Teachers Efficacy

Teaching Self-Efficacy
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education

David Morris
Subject: Curriculum and Pedagogy, Professional Learning and Development
Online Publication Date: Mar 2017 DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.86
Summary and Keywords
Teaching self-efficacy refers to the beliefs that teachers hold about their instructional
capabilities. According to Bandura’s social cognitive theory, individuals develop a sense of
efficacy by attending to four sources of information: mastery experiences (i.e.,
performance attainments), vicarious experiences (i.e., observing social models), social
persuasions (i.e., messages received from others) and physiological and affective states
(e.g., stress, fatigue, mood). Personal and contextual factors also play a role in the
development of teaching self-efficacy. Understandings of teaching self-efficacy, its sources
and its effects, have been limited by poor conceptualizations and methodological
shortcomings. Nonetheless, researchers have provided ample evidence that teachers with
a high sense of efficacy tend to be more psychologically healthy and effective than
teachers who doubt their capabilities.
Keywords: teachers, self-efficacy, social cognitive theory, sources, outcomes
Theoretical Framework and Description

Modern research on teaching self-efficacy is embedded in Albert Bandura’s (1986) social
cognitive theory, which holds that human functioning is not limited to interactions
between environmental stimuli and behavioral responses. Instead, it involves reciprocal
interactions between behavior, the environment, and personal factors (i.e., biological,
cognitive, and other internal events). These personal factors can influence individuals’
beliefs, which in turn inform their subsequent behaviors. Bandura (1997) argued that
perceptions of self-efficacy, defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and
execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3), are
especially central to the exercise of human agency. Self-efficacy has been found to predict
the effort people put forth, how well they persevere when faced by obstacles, how
Page 1 of 29
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (education.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University
Press USA, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited. Please see applicable Privacy
Policy and Legal Notice (for details see Privacy Policy).
date: 07 December 2017

effectively they monitor and motivate themselves, what they achieve, and the choices
they make in life (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997).
In the field of education, researchers and lawmakers have long emphasized the
importance of teacher effectiveness, and much of their work has focused on the
relationship between teachers’ demonstrated competence (e.g., past performances,
attainment of relevant knowledge, and skills) and their future success (e.g., Mishra &
Koehler, 2006; No Child Left Behind, 2003). From a social cognitive perspective, this view is
incomplete. As Bandura (1995) noted, “People's level of motivation, affective states, and
actions are based more on what they believe than on what is objectively the case” (p. 2).
Teachers’ competence, or efficacy, is undoubtedly necessary for their successful
performance. However, their beliefs about their capabilities, or teaching self-efficacy,
inform the degree to which they engage and persist in those performances. For example,
Pfitzner-Eden (2016) found that preservice teachers whose self-efficacy rose during a
teaching practicum became less likely to quit their teacher education program. This
distinction between actual and perceived competence also helps to clarify why the term
teacher efficacy is a misnomer for self-belief. Use of the term, once popular in teaching
self-efficacy research, has decreased over time but can still be found in recent
publications.
History and Measure

Pajares (1992) once described research on teachers’ beliefs as “messy” (p. 315) owing to
poor conceptualizations and methodological shortcomings. Such problems continue to
impede understandings of how teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs develop and influence their
motivation and behaviors (Klassen, Tze, Betts, & Gordon, 2011; Zee & Kooman, 2016). Much
of this can be attributed to the unique history of the construct.
The first measure of teaching self-efficacy preceded Bandura’s (1977) seminal article by a
year. Created by RAND researchers (Armor et al., 1976), the instrument quantified
teachers’ efficacy beliefs using two items: (1) “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” and (2) “If I really try hard, I can get through to even the
most difficult or unmotivated students” (p. 23). The first item was used to measure the
extent to which teachers believed that student motivation and performance fell outside of
teachers’ control, and the second assessed the degree to which they felt that the ability to
motivate students was within their control. This original measure of teaching self-efficacy
was derived from Rotter’s (1966) locus of control theory rather than Bandura’s (1986) social
cognitive theory. As Bandura (1997) noted, self-efficacy beliefs are conceptually and
empirically distinct from locus of control beliefs. Whereas Rotter (1966) described
behaviors as motivated by outcome expectancies, Bandura (1977, 1997) argued that
outcome expectancies motivate behavior only when individuals first judge themselves
Page 2 of 29

capable of effectively performing the behavior. So whereas locus of control beliefs have to
do with the relationship between behaviors and outcomes, self-efficacy beliefs reflect
personal assessments of capability. The first item from Armor et al.’s (1976) study, for
example, had little to do with appraising one’s teaching capabilities. Notably, the second
item differed from the generalized expectancies described by Rotter (1966) and was more
consistent with Bandura’s (1997) descriptions of self-efficacy. Similar items can be found in
recent teaching self-efficacy scales, including Bandura’s (2006) own item assessing
teachers’ belief that they can “get through to the most difficult students” (p. 328).
The conflicting influences of these two theoretical frameworks ultimately contributed to

flaws in the measurement and conceptualization of teaching self-efficacy (Henson, 2002).
Emerging from Bandura’s (1977) framework, Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) Teacher Efficacy
Scale represented an attempt to combine the two perspectives of the construct and
became the dominant instrument for approximately 15 years (Tschannen-Moran,
Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Henson, 2002). Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) scale was composed of
two subscales to measure personal teaching efficacy (thought to be consistent with self-
efficacy) and general teaching efficacy (thought to be consistent with outcome
expectations). In subsequent research, scholars raised many questions about the scale’s
validity and reliability, including that personal teaching efficacy and general teaching
efficacy were empirically similar to the internal and external loci of control measured by
the original instrument (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Henson, 2002; Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998). Nevertheless, the Teacher Efficacy Scale and related measures (e.g., Science
Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument, Enochs & Riggs, 1990) continue to be used in
teaching self-efficacy research (e.g., Gencer & Cakiroglu, 2007; Gurvitch & Metzler, 2009;
Lumpe, Czerniak, Haney, & Beltyukova, 2012).
Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) called for a new understanding of teaching self-efficacy that
was more consistent with social cognitive theory. Borrowing from Bandura’s (1997)
definition, they identified teaching self-efficacy as “the teacher’s belief in his or her
capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a
specific teaching task in a particular context” (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998, p. 233).
Subsequent measures of teaching self-efficacy have typically been designed, like
Bandura’s (2006) own scale, to assess teachers’ capabilities with regard to specific
competencies (e.g., Brouwers & Tomic, 2001; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran
& Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The most popular of these is Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s
(2001) Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, which is composed of subscales to measure
teachers’ perceived capabilities to utilize different instructional strategies, manage a
class effectively, and engage their students. The composite score can be used as a
measure of teachers’ general sense of efficacy, but researchers can also use the scale to
evaluate teachers’ beliefs regarding a specific competency (e.g., teaching self-efficacy in
classroom management).
Page 3 of 29

