986241

research-article2021
IJM0010.1177/0255761420986241International Journal of Music EducationFisher et al.

Original Article

International Journal of
Music Education
Influences on teacher efficacy 1­–16
© The Author(s) 2021
of preservice music educators Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0255761420986241
https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761420986241
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijm

Ryan A Fisher
University of Memphis, USA

Nancy L Summitt
Central Michigan University, USA

Ellen B Koziel
Rhodes College, USA

Armand V Hall
University of Rochester, USA

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the factors that influence preservice music teacher
efficacy. Participants in this study were undergraduate music education students (N = 124), a
convenience sample taken from six mid-South university music education programs in the United
States. To explore the factors influencing preservice music teacher efficacy, a survey was sent to
participants. The survey consisted of demographic information (race, gender, classification, etc.),
questions about the predictor variables, and the Preservice Music Teacher Efficacy Scale (PMTES).
Multiple regression revealed that the predictor variables accounted for 38% (R2 = .38; adjusted
R2 = .33) of the variance in the PMTES. Professional Disposition Scale score (β = .35, p < .001)
and Music Performance Efficacy Scale score (β = .39, p < .001) contributed the greatest to the
regression model. Based on these findings, music teacher education programs may consider
implementing a type of professional disposition measurement throughout music education
students’ undergraduate education. The results also reinforce the importance of developing
music performance skills as part of a music education program.

Keywords
Music performance efficacy, music teacher education, preservice music teacher, professional
dispositions, teacher efficacy

Corresponding author:
Ryan A Fisher, Rudi E. Scheidt School of Music, University of Memphis, 232 Communication and Fine Arts Building,
3750 Norriswood Avenue, Memphis, TN 38152, USA.
Email: ryan.fisher@memphis.edu
2 International Journal of Music Education 00(0)

Music teacher preparation programs continue to adapt their programs to improve the overall readi-
ness and effectiveness of their teacher candidates. Curricular adjustments, disposition evaluations,
quality and types of field placements, as well as numerous other experiences have been imple-
mented with little empirical evidence of their positive impact on teacher preparation (Kladder,
2017). Most music education programs in the United States must meet the standards of two accred-
iting bodies to retain or attain membership: the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation
(CAEP) and the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). CAEP has designed standards
for the recruitment and retention of high-quality teacher candidates from teacher education pro-
grams; these standards include high school grade point average (GPA), standardized test scores,
and candidates’ attributes and dispositions (Standard 3: Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and
Selectivity; CAEP, 2018). NASM has also specified desirable attributes for university music stu-
dents seeking a degree in music education such as commitment, leadership, advocacy skills, the
ability to inspire students, professionalism, and the desire to improve their musicianship and teach-
ing ability (NASM, 2017, p. 118). Researchers have described preservice student teachers’ profes-
sional dispositions and articulated the need for teacher preparation programs to facilitate the
development of teacher identity by incorporating practices like reflection and experiential learning
(Chong et al., 2011; Garza et al., 2016).
Given that teacher preparation programs strive to develop their candidates’ teacher effective-
ness, one must consider what characteristics contribute to teacher quality. Some research cites
content and pedagogical knowledge as important (Berliner, 1986). Madsen (2003) found that the
experience level of observers impacted whether they considered accurate instruction more impor-
tant than delivery skills or the teachers’ perceived classroom management skills. Preservice music
teachers listed knowledge (of students and content matter), instructional skills (planning and pac-
ing), and teacher traits (ethics, order, learning, and imagination) as essential components of effec-
tive teaching (Butler, 2001). Rohwer and Henry (2004) found that collegiate music educators rated
teaching skills as more important than musical skills or personality characteristics; within those
three categories, classroom management was considered the most important teaching skill, motiva-
tion the most important personality characteristic, and musical expressiveness the most important
musical skill. Collegiate music educators consider personality characteristics to be particularly
difficult to evaluate outside of authentic teaching situations. Specific musical skills may differ in
importance for choral, instrumental, and general music education tracks. For instance, respondents
ranked conducting as a higher skill needed for choir and band teachers, but not as essential for
general music teachers (Rohwer & Henry, 2004). Baker (1981) found that music educators consid-
ered enthusiasm, classroom management, and student engagement to be the three essential ele-
ments of music teacher effectiveness. High school instrumental students rated competence,
positivity, respect for students, ability to deliver clear instructions, and confidence as the most
important skills and behaviors for music teachers out of a list of 31 behaviors (Kelly, 2008). Social
skills, such as nonverbal communication and the ability to converse with others, positively influ-
ence preservice teacher effectiveness (Hamann et al., 1998; Juchniewicz, 2010).

