Educational Psychology

An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology

ISSN: 0144-3410 (Print) 1469-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Teachers & self-efficacy

Magdalena Mo Ching Mok & Phillip John Moore

To cite this article: Magdalena Mo Ching Mok & Phillip John Moore (2019) Teachers & self-
efficacy, Educational Psychology, 39:1, 1-3, DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2019.1567070

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1567070

Published online: 07 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 445

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

EDITORIAL

Teachers & self-efficacy

As Editors of Educational Psychology, we are pleased to report that 2018 was a rewarding
year for the Journal, which published 69 high-quality manuscripts reporting outstanding
research and practice in the 10 issues of that volume (Volume 38). The Journal has not
only provided a platform for dissemination of new knowledge within the profession but
also highlighted the role of educational psychologists in progressing the field through their
commitment as researchers-practitioners. The latest SSCI data show total citations of
articles increased from 1578 in 2016 to 1977 in 2017, and the Impact Factor moved from
1.310 in 2016 to 1.344 in 2017. This achievement is impossible without the invaluable sup-
port and collaboration of distinguished Editorial Board members, Consulting Editors, and
expert Reviewers from 40 countries.
Now to 2019. This first issue of Volume 39 presents research on a range of psychological
issues related to the self-efficacy and values of teachers, self-efficacy of students, and self-
regulated learning of students. Over the past 40 years, teacher self-efficacy has emerged as
a topic of growing research interest (Zee & Koomen, 2016). Most of this research is under-
pinned by Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (Berg & Smith, 2016; Zee & Koomen, 2016).
Grounded in Bandura’s conception of self-efficacy, teacher self-efficacy beliefs are beliefs
that teachers hold about their capacity to affect student performance. Major reviews have
shown positive correlations between teachers’ self-efficacy and a range of instructional out-
comes, teacher instructional behaviour, and teacher well-being, including student motiv-
ation, student engagement, student achievement, student self-efficacy, teacher work
satisfaction, work commitment, teacher effectiveness, and instructional behaviour (Klassen
& Chiu, 2011; Klassen & Tze, 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2001; Zee & Koomen, 2016).
In this issue, three articles focus on teachers’ efficacy beliefs, two in the context of inclu-
sive education. Schwab (2019) examined teachers’ general self-efficacy toward inclusion and
teachers’ self-efficacy toward specific students with and without special education needs
regarded learning or behavioural and emotional disorders. The article adds to previous
research by measuring both student-specific efficacy beliefs and general self-efficacy of regu-
lar and special education teachers. Continuing in the context of inclusive education,
Desombre, Lamotte, and Jury (2019) focussed on reasons that contributed to differences
between regular and special education teachers in their attitudes toward inclusion.
The researchers tested the conjecture of teachers’ sense of efficacy as a mediator of their atti-
tudes finding that efficacy is critical in understanding teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.
Teacher self-efficacy is integrated into an on the Job Demands-resources model that
drives the research reported by Putwain and von der Embse (2019). They investigated how
pressure arising from imposed curriculum changes (a job demand) and teacher self-efficacy
(a resource) interacted to predict perceived stress in teachers. Their study extends know-
ledge on the moderating effect of teacher self-efficacy on the association between stress
perceived by teachers around the testing period and pressure they experienced from
changes to content and accountability-based evaluation.

ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Torsney, Lombardi, and Ponnock (2019) add to the knowledge on teacher motivation by
developing the concept and measurement of epistemic value, a construct referring to the
value espoused by an individual on the knowledge that has a future benefit. The work is
grounded in the Factors Influencing Teaching Choice (FITChoice) model (Richardson &
Watt, 2016) and shows how epistemic value, along with the conventional social utility
value and personal utility value, explains preservice teachers’ motivation in pursuing future
professional engagement and development.
Chou, Shen, Hsiao, and Shen (2019) considered factors influencing tertiary teachers’
innovative teaching behaviour, based on a Theory of Planned Behaviour framework. Their
study involved a representative sample stratified for the regional and educational networks
of tertiary institutions and departments in Taiwan and explored the structural relationship
among three critical components in ICT innovation implementation, namely, tertiary teach-
ers’ organisational innovation climate, technological innovation acceptance and innovative
instructional behaviour with ICT. Importantly, their findings demonstrated that an organisa-
tion’s innovative climate has positive impacts on teaching behaviours.
Two articles in this issue concern well-being of undergraduate students. The first of
these articles, by Lau, Fang, Cheng, and Kwong (2019), explored associations between vol-
unteer motivation, mediated by social problem solving and self-efficacy, and mental health
of university students. The importance of this study can be seen from the central role
played by universities in engendering good values of volunteerism among their students.
Further, they highlighted effective strategies for the recruitment and engagement of volun-
teers. The second manuscript examining undergraduate students is the research of Stiller,
Kattner, Gunzenhauser, and Schmitz (2019) who compared the beneficial affective and
resource-related consequences of positive reappraisal and expressive suppression in foster-
ing self-regulated learning through regulation of emotions. The study yielded empirical evi-
dence that informs the formulation of effective strategies for the promotion of self-
regulated learning through positive reappraisal.
Lohbeck (2019) examined elementary school students’ self-perception of effort in math-
ematics and German by academic self-concept while differentiating between competence
and affective self-concepts. Further, possible mediator effects of academic self-concepts on
the relationship between students’ self-reported grades and self-perception of effort in cor-
responding domains were explored. Among the findings were those that reinforced
domain specificity of self-concept and that self-concept mediated the effects of grades on
effort perceptions.
The articles selected for this issue draw from research that considers psychological
issues related to efficacy and well-being of teachers and students from diverse background
and geographical locations. A theme that runs through them all is a competent demonstra-
tion of the role played by educational psychologist in impacting on policy and practice
through strong research evidence. Ten issues including two Special Issues are planned for
this volume (Volume 39). The coming issues are envisaged to continue to encourage high-
quality research that contributes significantly to new knowledge as well as to applications
in educational psychology.

References
Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, L. F. (2016). Preservice teacher self-efficacy beliefs: An opportunity to generate “good
research” in the Asia-Pacific Region. In S. Garvis & D. Pendergast (Eds.), Asia-Pacific perspectives on teacher
self-efficacy (pp. 1–18). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 3

Chou, C.-M., Shen, C.-H., Hsiao, H.-C., & Shen, T.-C. (2019). Factors influencing teachers’ innovative teaching
behaviour with information and communication technology (ICT): The mediator role of organizational
innovation climate. Educational Psychology, 39(1), 65–85. doi:10.1080/01443410.2018.1520201
Desombre, C., Lamotte, M., & Jury, M. (2019). French teachers’ general attitude toward inclusion: The indirect
effect of teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology, 39(1), 38–50. doi:10.1080/01443410.2018.1472219
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit of practicing and
pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching context. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 36(2), 114–129. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness.
Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001
Lau, Y., Fang, L., Cheng, L. J., & Kwong, H. K. D. (2019). Volunteer motivation, social problem solving, self-effi-
cacy, and mental health: A structural equation model approach. Educational Psychology, 39(1), 112–132.
doi:10.1080/01443410.2018.1514102
Lohbeck, A. (2019). Social and dimensional comparison effects on academic self-concepts and self-percep-
tions of effort in elementary school children. Educational Psychology, 39(1), 133–150. doi:10.1080/
01443410.2018.1527018
Putwain, D., & von der Embse, N. P. (2019). Teacher self-efficacy moderates the relations between imposed
pressure from curriculum changes and teacher stress. Educational Psychology, 39(1), 51–64. doi:10.1080/
01443410.2018.1500681
Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. (2016). Factors influencing teaching choice: Why do future teachers choose
the career?. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp.
275–304). Singapore: Springer.
Schwab, S. (2019). Student-specific teachers’ self-efficacy in relation to teacher and student variables.
Educational Psychology, 39(1), 4–18.
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. doi:10.2466/
14.02PR0.114k14w0
Stiller, A.-K., Kattner, F., Gunzenhauser, C., & Schmitz, B. (2019). The effect of positive reappraisal on the avail-
ability of self-control resources and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology, 39(1), 86–111. doi:
10.1080/01443410.2018.1524851
Torsney, B. M., Lombardi, D., & Ponnock, A. (2019). The role of values in pre-service teachers’ intentions for
professional engagement. Educational Psychology, 39(1), 19–37. doi:10.1080/01443410.2018.1504892
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Zee, M. & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student
achievement adjustment, and teachers well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of
Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015. doi:10.3102/0034654315626801

Magdalena Mo Ching Mok