Researchers must continue to explore whether the three competencies identified in

Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s (2001) scale reflect the full range of capabilities
teachers consider in evaluating their effectiveness. For example, teachers might also
value their ability to create a positive climate (Bandura, 2006), serve as mentors (Morris &
Usher, 2011), cope with changes and challenges (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), or teach in
culturally responsive ways (Siwatu, 2007). Because different teaching self-efficacy scales
measure different competency beliefs, scholars must use caution when generalizing
across studies. Teaching self-efficacy, like other efficacy beliefs, has been operationalized
at various levels of specificity. Researchers have focused on teachers’ general sense of
efficacy (e.g., Guo, Justice, Sawyer, & Tompkins, 2011) or, as previously discussed, their
beliefs about specific competencies (e.g., Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Bandura (1997) maintained that measures of teaching self-efficacy should be subject-area

specific. This is particularly critical when studying individuals who teach multiple
subjects because teaching self-efficacy can vary across instructional domains. For
example, Buss (2010) found that preservice elementary teachers felt more capable to teach
reading than science. For the purposes of some investigations, it may be necessary to
further specify the domain and task in evaluating teachers’ beliefs. In these, teaching self-
efficacy may be assessed as the capability to use a particular pedagogical method (e.g.,
Smolleck & Yoder, 2008) or meet the needs of certain groups of students (e.g., Ruble,
Toland, Birdwhistell, McGrew, & Usher, 2013). To optimize the precision and practical
usefulness of findings, researchers should choose a level of specificity that is well aligned
with the behaviors, outcomes, and other beliefs to be measured (Pajares, 1996; Wyatt, 2014).
Sources of Teaching Self-Efficacy
Page 4 of 29

Bandura (1997) proposed that self-efficacy beliefs are derived from at least four sources of
information: enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasions, and
physiological and affective states. Enactive mastery experiences, or past performance
accomplishments, are considered to be particularly powerful sources of self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1997; Usher & Pajares, 2008). In the absence of direct experience, individuals
may rely more on vicarious experiences in which they witness the successes and failures
of others. And social persuasions, or messages that individuals receive from others, are
particularly influential when perceived to be sincere and credible (Schunk, 1984; Pajares,
2006). Finally, physiological and affective states, including stress, fatigue, anxiety, and
mood, are also theorized to contribute to self-efficacy beliefs. Bandura (1997) stressed that
interpretation plays a large role in how individuals process the sources.
Unfortunately, methodological shortcomings in the literature have obscured what is

known about how teachers develop a sense of efficacy (Morris, Usher, & Chen, 2016).
Attempts to validate a scale of all four hypothesized sources have been undermined by (1)
small sample sizes, (2) failure to find a satisfactory factor structure, and (3) low subscale
reliabilities (e.g., Kieffer & Henson, 2000; Morris & Usher, 2013; Poulou, 2007). Moreover,
items used to measure the sources have often been written in ways that are limited or
inconsistent with social cognitive theory. For example, some scholars have assessed social
persuasions in terms of interpersonal support (e.g., Capa Aydin & Woolfolk Hoy, 2005;
Woolfolk Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005). Another common mistake is to measure vicarious
experiences in terms of referential comparisons with others, which Bandura (1986) argued
were based on multiple sources of information (e.g., O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012; Poulou,
2007). Although research on the sources has been plagued by such methodological
limitations, valuable insights can be gleaned when integrating findings from these studies
with the broader teaching self-efficacy literature.
Page 5 of 29

Mastery Experiences
Of the hypothesized sources, mastery experiences have received the most attention in
quantitative studies. Most commonly, these have included items to assess general
satisfaction with past performances (e.g., Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007) or
amount of teaching experience (e.g., Ruble, Usher, & McGrew, 2011). Neither of these is an
appropriate measure of mastery experience, which is “predicated on the outcomes of
personal experiences” (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 88). Scholars who have instead focused on
instructional outcomes typically report that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are indeed
informed by their accomplishments. As Guskey (2002) noted, teachers’ perceptions of
success are often based on what their students do. For example, instructors may feel
more capable after seeing their students succeed in school or in their later endeavors
(Guskey, 1987; Morris & Usher, 2011). Teachers may also infer that they are effective when
their students are on-task and engaged (Guo et al., 2011; Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, &
Medlock, 2004; Ross, Cousins, & Gadalla, 1996). And when students consistently
demonstrate their understanding of the material in class, their teachers can become more
self-efficacious as a result (Gabriele & Joram, 2007; Phan & Locke, 2015). Thus, with few
direct and objective measures of success available to them, teachers often define their
mastery in the context of their perceived influence on students.
Vicarious Experiences
The influence of modeling on teaching self-efficacy has typically been examined in the
context of preservice or novice instructors and their mentor teachers. Researchers have
reported conflicting findings with regard to the correlation between inexperienced
teachers’ self-efficacy and their exposure to effective or self-efficacious mentors (Capa
Aydin & Woolfolk Hoy, 2005; Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008; Rots, Aelterman, Vlerick, &
Vermuelen, 2007). But when interviewed, many teachers have indicated that their early
experiences watching skillful mentors profoundly influenced their sense of efficacy
(Gunning & Mensah, 2011; Morris & Usher, 2011; Siwatu, 2011A). The relationship between
such vicarious experiences and teaching self-efficacy may be explained, in part, by the
extent to which individuals gain valuable pedagogical strategies and content knowledge
from their observations (Mills, 2011; Palmer, 2011). Even symbolic models, such as filmed
case studies, can influence young teachers’ sense of efficacy by arming them with tools
they can use in their future teaching (Bautista, 2011). As Bandura (1997) noted, vicarious
experiences are also more powerful when the model is perceived to be similar in some
way. It is perhaps for this reason that instructors who see their peers teach can become
more self-efficacious as a result (Bruce, Esmonde, Ross, Dookie, & Beatty, 2010; Heppner,
1994).
Social Persuasions
Page 6 of 29