Teacher efficacy
Steele (2010) identified teacher efficacy as a crucial quality for effective music educators to pos-
sess. Bandura defined self-efficacy as the belief in one’s own capabilities to organize and execute
a certain task (Bandura, 1997). For the purposes of the study, we define teacher efficacy to be one’s
perceived capability to execute specific teaching tasks. Teacher efficacy centers on the beliefs of
teachers to perform actions that will positively impact student learning even when there are diffi-
culties to be overcome (Armor et al., 1976; Bandura, 1977; A. W. Hoy & Spero, 2005; Raudenbush
Fisher et al. 3

et al., 1992; Ross, 1994; Trentham et al., 1985; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; Waggoner, 2011).
Unlike self-esteem or self-concept, teacher efficacy is specific to teaching tasks and is focused on
teacher beliefs about abilities (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Teacher efficacy is also distinct
from expectations about specific results in that teachers may have high teacher efficacy for a task
but understand that outside influences may negatively impact the outcome of their actions
(Raudenbush et al., 1992; Soodak & Podell, 1996). Teaching efficacy positively influences effec-
tive teaching characteristics and student evaluations of teachers (Armor et al., 1976; Magno &
Sembrano, 2007; Trentham et al., 1985).
The influence of teacher efficacy on student achievement and other positive educational out-
comes has been extensively researched (Anderson et al., 1988; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Goddard
et al., 2000; Ross, 1992). Higher teacher efficacy has been shown to impact time spent on instruc-
tion (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Stallings & Kaskowitz, 1974), types of instructional activities cho-
sen by the teacher (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), teacher feedback patterns (Gibson & Dembo, 1984),
teacher persistence (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), teacher stress (Parkay et al., 1988), classroom man-
agement strategies employed (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), changes in instructional behavior (Smylie,
1988), and teacher expectations (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Educators with higher teacher
efficacy reported greater success with mainstreaming students with disabilities (Brownell &
Pajares, 1999). Künsting et al. (2016) found that higher teacher efficacy predicted self-reported
healthy classroom climate, adaptive classroom management, and effective instructional strategies.
Higher teacher efficacy also predicted teachers’ mastery goal orientation (Künsting et al., 2016).
Teacher efficacy directly impacts students in areas such as positive academic beliefs (Midgley
et al., 1989), attitude toward school (Miskel et al., 1983), and student self-efficacy (Anderson et al.,
1988).
Higher teacher efficacy also predicts greater job satisfaction (Caprara et al., 2006; Viel-Ruma
et al., 2010). Educators with higher teacher efficacy worry less about teaching concerns (Ghaith &
Shaaban, 1999) and are more committed to the teaching profession (Coladarci, 1992). Low teacher
efficacy predicted intent to leave the profession (Swanson, 2012). Greater music teacher efficacy
has been shown to mitigate the risk of attrition or migration in music teachers (Hancock, 2008);
however, research on music teacher efficacy is scant.

Influences on teacher efficacy

Given the importance of teacher efficacy, influences on teacher efficacy have been thoroughly
investigated and have been categorized as external or internal factors. External factors include
characteristics of students, courses, and schools that impact teacher efficacy and are independent
of the teacher’s own personal attributes. Characteristics of a specific group of students can either
positively or negatively impact teacher efficacy (Ross et al., 1996). Student characteristics such as
higher class achievement levels (Raudenbush et al., 1992), higher grade levels (Raudenbush et al.,
1992), and higher teacher ratings of student commitment to academic achievement (Pas et al.,
2012) all increase teacher efficacy. The level of student engagement has a profound positive impact
on teachers’ efficacy beliefs (Raudenbush et al., 1992; Ross et al., 1996).
Additional external factors include attributes of schools and courses. Course characteristics,
such as smaller class sizes (Raudenbush et al., 1992), can increase teacher efficacy. School charac-
teristics that positively influence teacher efficacy include higher academic achievement levels for
the entire school (W. K. Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Moulding et al., 2014), higher school grade levels
(i.e., elementary vs. high school students) (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007), increased parental
involvement in the school (Rosenholtz, 1989), positive collective school efficacy (beliefs about
how well a school’s faculty members are able to achieve academic goals) (Goddard et al., 2000;
4 International Journal of Music Education 00(0)

