special educators who provide teachers (16%) met this criteria.
consultation or collaboration with general edu-
’
Indirect services providers were defined
cation teachers. in the informational packet as special educa-
The purpose of the current study was tion teachers who &dquo;do not work directly with
twofold. The first was to examine the relation- individual students for the majority of their
ship between instructionally-relevant behav- time. Instead, these teachers work primarily
iors and attitudes, previously identified in the with general education teachers offering con-
teacher effectiveness literature as important for sultation or collaboration, or team teaching.&dquo;
student achievement, and personal and teach- Teachers who indicated that they spent at least
ing efficacy. The second purpose was to 50% of their time in that role constituted this
explore whether this relationship was similar group. Because recommendations in the liter-
for special education teachers who provide ature suggesting a specific proportion of time
indirect services to students with mild disabil- special education teachers should fulfill the
ities in general education classrooms and role of consultant or collaborator vary greatly
those who provide direct services to students (Dettmer et al., 1993), spending at least 50% of
with mild disabilities in resource rooms. one’s time in an indirect role was chosen as a
moderate criterion in this study to form a
distinct comparison group. Forty teachers
Method (9%) of the entire sample were included as
indirect service providers.
Participants
Names of 200 special education teachers
each from four midwest states were selected
Instrument
randomly (total initial sample = 800). These Demographic questionnaire. Teachers were
teachers were identified as teachers of elemen- asked for pertinent demographic information,
88

Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

including total years teaching, total years teach- teristics Scale; and the fourth covered demo-
ing special education, years in current position, graphic information. Included in the mailing
gender, highest education degree, number of was a return envelope. A second mailing to
schools in which they worked, and number of nonrespondents was sent 3 weeks after the
students of different disabilities whom they first mailing.
served. One-way (direct vs. indirect service pro-
viders) analyses of variance revealed no differ- Analysts .

ences between the groups with respect to total

years teaching, total years teaching special edu-

Responses for all teachers to the two
cation, years in current position, gender, and questionnaires were subjected to factor analy-
ses.’ Next, using responses from those teach-
number of schools in which they worked. How-
ers meeting thecriteria for direct service
ever, indirect service providers saw significantly indirect service provider correla-
more students than did direct service providers,
provider or
tions between the two dimensions of efficacy
(F (1, 108) =
9.09, p < .01). Chi-square tests on and the
teachers’ gender and highest educational de- instructionally relevant variables were
grees revealed no significant relations. This de-
computed. Finally, multiple regression analy-
ses were conducted using responses from this
mographic information is provided in Table 1. subset of respondents.
Teacher efficacy scale. General teaching
efficacy and personal teaching efficacy were
measured with the Teacher Efficacy Scale Results
(Gibson & Dembo, 1984), 30-item question-
a
naire with a 5-point Likert scale from strongly Two scores were computed for teacher
agree to strongly disagree. This scale has been efficacy: Personal Efficacy, or teachers’ feelings
demonstrated to have convergent and discrim- that they can affect change in students, and
inant validity (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Teaching Efficacy, the belief that children
Internal consistency of this scale in previous benefit from schooling, despite home or
research was .78 and .75 for personal teaching environmental situations. Scores were com-

efficacy and teaching efficacy respectively. puted by using unweighted sums of the
Teacher characteristics scale. Instructional responses to the items for each type of efficacy;
characteristics such as instructional experi- items for Teaching Efficacy were reversed so
mentation, instructional routine, degree of that higher efficacy would be reflected by
demoralization, organization and planfulness, higher scores. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
belief in differential efficacy of strategies, were .76 for Personal Efficacy and .56 for

confidence, and progressiveness or innovation Teaching Efficacy.

were assessed through by the Teacher Charac- Three scores were computed for teacher
teristics Scale (Fuchs,
Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992a). characteristics: (a) Instructional Experimenta-
This is an 18-item questionnaire to which tion, which included willingness to try a variety
teachers responded along a 5-point Likert scale of materials and approaches to teaching, desire
to find better ways of teaching, and implemen-
(1 =
Strongly Disagree or Not At All to 5 =