The influence of a social persuasion on teaching self-efficacy beliefs largely depends on

when it was received, how it was delivered, and who provided the message. Namely,
social persuasions are particularly powerful in the early stages of teachers’ careers, when
they have had few opportunities to evaluate their own accomplishments (Milner &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2003; Morris & Usher, 2011). And as previously noted, persuasions are most
effective when they are specific and perceived to be sincere. For this reason, teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs can be informed by the evaluative feedback they receive after being
observed (Cone, 2009; Palmer, 2011; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Anonymous
student evaluations may provide another source of sincere and specific feedback that
instructors can trust when reflecting on their capabilities (Burton, Bamberry, & Harris-
Boundy, 2005; Morris & Usher, 2011). Finally, teachers tend to rely more on social
persuasions they receive from others who are credible and knowledgeable (Bandura, 1997).
For example, instructors may weigh the feedback they receive from students more heavily
than feedback from supervisors, as their students observe them on a more consistent
basis (Morris & Usher, 2011; Phan & Locke, 2015).
Physiological and Affective States
It is unclear what role physiological and affective states play in the development of
teaching self-efficacy. As will be later discussed, methodological limitations have made it
difficult to establish whether specific physiological and emotional events serve primarily
as antecedents or outcomes of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Moreover, most research on
the four hypothesized sources suggests that these states have little influence on teaching
self-efficacy. In quantitative studies, correlations between teaching self-efficacy and
physiological and affective states were typically weak (Mohamadi & Asadzadeh, 2012;
Morris & Usher, 2013; Poulou, 2007). And in qualitative and mixed-methods studies,
participants were less likely to describe them as powerful influences, relative to other
sources (Heppner, 1994; Palmer, 2006, 2011).
The potential influence of physiological and affective states should not be

underestimated, however. Valuable insights may be gleaned from studies with more
specific measures of both the source and teaching self-efficacy. Stress, for example, tends
to be weakly correlated with teaching self-efficacy (Klassen & Chiu, 2010, 2011; Klassen &
Durksen, 2014). But stress may lower teachers’ sense of efficacy for classroom
management, particularly when that stress is related to student behaviors (Klassen &
Chiu, 2010, 2011; Ross & Bruce, 2007). It is also important to note that whereas quantitative
research has focused on negative physiological and emotional states, qualitative studies
have revealed that positive states (e.g., excitement, happiness) can powerfully inform
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (Akkuzu, 2014; Mills, 2011; Morris & Usher, 2011).
Page 7 of 29

Personal and Contextual Factors

Teachers’ sense of efficacy is influenced not only by independent environmental and
personal factors, but also by the dynamic interplay of these factors (Bandura, 1997). For
example, teachers may take into account students’ developmental levels, family and home
environments, or access to resources as they evaluate their own capabilities (e.g.,
Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). But teachers’ self-
efficacy beliefs may also be influenced, albeit indirectly, by their own social background.
Personal factors like race or gender can color teachers’ interactions with students and
other members of the school community (Egalite, Kisida, & Winters, 2015; Milner &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2003). As such, these factors may contribute to a unique history of
experiences (i.e., sources) and influence teachers’ beliefs about what they can
accomplish.
Race, Ethnicity, and Gender
Factors like race, ethnicity, and gender may play a role in both the types of experiences
teachers have and the way they interpret those experiences. For example, results of an
experimental study revealed that female professors were more likely to receive negative
student evaluations than were male professors matched by rank, department, and
experience (Basow, 1995). In this case, the social persuasions teachers received may have
varied as a function of their gender. However, it is also possible that gender can play a
role in how individuals construe efficacy-relevant information, as in Clance and
Imes’ (1978) classic study of high-achieving women who had difficulty internalizing their
attainments and instead internalized social messages about the intellectual inferiority of
women.
Race and Ethnicity

Researchers who have investigated the sources of students’ academic self-efficacy have
documented that the hypothesized sources of self-efficacy may vary in their effect on self-
efficacy as a function of individuals’ ethnic or racial background (Klassen, 2004; Stevens,
Olivarez, & Hamman, 2006; Usher & Pajares, 2006). Less research has focused on the
relationship between race or ethnicity and teachers’ developing sense of efficacy. Some
researchers have found no relationship between teachers’ race or ethnicity and their self-
efficacy (Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Fives & Looney, 2009; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2007). However, many of the samples used in studies of teaching self-efficacy consisted
primarily of individuals who were White, reflecting the demographics of public K–12
teachers in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2015). Given the small subsample size of non-White participants in
these studies, it is possible that nonsignificant findings are the result of Type II error. In
one large-scale study of new teachers in the racially and ethnically diverse schools of
Page 8 of 29

New York City (N = 2,956), African American and Latino teachers were found to be more
self-efficacious than White teachers (Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). A point to
be later discussed is that it is possible that teachers’ appraisal of their capabilities is
influenced by the extent to which their racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds match
those of their students.
Race, ethnicity, and culture may play a role in how teachers weigh potential sources of
teaching self-efficacy. For example, vicarious experiences with teaching mentors could
potentially have less influence when the model is of a different ethnicity or gender, as
individuals generally attend more to models perceived as similar in some way (Bandura,
1997). And due to the aforementioned lack of racial diversity among teachers in the United
States, a preservice teacher who is not White may be more likely to be paired with a
mentor of a different race. Culture may also mediate the relationship between a given
experience and teaching self-efficacy. Berg and Smith (2014) found that Malaysian
preservice teachers were more likely to identify parents as important vicarious
experiences than were preservice teachers from England or New Zealand. Klassen (2004)
has also suggested that “the self-oriented sources—past performance and emotional
arousal—may be more highly valued among individualistic cultural groups, whereas the
other-oriented dimensions of social persuasion and vicarious experience may be stronger
influences among persons with collectivist leanings” (p. 732).
The nature and meaning of efficacy-relevant experiences may differ for teachers who feel
they contend with racial prejudice. In one case study, stereotypes functioned as
discouraging social dissuasions for an African American teacher in a predominantly White
setting (Milner & Woolfolk Hoy, 2003). Moreover, mastery was, in part, determined by the
degree to which she could combat those stereotypes as a teacher. In another study, an
African American professor who had been recognized for outstanding teaching indicated
that receiving a teaching award was a profound social persuasion because it was
conferred despite racial obstacles in the institutional culture (Morris & Usher, 2011).
Teachers’ experiences with racial discrimination can also contribute to their stress
(Coleman & Stevenson, 2013). However, little is known about how these experiences might
influence teachers’ perceptions of their instructional capabilities.
Gender
Researchers have typically found little association between gender and the teaching self-
efficacy of either experienced or novice teachers (e.g., Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Darling-
Hammond et al., 2002; Devos, Dupriez, & Paquay, 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2007). When scholars have discovered differences in efficacy beliefs that favor female
teachers, they have suggested that these differences might be attributed to the lack of
male teaching models or to the social message that teaching is a feminine profession
(Cheung, 2008; Fives & Looney, 2009; Tschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011). However, male
elementary teachers in the United States often have higher science teaching self-efficacy
than their female peers (Bleicher, 2004; Cantrell, Young, & Moore, 2003; Lumpe, Czerniak,
Page 9 of 29