Knoblauch et al., 2008), greater teacher access to resources (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007), and
a greater degree of teacher control and collaboration (Raudenbush et al., 1992; Riggs & Enochs,
1990). School setting (urban, suburban, and rural) does not impact teacher efficacy (Knoblauch
et al., 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). Support from administrators and parents may
increase music teachers’ efficacy (Stipek, 2012). In contrast, Pas et al. (2012) found that increased
parental and student involvement did not predict higher teacher efficacy, although better adminis-
trative leadership was associated with higher teacher efficacy ratings. West and Frey-Clark (2019)
found that traditionally certified music teachers and music teachers with alternative certification
pathways reported similar levels of teacher efficacy.
Since teacher efficacy involves beliefs about teaching, educators’ internal characteristics impact
those beliefs. Educators’ philosophies about teaching, such as willingness to try new instructional
methods (Cousins & Walker, 2000; Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Guskey, 1988) and greater commitment
to teaching as a profession (Trentham et al., 1985), can increase teacher efficacy. Increased aca-
demic optimism, hope, and zest for work predict higher teacher efficacy (Sezgin & Erdogan, 2015).
Educators who felt prepared to handle the challenges of teaching also had higher teacher efficacy
(Pas et al., 2012). Teachers’ professional abilities have been correlated with teacher efficacy, since
the degree of teacher preparation for a class (Allinder, 1994; Raudenbush et al., 1992) and the use
of in-service knowledge positively influence teacher efficacy (Ross, 1994). More stable character-
istics such as the gender of the teacher (Raudenbush et al., 1992; Ross et al., 1996), birth order
(Trentham et al., 1985), and years of teaching experience (Wagoner, 2011) also play a role in teach-
ers’ efficacy beliefs. West and Frey-Clark (2019) found that music teachers with more than 10 years
of teaching experience reported higher levels of teacher efficacy than music teachers with 10 years
or less of teaching experience, although the authors note that teachers with lower self-efficacy may
choose to leave the profession.

Preservice teacher efficacy

Teacher efficacy beliefs seem most amenable to change early in a teacher’s career and most resist-
ant later in the career (A. W. Hoy & Spero, 2005; Künsting et al., 2016). This pattern of change in
efficacy beliefs seems to present in preservice teachers as well. A. W. Hoy (2000) found that
teacher efficacy increased for undergraduate students during their time in school, but then decreased
as novice teachers entered the field, experiencing the complex challenges of education. Increased
teacher efficacy predicts stronger commitment to teaching in preservice teachers (González et al.,
2017). Determining factors that positively impact preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs has been a
goal of researchers in the teacher education field.
For preservice teachers in undergraduate studies, coursework and field experience strongly
impact teacher efficacy (Brownell & Parares, 1999; Cantrell et al., 2003). Preservice science teach-
ers who spent more time teaching science to K–12 students demonstrated increased teacher effi-
cacy (Cantrell et al., 2003). Unsurprisingly, preservice teachers’ self-reported possession of the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for effective teaching predicted increased teacher effi-
cacy (González et al., 2017). Preservice teachers with more extracurricular experiences in their
domain of interest, such as science, exhibited higher teacher efficacy for that domain (Cantrell
et al., 2003). Perceived support from professors for preservice teachers’ autonomy predicted
increases in teacher efficacy (González et al., 2017). The student teaching experience can have a
significant impact on preservice teachers’ perceptions of their teaching abilities (Mulholland &
Wallace, 2001). For preservice teachers in senior level internships, teacher efficacy was impacted
by the mentor teacher (Knoblauch et al., 2008; Moulding et al., 2014), mastery experiences
(Mulholland & Wallace, 2001), and degree of support (A. W. Hoy & Spero, 2005) through an
Fisher et al. 5

online community (Ekici, 2018). Jamil et al. (2012) found that supervisors’ ratings of student
teachers’ observed teaching sessions did not predict teacher efficacy levels. Personality traits have
been shown to influence preservice teachers’ efficacy in that extroverted individuals reported
higher teacher efficacy and neuroticism predicted lower teacher efficacy (Jamil et al., 2012).
Student-centered beliefs also predicted higher teacher efficacy for preservice educators (Jamil
et al., 2012). A science content course positively increased first semester preservice science educa-
tors’ teacher efficacy; teaching methods used by the professor may account for the positive impact
(Palmer et al., 2015). Gao et al. (2013) found that preservice physical education teacher efficacy
increased over the course of semester-long student teaching experiences.
The literature on teacher efficacy of preservice music educators is relatively unexplored with a
few exceptions. As with general education preservice teachers, preservice music teachers’ efficacy
increases through years spent in university coursework (Bergee & Grashel, 2002). Prichard (2017)
found that preservice music teacher efficacy was positively impacted by university coursework,
including field experiences incorporating teaching experience, observation, and mentoring.
Preservice music teachers’ commitment to the teaching profession was also correlated with music
teacher efficacy (Prichard, 2017). Preservice music teacher efficacy can be divided into beliefs
about both teaching music and classroom management/elements of education unrelated to music
(Prichard, 2017). Bergee (2002) found that preservice music teachers’ classroom management effi-
cacy could be influenced by practice in using classroom management strategies as well as discus-
sion and observation of experienced teachers’ use of classroom management strategies. Morris
et al. (2017) adapted a preservice science teacher efficacy scale for use with music and visual arts
preservice teachers and found that the items in their instrument measured two separate constructs:
teacher efficacy and outcome expectations.
Bandura (1986a) noted that mastery experiences and vicarious experiences/observations greatly
influence efficacy, which may explain the implementation of field experiences in most music
teacher preparation programs. Music educators’ teacher efficacy may also be impacted by one’s
musical efficacy, the perception of one’s competence as a musician (Ballantyne, 2005). Although
music teacher preparation programs have implemented formative evaluations of student profes-
sional dispositions, academic requirements, music performance expectations, as well as various
levels and types of field experiences, little is known on how these components of music teacher
preparation programs influence preservice music teacher efficacy. The purpose of this study was to
explore the factors that influence preservice music teacher efficacy. The following research ques-
tion guided this study:

Research Question: What factors are the strongest predictors of preservice music teacher
efficacy?

Method
Participants in this study were undergraduate music education students (N = 124), a convenience
sample taken from six mid-South university music education programs in the United States.
Freshman (n = 29), sophomore (n = 43), junior (n = 34), and senior (n = 18) music education majors
participated, and the sample included both males (n = 75) and females (n = 49). The majority of the
sample identified as White (n = 96), but also included Black (n = 13), Latino (n = 8), Asian (n = 1),
and Multiracial (n = 6) participants. According to data from the 2017 Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS) Completions, White students make up the majority of music
degrees awarded (57%) in the United States and the majority of these graduates were male (55.9%)
(DataUSA, 2020). The majority of participants were pursuing an instrumental music education
6 International Journal of Music Education 00(0)

degree track (n = 88), while 27.4% of the sample were pursuing a choral music education degree
track. The overall GPA of participants (n = 110, first semester freshmen excluded) ranged from 2.00
to 4.00 (M = 3.42, SD = 0.46).
After obtaining permission to conduct this research from our university institutional review
board (IRB), music education faculty representatives from six universities were contacted to assist
us by distributing an invitation to participate in this study to their undergraduate music education
majors. Participants received an email describing the study with a link to the survey, which took
approximately 15 min to complete. Due to the indirect solicitation of participants, we did not track
the response rate. The survey consisted of demographic information (race, gender, classification,
etc.), questions about the predictor variables, and the Preservice Music Teacher Efficacy Scale
(PMTES). The survey was designed and distributed using Qualtrics.

Procedures
Participants were first asked to type the name of the university they currently attended. Next, they
selected their current music teacher licensure track (choral-vocal, choral-keyboard, choral-guitar,
instrumental-band, instrumental-string, or other). Participants responded to a series of questions
regarding the total hours of experiences in peer teaching, K–12 classroom observations, and K–12
teaching during their undergraduate studies as well as non-coursework teaching experience. They
were also asked to input the credit hours they had completed in their music education coursework
and education coursework. We asked participants to enter their GPA and total number of hours of
professional development they had participated in during their undergraduate studies. All partici-
pants then completed the Professional Disposition Scale (PDS), the Music Performance Efficacy
Scale (MPES), and the PMTES.

Instruments
The PDS, an instrument designed by the researchers, consisted of 12 statements like “I come to
class and rehearsal well prepared.” We adapted the PDS from a teacher assessment tool used to
evaluate the dispositions of preservice music educators at the primary researcher’s institution.
Participants responded to each statement by selecting “Never,” “Rarely,” “Sometimes,”
“Frequently,” and “Always.” A response of “Never” was converted to a numerical score of “0” and
“Always” equated to a numerical score of “4.” See Figure 1 for the full questionnaire. The item
scores of the PDS were summed, and the potential range of scores was 0–48, with scores closer to
48 indicating professional behaviors and scores closer to 0 indicating extremely unprofessional
behaviors. Validity was established through analyzing various professional disposition rubrics
implemented by several peer institutions and submitting the PDS to a content validity panel con-
sisting of music teacher trainers and music education doctoral students. Cronbach’s alpha of .76
indicated the PDS was a reliable measure.
The MPES, an instrument designed by the researchers, consisted of 10 “I can” statements (see
Figure 2). Each statement had a Likert-type scale with 11 degrees ranging from “cannot do at all”
(0) to “certain I can do” (10). The degree of music performance efficacy was determined by sum-
ming the scores of the MPES item responses. Possible range of scores was 0–100, with scores
closer to 0 indicating low performance efficacy and scores closer to 100 indicating high perfor-
mance efficacy. Validity was established using a content validity panel consisting of music teacher
trainers and music education doctoral students. Cronbach’s alpha of .92 indicated the MPES was a
reliable measure.
The PMTES, an instrument designed by the researchers, consisted of 30 “I can” statements (see
Figure 3). Each statement had a Likert-type scale with 11 degrees ranging from “cannot do at all”
Fisher et al. 7

Figure 1.  Professional Disposition Scale.