Strong Agree or To A Very Great Extent). tation of progressive and innovative tech-
Internal consistency of the subsets of this scale niques ; (b) Business-Like Approach, which
in previous research ranged from .72 for addressed the teacher’s degree of organiza-
teaching confidence to .92 for progressiveness tion, planfulness, and fairness; and (c) Assured-
and innovation (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, ness, which addressed effective instructional
1992b). components such as enthusiasm and maintain-
ing high levels of clarity while presenting a
lesson. Scores were the unweighted sums of
Procedure the responses to the items included on each
Each teacher was mailed letter and
a cover component. Scores contributing to Assured-
The first and ness were reversed so that higher scores
a four-page questionnaire.
second of the questionnaire contained the
introduction and the Teacher Efficacy Scale; 1
Results of factor analyses are available from the
the third page contained the Teacher Charac- author.

89
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
TABLE 1. Demographic Information

a SPED is special education.

b
df chi-squares for gender and for degree were 2 and 4.
**p < .01.

would reflect positive attributes. Cronbach’s tional Experimentation was significantly corre-
alpha coefficients were .87, .73, and .77, for lated with each of the other dependent
Instructional Experimentation, Business-like variables (Business-like Approach, r = .43,~ <
Approach, and Assuredness. .001; Assuredness, r .24, p < .01). Teachers
=

who were more experimental in their instruc-

Intercorrelations tional practices were also more planful and
Correlations among six variables (type of organized in instruction and fair in dealing
with students. These teachers were also more
service provided, Personal Efficacy, Teaching confident about teaching.
Efficacy, Instructional Experimentation, Busi-
ness-like Approach, and Assuredness) were
calculated and are reported in Table 2. Type of Multiple Regression
service provided by the teacher (indirect or A series of multiple regression analyses
direct) was significantly correlated with In- was conducted. For each of the instructional
structional Experimentation (r .26, p < .01).
=
variables (Instructional Experimentation, Busi-
Indirect service providers were more likely to ness-like Approach, and Assuredness), the
be progressive or innovative and search for predictor variables (i.e., the type of service
new ways to teach students. Personal Efficacy provided, and personal and general teaching
was related to all three Teacher Characteristics efficacy) were entered into the regression
Scales (Instructional Experimentation, r .34, =
equation hierarchically, with main effects
p < .001; Business-like Approach, r .37, p < =
entered first, followed by first-order interac-
.001; Assuredness, r .27, p < .01). Teachers
=
tions (Pedhazur, 1982). A significance level of
who had greater belief in their abilities to .01 was used to minimize the risks of a Type 1
teach students were more likely to be experi- error. Results of these analyses are presented
mental in their instructional practices, busi- in Table 3.
ness-like in their classroom organization and For Instructional Experimentation, those
interactions with students, and confident while variables making significant contributions to
delivering instruction and in their orientation the amount of variance accounted for in the
toward teaching. Teaching Efficacy was signifi- model were Type of Teacher, F (1, 107) =
cantly correlated with Assuredness, (r .31, p =
8.97, p < .01, and Personal Efficacy, F (1, 107)
< .001). Teachers who believed students =
16.29, p < .01. Type of Teacher accounted
benefit from school were more confident for 6% of the variance in Instructional
while delivering instruction and less disillu- Experimentation; the significant main effect for
sioned or frustrated with teaching. Instruc- Type of Teacher indicates that teachers provid-
90
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
TABLE 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrix for Type of Teacher,
Efficacy, and Instructional Practices Variables

*p < .05.

ing indirect students with mild

services to effect of Personal Efficacy, F (1, 107) =
17.35
disabilitiesagreed greater extent that they
to a p < .01 was significant. Personal Efficacy
were likely to experiment or change their accounted for 12% of the variance in teachers’
instruction than were teachers who provided responses to Business-like Approach. This
direct services to these students. Personal significant main effect indicates that those
Efficacy accounted for 17% of the variance in teachers with greater belief in their ability to
teachers’ Instructional Experimentation. This teach are more organized, planful, and fair
main effect indicates that teachers who believe with students. None of the interactions or
more strongly in their ability to teach all remaining main effects made significant contri-
students are more likely to try new instruc- butions the hierarchical regression model.
to
tional techniques. None of the interactions or Assuredness, those variables making
For
remaining main effects made significant contri- significant contributions to the amount of
butions to the regression model. variance accounted for in the model were
For Business-like Approach, only the main Personal Efficacy, F (1, 107) = 9.23 p < .01,
TABLE 3. Multiple Regression Analyses of Instructional Experimentation, Business-like
Approach, and Assuredness by Type of Teacher, Personal Efficacy, Teaching Efficacy, and
Their Interaction