Haney, & Beltyukova, 2012). This, too, may be the result of macro-level social persuasions,
such as that science is a male domain (Kiviet & Mji, 2003). Thus gender, as a social
construct, may have different implications for self-efficacy in different contexts.
The relationship between gender and negative physiological and affective states is
unclear. Research in the 1990s and early 2000s seemed to indicate that male teachers
were more likely to experience stress than were their female counterparts (see Sabbe &
Aelterman, 2007, for a review). In recent studies, however, female teachers have been
found to experience higher levels of stress related to their teaching workload (Antoniou,
Polychroni, & Vlachakis, 2006; Chaplain, 2008; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008; Klassen & Chiu,
2010). Even in their initial teaching experiences, female preservice teachers have reported
significantly higher levels of stress than their male counterparts (Klassen & Durksen,
2014). Exploring both stress and teaching self-efficacy with more specificity may help to
clarify relationships between these constructs. For example, female teachers in Klassen
and Chiu’s (2010) study were more likely to experience stress related to the behaviors of
students in their classrooms, which had a negative influence on their teaching self-
efficacy. There is also some evidence that male teachers have slightly higher classroom
management self-efficacy (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Yazici, 2010). Thus, it appears that the
relationship between gender, stress, and self-efficacy is complex and may be mediated or
moderated by other variables. Research that is sensitive to context and that measures
these constructs at a high level of specificity has more practical value and helps to
provide more nuanced understandings of the phenomena.
Contextual Factors
As with efficacy beliefs in general, teachers’ self-efficacy is sensitive to the context in

which the task—teaching—is performed. In their seminal article, Tschannen-Moran et al.
(1998) noted that teaching self-efficacy “has been defined as both context and subject-
matter specific. A teacher may feel very competent in one area of study or when working
with one kind of student and feel less able in other subjects or with different students” (p.
215). Characteristics of a classroom, such as class size and ability level, can influence
perceptions of teaching self-efficacy (Andersen, Dragsted, Evans, & Sørensen, 2004;
Raudenbush, Rowan, & Cheong, 1992). Teachers in secondary grades are more likely to
report higher stress and lower self-efficacy than those in elementary grades, possibly due
to more extreme student behaviors (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Klassen & Chiu, 2010;
Tschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011). Both preservice and in-service teachers in suburban
environments have reported higher self-efficacy than have teachers in urban or rural
schools (Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Siwatu, 2011B; Tschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011). Some
scholars have argued that teacher education programs often fail to prepare students for
the unique demands of teaching in urban and rural contexts (Haberman, 1996; Siwatu,
2011B).
Page 10 of 29

Teachers’ self-efficacy can also vary according to the subjects they teach and the
resources at their disposal. Ross, Cousins, Gadalla, and Hannay (1999) reported that
individuals who were asked to teach outside of their content area experienced decreases
in their self-efficacy. More surprisingly, they found that teachers who taught different
subjects tended to rely on different sources of teaching self-efficacy. Namely, perceptions
of past success were more strongly related to teaching self-efficacy for English, social
science, and art teachers, whereas perceptions of preparedness to teach were a greater
influence for mathematics and science teachers. The availability of teaching resources
may also affect teachers’ self-efficacy in that they serve as additional tools with which to
approach the task of teaching (Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 2000; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). However, the availability of too many resources without proper
support may also overwhelm young teachers and undermine their self-efficacy (Chester &
Beaudin, 1996).
Teachers’ efficacy beliefs may also be influenced by their students’ backgrounds.

Students’ socioeconomic status, gender, and culture can influence teachers’ expectations
for student motivation and achievement (Auwarter & Aruguete, 2008; Tyler, Boykin, &
Walton, 2006). Teachers’ perceptions of their capabilities to motivate and instruct their
students may, in turn, vary as a function of those expectations. The link between teaching
self-efficacy and student characteristics may also be related to teachers’ unfamiliarity
with the needs of students from different backgrounds. For example, teachers have
reported lower self-efficacy for working with students who are English language learners
(Bonner & Christine, 2009; Settlage, Southerland, Smith, & Ceglie, 2009; Siwatu, 2007).
Casebolt and Hodge (2010) found that physical educators’ self-efficacy for teaching
students with disabilities was contingent, in part, on the type and severity of the
disability.
Teachers’ may also feel less capable to teach students of certain racial or ethnic
backgrounds. Siwatu (2011B) found that preservice teachers felt better prepared to teach
White American students than to teach African American students, Hispanic students, or
English language learners. Similarly, Moseley and Taylor (2011) reported that middle and
high school teachers were less self-efficacious when teaching in classrooms with larger
numbers of African American, Latino, and American Indian students. Because the
majority of participants in both studies were White, these findings may reflect a cultural
mismatch between teachers and their students. As previously noted, new African
American and Hispanic teachers were more self-efficacious than their White peers who
taught in New York City schools, where 83% of the students were identified as belonging
to a “minority” group (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). These teachers felt more capable to
teach their students, handle discipline problems, and make a difference in their students’
lives.
Yet, even teachers who are not white may have trouble connecting with students of the
same ethnicity when the curriculum is Eurocentric (Sato, Fisette, & Walton, 2013). Well-
designed teacher education experiences may improve the attitudes, beliefs, and practices
Page 11 of 29

of preservice teachers. In one study, 20 preservice social studies teachers were asked to
critically evaluate the curriculum, reflect on the cultural context of their student teaching
classrooms, and plan and implement culturally relevant lessons (Fitchett, Starker, &
Salyers, 2012). Following implementation, participants had higher culturally responsive
teaching self-efficacy and were more confident in their ability to teach in a culturally
diverse setting.
Implications of Teaching Self-Efficacy for

Teachers and Their Students
Toward the beginning of the 21st century, reviews of teaching self-efficacy research
typically emphasized the many benefits associated with a high sense of efficacy; self-
efficacious teachers were said to be more psychologically healthy, motivated, and
effective than their less self-efficacious peers (e.g., Henson, 2002; Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998; Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2006). However, many of the claims made in these pieces were
overstated, based more on theory than on empirical research specific to teaching.
Research on the effects of teaching self-efficacy has since increased and has been the
subject of many recent reviews and meta-analyses (e.g., Brown, 2012; Chesnut & Burley,
2015; Klassen & Tze, 2014; Zee & Kooman, 2016). Although this work has improved
understanding of how self-efficacy beliefs can affect teachers and their students,
researchers’ overuse of cross-sectional designs has limited what causal relationship can
be inferred.
Psychological Well-Being
Much of the research on the effects of teaching self-efficacy has focused on teachers’
well-being, such as the degree to which they experience stress, burnout, or satisfaction
with their jobs (Klassen et al., 2011). Scholarly interest in teachers’ work stress may be
attributed to the high-stress nature of the occupation (Johnson et al., 2005). The
relationship between teaching self-efficacy and work-related stress is particularly
enigmatic. Bandura (1997) described stress both as a source and as an effect of self-
efficacy. For example, it seems logical that a stressful classroom could lead a teacher to
doubt his or her capabilities (Klassen & Chiu, 2010, 2011). At the same time, a teacher who
already has low self-efficacy may be more susceptible to occupational stress or may
engage in practices that lead to student behavior stressors (Martin, Sass, & Schmitt, 2012;
Robertson & Dunsmuir, 2013; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008). Although teaching self-efficacy
has consistently been found to be inversely related to work stress, it is difficult to
ascertain the direction of the relationship due to the preponderance of cross-sectional
studies. It is possible that the influence of teaching self-efficacy on stress is partially
mediated by coping mechanisms, but scholars have reported conflicting findings
Page 12 of 29

regarding the link between teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their use of active coping
strategies (e.g., Chan, 2008; Shen, 2009). Nevertheless, teachers can minimize the effects of
stress by engaging in adaptive coping strategies and seeking out external resources
(Betoret, 2006; Klassen & Durksen, 2014; Morris & Usher, 2011).
Chronic occupational stress may lead to burnout, which is characterized by emotional

exhaustion, depersonalization (i.e., negative, cynical attitudes toward students), and
reduced sense of accomplishment (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Researchers, using both
cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, have convincingly established that teaching self-
efficacy is a consistent predictor of all three dimensions of burnout (Aloe, Amo, &
Shanahan, 2014; Brown, 2012; Zee & Kooman, 2016). That is, teachers with high self-efficacy
tend to feel more accomplished and report less emotional exhaustion and
depersonalization. These relationships may be mediated by occupational stressors and
the types of instructional approaches teachers use (Betoret, 2006; Martin et al., 2012;
Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008).
Finally, researchers have reported positive associations between teachers’ self-efficacy

and their job satisfaction, but most of these studies have been cross-sectional and thus do
not establish causality (Zee & Kooman, 2016). Self-efficacy is presumed to predict job
satisfaction, but researchers have not reached consensus on what mechanisms explain
this relationship. For example, work conditions predict teaching self-efficacy and
satisfaction in some models (e.g., Aldridge & Fraser, 2015), whereas work conditions
mediate the relationship between self-efficacy and satisfaction in others (e.g., Badri,
Mohaidat, Ferrandino, & Mourad, 2013; Lent & Brown, 2006). And in Klassen and Chiu’s
(2010) model, teaching self-efficacy mediates the relationship between classroom stress
and job satisfactions, whereas classroom stress mediates the relationship between self-
efficacy and satisfaction in Martin et al.’s (2012) model. More experimental or longitudinal
studies are needed to explore possible causal relationships between these variables.
Persistence
Bandura (1997) noted that self-efficacious individuals tend to persist at a task, even when
that task becomes a challenge. In theory, then, teachers who believe they are capable
should be more likely to persevere than to abandon the profession or give up on a
student. Indeed, Chesnut and Burley’s (2015) meta-analysis revealed that teaching self-
efficacy was moderately associated with commitment to teaching for both preservice and
practicing teachers. In a recent longitudinal study, beginning preservice teachers who
only had one month of teaching experience became less likely to quit as their self-efficacy
increased (Pfitzner-Eden, 2016). Scholars have described how many of the aforementioned
variables (e.g., stress, burnout, satisfaction) may contribute to, or help to explain
relationships between, teachers’ self-efficacy and their commitment (e.g., Klassen & Chiu,
2011; Martin et al., 2012). In Martin et al.’s (2012) model, for example, teachers with lower
Page 13 of 29

self-efficacy were more likely to teach in ways that led to more student behavior
stressors. These stressors, in turn, indirectly predicted their intent to leave their school
or quit the profession altogether.
In earlier research, a commonly used justification for studying teachers’ efficacy beliefs
was that self-efficacious teachers were less likely to refer difficult students for special
education (e.g., Henson, 2002; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The underlying
implication was that teachers who felt they were capable were less likely to give up on
their students. However, as Zee and Kooman (2016) noted, more recent and well-designed
studies have failed to replicate this finding. Moreover, they pointed out that teachers’
referral decisions could be influenced by other factors, such as teachers’ ability to
identify students’ special needs. To explore the relationship between teachers’ self-
efficacy and their commitment to teaching all students, researchers should more directly
measure how they interact with students who can pose instructional challenges.
Quality of Instruction
Research on the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and the quality of
their instruction has been insufficient and almost exclusively cross-sectional (Holzberger,
Philipp, & Kunter, 2013; Klassen et al., 2011). Moreover, in many studies, teachers have been
trusted to report on their own instructional behaviors (e.g., Abu-Tineh, Khasawneh &
Khalaileh, 2011; Thoonen, Sleegers, Peetsma, & Oort, 2011). More objective measures are
needed to adequately assess teacher effectiveness. It is telling that in two recent studies,
teachers’ self-efficacy predicted their self-reported instructional practices but not their
students’ ratings of those same practices (Holzberger et al., 2013; Schiefele & Schaffner,
2015).
In a recent meta-analysis, however, teachers’ self-efficacy was found to be strongly

associated with evaluations of their effectiveness by fellow teachers, supervisors, and
administrators (Klassen & Tze, 2014). Observers tend to rate self-efficacious teachers more
highly in terms of their instruction, management of behavioral problems, and ability to
foster a positive classroom environment (Almog & Shechtman, 2007; Guo, Connor, Yang,
Roehrig, & Morrison, 2012; Justice, Mashburn, Hamre, & Pianta, 2008). Moreover, students
of these teachers tend to be more engaged and on-task (Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, &
Salovey, 2012; Robertson & Dunsmuir, 2013). The relationship between teachers’
effectiveness and self-efficacy can be reciprocal; those who have been effective in the
past may become more self-efficacious as a result (Bandura, 1997; Holzberger et al., 2013).
Page 14 of 29

Student Motivation
Research that focuses on student motivation is sparse but appears to support the notion
that students of self-efficacious teachers tend to be more motivated. Teachers’ self-
efficacy beliefs have been linked to student behaviors associated with motivation, such as
being on-task or performing well in school (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006;
Robertson & Dunsmuir, 2013). Students of self-efficacious teachers are also more likely to
report being engaged and intrinsically motivated in their academic work (Mojavezi &
Tamiz, 2012; Reyes et al., 2012). And in some longitudinal studies, teachers’ self-efficacy was
found to influence students’ efficacy beliefs and their expectations of how they would
perform academically (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles,
1989; Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Hannay, 2001). Correlations between teachers’ self-efficacy
and students’ achievement goals, however, tend to be weak or nonsignificant (Schiefele &
Schaffner, 2015; Thoonen et al., 2011). More work is needed to identify the factors that
explain relationships between teachers’ self-efficacy and their students’ motivation.
Student Performance
Klassen et al. (2011) noted that research on teaching self-efficacy tends to focus more on
within-teacher variables than on student outcomes. Associations between teachers’ self-
efficacy and students’ achievement tend to be significant but modest (Klassen & Tze, 2014;
Klassen et al., 2011). As with much of the research on the effects of teaching self-efficacy,
studies of the link between teaching self-efficacy and student performance tend to be
cross-sectional (Zee & Kooman, 2016). As previously discussed, student achievement could
be a source, rather than simply an outcome, of teachers’ self-efficacy. But evidence from
the few longitudinal studies conducted suggests that students’ performance may indeed
be influenced by teachers’ beliefs. For example, Caprara et al. (2006) found that teachers’
self-efficacy predicted student achievement when controlling for previous levels of
achievement. And students taught by teachers with higher or lower self-efficacy than
their previous teachers were likely to experience related changes in their skills or
perceived performance (Midgley et al., 1989; Ross et al., 2001).
More work is needed to address the differential effects of high or low self-efficacy on
student outcomes and the role that student factors play in this relationship. In addition,
scholars should continue to explore the mechanisms through which teachers’ self-beliefs
influence student performance. The relationship between teaching self-efficacy and
student outcomes is likely mediated by certain teacher behaviors, such as the degree to
which teachers provide evaluative feedback to their students (Guo et al., 2012).
Page 15 of 29