**p < .01.

91
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
and General Teaching Efficacy, F (1, 107) = Although additional research is needed to
8.17,p < .01. Personal Efficacy accounted for understand fully the effect of efficacy on
7% of the variance in teachers’ degree of student achievement (Pajares, 1992), several
assuredness, thereby indicating that teachers recommendations can be offered to teacher
with greater belief in their ability to teach all educators relative to the effect of efficacy on
students are less frustrated, disillusioned, and student achievement.
doubtful. Teaching Efficacy accounted for 12% First, teachers may be instructed on
of the variance. This significant main effect specific ways to change their teaching behav-
indicates that teachers with greater belief that iors and then monitored in their use of this
students benefit from school are more assured information. Specific changes in teaching
in their orientation toward teaching and in behavior might include various instructional
their instructional practices. alternatives and decision rules to guide teach-
ers in their use of these alternatives. As use of

Discussion decision rules and alternative instructional

interventions affects student progress, teach-
This study addressed two questions. The ers’ efficacy and use of interventions may
first question examined the extent to which increase, hypothesis supported by previous
a
there is a relationship between facets of research in which teachers’ beliefschanged
efficacy and instructional components. The after they saw the effect of new teaching
second question explored the effect that the procedures (Florio-Ruane & Lensmire, 1990;
type of service a special educator provided had Guskey, 1986).
on these variables. A second recommendation for teacher
Associations between the different facets education regarding the relationship between
of efficacy and the instructionally-relevant efficacy and student achievement stresses the
effective teaching components emerged. Per- importance of evaluating one’s beliefs and the
sonal Efficacy was related significantly to each basis for those beliefs. Practicing and prospec-
of the instructionally relevant components, tive special education teachers should be
indicating that teachers who had greater belief taught the value of examining their beliefs, the
in their ability to teach also were more likely interactions between their beliefs and actions,
(a) to try different ways of teaching; (b) to be and the foundations for those beliefs. Such
business-like in working with students by introspection may lead to changes in belief
being organized and planful in their instruc- systems, either concurrent with or preceded
tion, and fair and firm when dealing with by changes in knowledge (Nespor, 1987).
students; and (c) to be confident and enthusi- The second question addressed in the
astic about teaching. Teaching Efficacy, the present study examined the extent that the
belief that students benefit from school type of service the teacher provides is
experiences, was related to the third instruc- associated with efficacy and instructional com-
tionally-relevant component, Assuredness, or ponents. Type of service was not significantly
confidence and enthusiasm about teaching. correlated with either facet of efficacy. How-
Although it is not possible to infer causation ever, type of service was related to Instruc-
from these correlational results, it appears that tional Experimentation. Teachers who spent at
associations between type of efficacy and least 50% of their time in indirect service
different instructionally related components appeared to be more experimental in their
exist. instruction. Type of service was not related to
These findings are similar to those from either Business-like Approach or Assuredness.
previous research (Anderson et al., 1988; That both types of teachers were similar in
Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Guskey, 1988; Wool- their approach to students and in their
folk & Hoy, 1990) and add to the literature enthusiasm for teaching, perhaps, is not
indicating that efficacy is an important concept surprising. However, that teachers who pro-
for teachers and teacher educators. Both vide indirect service are more instructionally
teaching and personal efficacy appear to be experimental bears further examination.
related to how teachers perceive their roles, Because the two types of teachers did not
conduct instruction, and interact with students. differ with regard to personal or teaching