Future Directions
From its conception, research on teaching self-efficacy has been undermined by
conceptual misunderstandings and methodological shortcomings (Henson, 2002; Klassen et
al., 2011; Zee & Kooman, 2016). Clearly, much has been learned about teachers’ self-efficacy,
its sources, and its effects on teachers and their students. However, there are two
overarching problems that must be sufficiently addressed to advance research on
teaching self-efficacy.
The first is that measures used in studies of the sources of self-efficacy tend to be
psychometrically unsound and inconsistent with Bandura’s (1997) descriptions. As
previously noted, there is no widely used scale of the four hypothesized sources, and
attempts to validate such a scale have fallen short. Moreover, items used in studies of the
sources have often failed to adequately capture the intended source. These limitations
have obscured understandings of how teachers develop and maintain a sense of efficacy.
Research on the sources of teaching self-efficacy is particularly important because it has

the most direct implications for teacher education and professional development
programs. Among intervention studies informed by the sources, the most consistent
finding is that mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, and social persuasions
influence participants’ teaching self-efficacy when they provide them with content and
pedagogical knowledge (e.g., Bleicher, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009).
However, teacher education and professional development programs typically use
multiple sources of information to improve teachers’ knowledge of content and
pedagogical skills. Well-designed studies with valid measures of the sources can be used
to demonstrate how a social cognitive perspective provides unique and valuable
contributions to practice.
The second problem is that research on the effects of teaching self-efficacy has relied
heavily on designs that do not allow for causal inferences (Klassen et al., 2011; Zee &
Kooman, 2016). For example, Robertson and Dunsmuir (2013) reported that teachers’ self-
efficacy and use of feedback predicted positive student behaviors. But given the cross-
sectional nature of their study, it could as easily be said that students’ positive behaviors
increased teachers’ sense of efficacy. Similarly, researchers have yet to convincingly
establish that teachers’ self-efficacy influences student achievement. This constitutes a
threat to what Pajares (2003), invoking William James, called the “cash value” of the
construct. Researchers must adequately demonstrate that teaching self-efficacy is indeed
important to student motivation and learning, particularly in a political climate that is
increasingly focused on student outcomes.
Further Reading
Page 16 of 29

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the ‘messy’ construct of teachers’
beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R.
Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Volume 2:
Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471–499). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive

implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy
research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 137–150.
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching
effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76.
Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy
research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational
Psychology Review, 23, 21–43.
Morris, D. B., Usher, E. L., & Chen, J. A. (2016). Reconceptualizing the sources of
teaching self-efficacy: A critical review of emerging literature. Educational
Psychology Review. Advance online publication.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy

construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an

elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Zee, M., & Kooman, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on
classroom processes, student academic adjustments, and teacher well-being: A
synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015.
References
Abu-Tineh, A. M., Khasawneh, S. A., & Khalaileh, H. A. (2011). Teacher self-efficacy and
classroom management styles in Jordanian schools. Management in Education, 25,
175–181.
Page 17 of 29

Akkuzu, N. (2014). The role of different types of feedback in the reciprocal

interaction of teaching performance and self-efficacy belief. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 39(3), 37–66.
Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2015). Teachers’ views of their school climate and its
relationship with teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Learning Environments
Research. Advance online publication.
Almog O., & Shechtman, Z. (2007). Teachers’ democratic and efficacy beliefs and
styles of coping with behavioural problems of pupils with special needs. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 22, 115–129.
Aloe, A. M., Amo, L. C., & Shanahan, M. E. (2014). Classroom management self-
efficacy and burnout: A multivariate meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review,
26, 101–126.
Andersen, A. M., Dragsted, S., Evans, R. H., & Sørensen, H. (2004). The relationship
between changes in teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and the science teaching
environment of Danish first year elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 15, 25–38.
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, 148–165.
Antoniou, A. S., Polychroni, F., & Vlachakis, A. N. (2006). Gender and age differences
in occupational stress and professional burnout between primary and high-
school teachers in Greece. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 682–690.
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., et al. (1976).
Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority
schools (Rep. No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Auwarter, A. E., & Aruguete, M. S. (2008). Effects of student gender and

socioeconomic status on teacher perceptions. Journal of Educational Research, 101,
243–246.
Badri, M. A., Mohaidat, J., Ferrandino, V., & Mourad, T. E. (2013). The social cognitive
model of job satisfaction among teachers: Testing and validation. International
Journal of Educational Research, 57, 12–24.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Page 18 of 29

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, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: 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 Publishing.
Basow, S. A. (1995). Student evaluations of college professors: When gender

matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 656–665.
Bautista, N. U. (2011). Investigating the use of vicarious and mastery experiences

in influencing early childhood education majors’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 22, 333–349.
Berg, D., & Smith, L. (2014). Pre-service teachersߣ efficacy beliefs and concerns in
Malaysia, England and New Zealand. Issues in Educational Research, 24(1), 21–40.
Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among

secondary school teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology, 26, 519–539.
Bleicher, R. E. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in preservice

elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 383–391.
Bleicher, R. E. (2007). Nurturing confidence in preservice elementary science

teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(6), 165–187.
Bonner, T., & Christine, N. (2009). An administrative concern: Science teachers’

instructional efficacy beliefs regarding racially, culturally, economically, and linguistically
diverse student populations (Doctoral diss.). Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2001). The factorial validity of scores on the teacher
interpersonal self-efficacy scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61,
433–445.
Brown, C. G. (2012). A systematic review of the relationship between self-efficacy and

burnout in teachers. Educational and Child Psychology, 29, 47–63.
Bruce, C. D., Esmonde, I., Ross, J., Dookie, L., & Beatty, R. (2010). The effect of
sustained classroom-embedded teacher professional learning on teacher efficacy
and related student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1598–1608.
Burton, J. P., Bamberry, N. J., & Harris-Boundy, J. (2005). Developing personal teaching
efficacy in new teachers in university settings. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4, 160–173.
Page 19 of 29

Buss, R. R. (2010). Efficacy for teaching elementary science and mathematics

compared to other content. School Science and Mathematics, 110, 290–297.
Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy
of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 177–192.
Capa Aydin, T., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2005). What predicts teacher self-efficacy? Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 9(4), 123–128.
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, 473–490.
Casebolt, K. M., & Hodge, S. R. (2010). High school physical education teachers’
beliefs about teaching students with mild to severe disabilities. The Physical
Educator, 3, 140–155.
Chan, D. W. (2008). Emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and coping among

Chinese prospective and in service teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology,
28, 397–408.
Chaplain, R. P. (2008). Stress and psychological distress among trainee secondary

teachers in England. Educational Psychology, 28, 195–209.
Chesnut, S. R., & Burley, H. (2015). Self-efficacy as a predictor of commitment to the

teaching profession: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 15, 1–16.
Chester, M. D., & Beaudin, B. Q. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newly hired teachers in
urban schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 233–257.
Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Teacher efficacy: A comparative study of Hong Kong and

Shanghai primary in-service teachers. Australian Educational Researcher, 35, 103–
123.
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving
women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research
and Practice, 15, 241–247.
Coleman, S., & Stevenson, H. C. (2013). The racial stress of membership:

Development of the faculty inventory of racialized experiences in schools.
Psychology in the Schools, 50, 548–566.
Cone, N. (2009). Community-based service-learning as a source of personal self-

efficacy: Preparing preservice elementary teachers to teach science for diversity.
School Science and Mathematics, 109, 20–30.
Page 20 of 29

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, 286–302.
Devos, C., Dupreiz, V., & Paquay, L. (2012). Does the social working environment
predict beginning teachers’ self-efficacy and feelings of depression? Teaching and
Egalite, A. J., Kisida, B., & Winters, M. A. (2015). Representation in the classroom:
The effect of own-race teachers on student achievement. Economics of Education
Review, 45, 44–52.
Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science

teaching efficacy belief instrument: Preservice elementary scale. School Science
and Mathematics, 90, 694–706.
Fitchett, P. G., Starker, T. V., & Salyers, B. (2012). Examining culturally responsive
teaching self-efficacy in a preservice social studies education course. Urban
Education, 47, 585–611.
Fives, H., & Looney, L. (2009). College instructors sense of teaching and collective
efficacy. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20, 182–
191.
Gabriele, A. J., & Joram, E. (2007). Teachers’ reflection on their own reform-based
teaching in mathematics: Implications for the development of teacher self-
efficacy. Action in Teacher Education, 29, 3, 60–74.
Gencer, A. S., & Cakıroglu, J. (2007). Turkish preservice science teachers’ efficacy
beliefs regarding science teaching and their beliefs about classroom
management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 664–675.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582.
Grayson, J. L., & Alvarez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher
burnout: A mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1349–1363.
Gunning, A. M., & Mensah, F. M. (2011). Preservice elementary teachers’

development of self-efficacy and confidence to teach science: A case study.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 171–185.
Guo, Y., Connor, C. M., Yang, Y., Roehrig, A. D., & Morrison, F. J. (2012). The effects of
teacher qualifications, teacher self-efficacy, and classroom practices on fifth
graders’ literacy outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 113, 3–24.
Page 21 of 29

Guo, Y., Justice, L. M., Sawyer, B., & Tompkins, V. (2011). Exploring factors related to
preschool teachers’ self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 961–968.
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. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy.

Journal of Educational Research, 81, 41–47.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and

Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381–391.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct

dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627–643.
Haberman, M. (1996). Selecting and preparing culturally competent teachers for urban
schools. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 747–760). New
York: Macmillan.
Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive

implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy
research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 137–150.
Heppner, M. J. (1994). An empirical investigation of the effects of a teaching

practicum on prospective faculty. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 500–
509.
Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability
and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 43, 343–367.
Holzberger, D., Philip, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related
to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
105, 774–786.
Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The
experience of work-related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 20, 178–187.
Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A. J., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2008). Quality of language
and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 54–68.
Kieffer, K. M., & Henson, R. K. (2000, April). Development and validation of the sources of
self-efficacy inventory (SOSI): Exploring a new measure of teacher efficacy. Paper
Page 22 of 29

presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education,

New Orleans, LA.
Kiviet, A. M., & Mji, A. (2003). Sex differences in self-efficacy beliefs of elementary
science teachers. Psychological Reports, 92, 333–338.
Klassen, R. M. (2004). A cross-cultural investigation of the efficacy beliefs of South

Asian immigrant and Anglo non-immigrant early adolescents. Journal of
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
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, 114–129.
Klassen, R. M., & Durksen, T. L. (2014). Weekly self-efficacy and work stress during
the teaching practicum: A mixed methods study. Learning and Instruction, 33, 158–
169.
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching
effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76.
Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy
research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational
Psychology Review, 23, 21–43.
Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). ‘Maybe I can teach those kids.’ The
influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). Integrating person and situation perspectives on
work satisfaction: A social-cognitive view. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 236–
247.
Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., Haney, J. J., & Beltyukova, S. (2012). Beliefs about
teaching science: The relationship between elementary teachers’ participation in
professional development and student achievement. International Journal of Science
Education, 34(2), 153–166.
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about
their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275–
292.
Page 23 of 29

Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2012). Teacher efficacy in student
engagement, instructional management, student stressors, and burnout: A
theoretical model using inclass variables to predict teachers’ intent-to-leave.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 546–559.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout.

Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99–113.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student
self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high
school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247–258.
Mills, N. (2011). Teaching assistants’ self-efficacy in teaching literature: Sources,

personal assessments, and consequences. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 61–80.
Milner, H. R., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2003). A case study of an African American
teacher’s self-efficacy, stereotype threat, and persistence. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 19, 263–276.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.
Mohamadi, F. S., & Asadzadeh, H. (2012). Testing the mediating role of teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs in the relationship between sources of efficacy information
and students’ achievement. Asia Pacific Educational Review, 13, 427–433.
Mojavezi, A., & Tamiz, M. (2012). The Impact of teacher self-efficacy on the
students’ motivation and achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2,
483–491.
Morris, D. B., & Usher, E. L. (2011). Developing teaching self-efficacy in research

institutions: A study of award-winning professors. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 36, 232–245.
Morris, D. B., & Usher, E. L. (2013, April). Sources of teaching self-efficacy: Preliminary
steps in the measurement of multifaceted constructs. Paper presented at the meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Morris, D. B., Usher, E. L., & Chen, J. A. (2016). Reconceptualizing the sources of
teaching self-efficacy: A critical review of emerging literature. Educational
Psychology Review. Advance online publication.
Moseley, C., & Taylor, B. (2011). Analysis of environmental and general science
teaching efficacy among instructors with contrasting class ethnicity distribution:
A four-dimensional assessment. School Science and Mathematics, 111(5), 199–208.
Page 24 of 29