92

Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

efficacy, it is particularly interesting to note teachers who work cooperatively with or as
that there was a difference with regard to consultants to general education teachers.
Instructional Experimentation. Several possi- These findings suggest several recommen-
bilities may explain this difference. It may be, dations for teacher educators and those
in part, a function of the role the indirect responsible for inservice training. Because few
service providers filled. Because correlations indirect service providers receive preservice
do not allow for causal inferences, it is training asconsultants, collaborators, or team
teachers atthe preservice level (Gable, Young
impossible to discern whether teachers’ roles
affected their degree of instructional experi- & Hendrickson, 1987), their innovativeness
mentation or teachers’ degree of instructional may be related to the role they play and the
environment in which they work, rather than
experimentation affected their roles. Teachers the preparation they received. The importance
in indirect service roles may be seen to some
of adapting for individual student needs,
extent as an expert by their colleagues;
therefore, they may react as an expert by being regardless of where students are placed,
should be emphasized at all levels of preser-
more progressive or experimental when con-
vice and inservice education. Teachers who
sulting or collaborating with general education provide direct service should be encouraged
teachers. Conversely, the degree to which to be innovative and creative in their instruc-
teachers were instructionally experimental tion, and to make adaptations in their instruc-
may have influenced their being an indirect tional routines. !
service teacher. Those teachers who were Results of this study are restricted by
more experimental in their work may have certain limitations. First, teachers were chosen
been chosen or may have self-selected into an from four midwestern states; their responses
indirect role. may not generalize to special education
The difference between the two types of teachers in other geographic areas. Second, all
teachers with regard to instructional experi- responses were self-reported. Although ques-
mentation may also be a function of the type of tions about the accuracy of self-reported data
class in which they operate. That is, teachers are a concern, research indicates that such
who provide direct service full-time may have self-reports can be valid (Ericcson & Simon,
instructional routines and strategies estab- 1980). Nonetheless, further research is needed
lished for their resource rooms. Because that incorporates observation of teachers’
special education resource teachers appear to instructional experimentation, assuredness
be much like general education teachers in while delivering instruction, and type of
their instructional formats and in the difficulty approach used in interacting with students to
they have in adapting to meet individual explore the relationship between these in-
student needs (Allington & McGill-Franzen, structional behaviors and teachers’ self-
1989; Cahen, Filby, McCutcheon, & Kyle, 1983; reported efficacy. A third limitation involves
Gelzheiser & Meyers, 1991) and because the formation of the comparison groups. This
instructional routines and strategies in general study addressed the effect type of service has
education classes appear to be resistant to on teacher efficacy and use of instructional
change (Fuchs et al., 1992a), absence of variables at an exploratory level. Therefore,
experimentation is troubling. teachers were grouped on the basis of
Results from this study suggest that the extremes with regard to the amount of time
location in which students with special needs they spent providing direct service. Because
receive their special education may be related the majority of teachers fell between these
to the probability that the instruction they extremes, results may or may not generalize to
receive is dynamic, individually-tailored, and this larger group of special educators. Addi-
responsive to their iidividual needs. Although tional research is needed to examine teachers
special education teachers who spend all their who provide indirect service for less than half
time providing direct services to students with the day. Finally, the correlational nature of
disabilities should be most flexible in meeting some of the results should not be interpreted
individual needs, these results suggest that to imply causation.
they are less innovative and experimental than Despite these limitations, the results of