Mottet, T. P., Beebe, S. A., Raffeld, P. C., & Medlock, A. L. (2004). The effects of student
verbal and nonverbal responsiveness on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction.
Communication Education, 53, 150–163.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB). (2003). Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003).
O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012). Exploring Australian pre-service teachers sense
of efficacy, its sources, and some possible influences. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28, 535–545.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy

construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of

Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
Pajares, F. (2003). William James: Our father who begat us. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.
Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 41–64). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for

teachers and parents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents
(pp. 117–137). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Palmer, D. H. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for

primary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 36, 337–353.
Palmer, D. H. (2011). Sources of efficacy information in an inservice program for

elementary teachers. Science Education, 95, 577–600.
Pfitzner-Eden, F. (2016). I feel less confident so I quit? Do true changes in teacher

self-efficacy predict changes in preservice teachers’ intention to quit their
teaching degree? Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 240–254.
Phan, N. T. T., & Locke, T. (2015). Sources of self-efficacy of Vietnamese EFL

teachers: A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 73–82.
Poulou, M. (2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: Student teachers’
perceptions. Educational Psychology, 27, 191–218.
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.
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom
emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of
Page 25 of 29

Robertson, C., & Dunsmuir, S. (2013). Teacher stress and pupil behaviour explored
through a rational-emotive behaviour therapy framework. Educational Psychology,
33, 215–232.
Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy:
Results of randomized field trial. The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 50–60.
Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teaching
efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 385–400.
Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., Gadalla, T., & Hannay, L. (1999). Administrative assignment
of teachers in restructuring secondary schools: The effect of out-of-field course
responsibility on teacher efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 782–804.
Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on
computer skills and computer cognitions of K-3 students. Elementary School
Journal, 201, 141–156.
Rots, I., Aelterman, A., Vlerick, P., & Vermeulen, K. (2007). Teacher education,
graduates’ teaching commitment and entrance into the teaching profession.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 543–556.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28.
Ruble, L. A., Toland, M. D., Birdwhistell, J. L., McGrew, J. H., & Usher, E. L. (2013).
Preliminary study of the autism self-efficacy scale for teachers (ASSET). Research
in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(9), 1151–1159.
Ruble, L. A., Usher, E. L., & McGrew, J. H. (2011). Preliminary investigation of the
sources of self-efficacy among teachers of students with Autism. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26, 67–74.
Sabbe, E., & Aelterman, A. (2007). Gender in teaching: a literature review. Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13, 521–538.
Sato, T., Fisette, J., & Walton, T. (2013). The experiences of African American physical
education teacher candidates at secondary urban schools. Urban Review, 45, 611–
631.
Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (2015). Teacher interests, mastery goals, and self-
efficacy as predictors of instructional practices and student motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 159–171.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Sequential attributional feedback and children’s

achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1159–1169.
Page 26 of 29

Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of

job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses [Special issue]. Applied Psychology: An
International Review. Special Issue: Health and Well-Being, 57, 152–171.
Settlage, J., Southerland, S. A., Smith, L. K., & Ceglie, R. (2009). Constructing a doubt-
free teaching self: Self-efficacy, teacher identity, and science instruction within
diverse settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 102–125.
Shen, Y. E. (2009). Relationships between self-efficacy, social support and stress

coping strategies in Chinese primary and secondary school teachers. Stress and
Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 25, 129–138.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimension of teacher self-efficacy and

relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher
burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611–625.
Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-

efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1086–
1101.
Siwatu, K. O. (2011a). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-

efficacy-forming experiences: A mixed methods study. The Journal of Educational
Research, 104, 360–369.
Siwatu, K. O. (2011b). Preservice teachers’ sense of preparedness and self-efficacy

to teach in America’s urban and suburban schools: Does context matter? Teaching
and Teacher Education, 27, 357–365.
Smolleck, L. A., & Yoder, E. P. (2008). Further development and validation of the
Teaching Science as Inquiry (TSI) Instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 108,
291–297.
Stevens, T., Olivárez, A., Jr., & Hamman, D. (2006). The role of cognition, motivation,
and emotion in explaining the mathematics achievement gap between Hispanic
and White students. Hispanic Journal of Behavior Sciences, 28, 161–186.
Thoonen, E. E., Sleegers, P. J., Peetsma, T. T., & Oort, F. (2011). Can teachers motivate
students to learn? Educational Studies, 37, 345–360.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Johnson, D. (2011). Exploring literacy teachers’ self-efficacy

beliefs: potential sources at play. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 751–761.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four

professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and
implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110,
228–245.
Page 27 of 29

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an

elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-
efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23, 944–956.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Tyler, K. M., Boykin, A. W., & Walton, T. R. (2006). Cultural considerations in teachers’
perceptions of student classroom behavior and achievement. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 22, 998–1005.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Digest of
educational statistics 2013 (NCES Publication No. 2015011). Retrieved from http://
nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015011.pdf.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory efficacy
beliefs of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
31, 125–141.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of
the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78, 751–796.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke-Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the
early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, 343–356.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Davis, H. A. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the
achievement of adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents (pp. 117–137). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Wyatt, M. (2014). Towards a re-conceptualization of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs:

tackling enduring problems with the quantitative research and moving on.
International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 37, 166–189.
Yazici, K. (2010). The analysis of social studies pre-service teachers’ interpersonal self-
efficacy beliefs. Education, 131, 372–380.
Zee, M., & Kooman, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on
classroom processes, student academic adjustments, and teacher well-being: A
synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research. Advance online
publication.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary

Page 28 of 29

David Morris
St. Mary's College of Maryland
Page 29 of 29

Teachers Efficacy

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

Teachers Efficacy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching Self-Efficacy

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education

Summary and Keywords

Keywords: teachers, self-efficacy, social cognitive theory, sources, outcomes

Theoretical Framework and Description

date: 07 December 2017

History and Measure

date: 07 December 2017

The conflicting influences of these two theoretical frameworks ultimately contributed to

date: 07 December 2017

Researchers must continue to explore whether the three competencies identified in

Bandura (1997) maintained that measures of teaching self-efficacy should be subject-area

Sources of Teaching Self-Efficacy

date: 07 December 2017

Unfortunately, methodological shortcomings in the literature have obscured what is

date: 07 December 2017

date: 07 December 2017

The influence of a social persuasion on teaching self-efficacy beliefs largely depends on

Physiological and Affective States

The potential influence of physiological and affective states should not be

date: 07 December 2017

Personal and Contextual Factors

Race, Ethnicity, and Gender

Race and Ethnicity

date: 07 December 2017

date: 07 December 2017

As with efficacy beliefs in general, teachers’ self-efficacy is sensitive to the context in

date: 07 December 2017