93
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
this study may be pertinent for teacher (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd
educators today. Special education has gone ed.). New York: MacMillan.
through a number of paradigmatic shifts Cahen, L. S., Filby, N., McCutcheon, G., & Kyle, D. W.
regarding service delivery models. In the past (1983). Class size and instruction. New York:
20 years, the emphasis has been increasingly Longman.
on more inclusive models. However, teachers Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of
taught one delivery model may not have special education regular class placement for
opportunity or desire to learn to function exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The
in a more contemporary model, whatever Journal of Special Education, 14, 295-309.
that might be. Rather than emphasizing a Coladarci, T., & Breton, W. A. (1991). Teacher
particular service delivery model approach efficacy, supervision, and the special education
resource-roomteacher. Paper presented at the
whose appropriateness may change in a few
1991 meeting of the American Educational
years as education undergoes reform, preser- Research Association, Chicago, IL.
vice teacher education programs should em-
Conoley, J. C., & Conoley, C. W. (1988). Useful
phasize a framework for analyzing one’s theories in school-based consultation. Reme-
beliefs and actions, and a philosophy for dial and Special Education, 9 (6),
14-20.
teaching students with disabilities that empha- Denham, C. H., & Michael, J. J. (1981). Teacher
sizes maximizing academic and social gains for sense of efficacy: A definition of the construct
students through the teacher’s use of innova- and a model for further research. Educational
tive, proactive, and responsive instruction. Research Quarterly, 5, 39-63.
Dettmer, P., Thurston, L. P., & Dyck, N. (1993).
Consultation, collaboration, and teamwork
for students with special needs. Boston, MA:
References Allyn and Bacon.
Ericcson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal
reports as data. Psychological Review, 87,
Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). 215-251.
Different programs, indifferent instruction. In Florio-Ruane, S., & Lensmire, T. J. (1990). Trans-
D. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate forming future teachers’ ideas about writing
education (pp. 75-97). New York: Brookes. instruction. Curriculum Studies, 22, 277-289.
Anderson, R. N., Greene, M. L., & Loewen, P. S. Friend, M. (1988). Putting consultation into context:
(1988). Relationships among teachers’ and Historical and contemporary perspectives. Re-
students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and medial and Special Education, 9,7-13.
student achievement. Alberta Journal of Edu- Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collab-
cational Research, 34, 148-165. oration skills for school professionals. New
Ashton, P. T. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational York: Longman.
paradigm for effective teacher education. Jour- Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., &
Bishop, N. (1992a).
nal of Teacher Education, 35, 28-32. Instructional
adaptation for students at risk.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a Journal of Educational Research, 86(2), 70-84.
difference: Teacher’s sense of efficacy and Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992b).
student achievement. New York: Longman. Teacher Characteristics Scale. Annual Continu-
Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A develop- ation Application for "Planning, Reviewing and
mental analysis of self-efficacy. In J. Flavell & L. Ongoing Assessment Among Classroom Teach-
Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: ers", Grant No. 0023E90020 from the U.S.
Frontiers and possible future (pp. 200-239). Department of Education, Office of Special
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Education Programs.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying Gable, R. A., Young, C. C., & Hendrickson, J. M.
theory of behavioral change. Psychological (1987). Content of special education teacher
Review, 84, 191-215. preparation: Are we headed in the right
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & direction? Teacher Education and Special
Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs support- Education, 10, 135-139.
ing educational change (Vol. 7). Santa Monica, Gelzheiser, L. M., & Meyers, J. (1991). Reading
CA: The Rand Corporation. (ERIC Document instruction by classroom, remedial and re-
Reproduction Service No. ED 140 432). source room teachers. The Journal of Special

Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior Education, 24, 512-526.
and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A

94
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
 construct validation. Journal of Educational tional research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Psychology, 76, 569-582. Review of Educational Research, 62,
307-332.
Glass, G. V. (1983). Effectiveness of special educa- Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in
tion. Policy Studies Review, 21(1),
65-78. behavioralresearch (2nd ed.). New York: Holt,
Glomb, N. K., & Morgan, D. P. (1991). Resource Rinehart, & Winston.
room teachers’ use of strategies that promote Reisberg, L., & Wolf, R. (1988). Instructional
the success of handicapped students in regular strategies for special education consultants.
classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, Remedial and Special Education, 9(6), 29-40.
, 221-235.
25 Rosenshine, B. (1971). Teaching behaviors and
student achievement. London: National Founda-
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept,
tion for Educational Research.
and attitudes toward the implementation of
Sindelar, P. T., Smith, M. A., Harriman, N. E., Hale,
instructional innovation. Teaching & Teacher R. L., & Wilson, R. J. (1986). Teacher effective-
Education, ,463-69. ness in special education programs. Journal of
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the
Special Education, 20, 195-207.
process of teacher change. Educational Re- Tracz, S. M., & Gibson, S. (1986, November). Effects
searcher, 15, 5-12. of efficacy on academic achievement. Paper
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of presented at the Annual Meeting of the
student teachers. American Educational Re- California Educational Research Association.
search Journal, 27, 279-300. Marina del Ray, CA.
Idol, L. (1988). A rational and guidelines for Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective
establishing special education consultation pro- teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about
grams. Remedial and Special Education, 9(6), control. Journal of Educational Psychology,
48-58. , 81-91.
82
Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. W. (1981).
Reading instruction and its effects. American
Educational Research Journal, 18 , 343-361.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice Rose M. Allinder, Assistant Professor, Depart-
of teaching. Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328. ment Education and Communication
of Special
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educa- Disorders, University of Nebraska/Lincoln.

95
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016