(0) to “certain I can do” (10). The degree of music teacher efficacy was determined by summing
the scores of the PMTES item responses. Possible range of scores was 0–300, with scores closer to
0 indicating low efficacy and scores closer to 300 indicating high efficacy. These statements were
influenced by five other teacher and music teacher measures: Gibson and Dembo (1984) Teacher
Efficacy Scale, Bandura (2006) Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale, Wagoner (2011) Survey of Music
Teacher Professional Identity, Jackson (2008) Music Teaching Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, and
Teachout (1997) Preparedness for the First Years of Teaching. Fifty-seven questions from the
source measures were rephrased into “I can” statements, and categorized into five constructs:
classroom management, content delivery, impacting student achievement, planning, and use of
instructional strategies. Validity was established using a content validity panel consisting of experts
in the field of music education who have developed and/or used self-efficacy scales in the past. The
content validity panel members recommended reducing the number of items, rephrasing 10 of the
questions, and adding 2 questions, resulting in 30 questions for the final measure. The PMTES was
pilot tested with a sample of recent music education graduates resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of
.89, indicating acceptable reliability. For the main study, Cronbach’s alpha of .98 indicated the
PMTES was a reliable measure.
8 International Journal of Music Education 00(0)

Figure 2.  Music Performance Efficacy Scale.

Results
To determine the influences on preservice music educators’ teacher efficacy as measured by
PMTES scores, a simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted. Predictor variables
included observation hours, professional development hours, peer teaching hours, K–12 teaching
hours, non-coursework teaching hours, music education credit hours, education credit hours,
MPES score, and PDS score.
Because the largest percentage of the participants were freshmen, their responses to items
related to field experiences, teaching experiences, professional development experiences, and
earned credit hours resulted, in most instances, as zero values, which severely impacted each dis-
tribution. To resolve this issue, we decided to group these independent variables resulting in what
some researchers refer to as dummy variables for “observation hours” (Group 1 [n = 61] = 0–4 hr;
Group 2 [n = 63] = 5+ hr), “peer teaching hours” (Group 1 [n = 51] = 0 hr; Group 2 [n = 41] = 1–5 hr;
Group 3 [n = 32] = 6+  hr), “K–12 teaching hours” (Group 1 [n = 81] = 0–1 hr; Group 2
[n = 43] = 2+ hr), “non-coursework teaching hours” (Group 1 [n = 63] = 0–15 hr; Group 2
[n = 61] = 16+ hr), “music education credit hours” (Group 1 [n = 47] = 0–3 credit hours; Group 2
Fisher et al. 9

Figure 3.  Small portion of the Preservice Music Teacher Efficacy Scale.

[n = 35] = 4–12 credit hours; Group 3 [n = 42] = 13+ credit hours), “education credit hours” (Group
1 [n = 72] = 0–3 credit hours; Group 2 [n = 52] = 4+ credit hours), and “professional development
hours” (Group 1 [n = 57] = 0 hr; Group 2 [n = 35] = 1–10 hr; Group 3 [n = 32] = 11+ hr).
Before conducting the regression, outliers were detected when examining the normality of the
distributions for the intervallic variables, and those outliers were removed reducing the size of the
sample for the regression analysis (n = 115). Descriptive statistics were calculated for all intervallic
variables (see Table 1). The assumptions of multiple regression were examined for normality of
residuals, homoscedasticity, multicollinearity (see Table 2), model specification, linearity, and
independence. No violations of the assumptions were observed. All predictor variables were
entered simultaneously in the regression.
The coefficient of determination (R2 = .38; adjusted R2 = .33, p < .001) indicated the model was
a good fit and explained 38% of the variance in preservice music teacher efficacy. PDS scores
(β = .35, p < .001) and MPES scores (β = .39, p < .001) contributed the greatest to the regression
model (see Table 3).
10 International Journal of Music Education 00(0)

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics of PDS, MPES, and PMTES.

Variable M SD Skewness Kurtosis

PDS 39.33 4.37 −0.08 −0.17
MPES 83.88 10.29 −0.36 −0.46
PMTES 236.26 39.05 −0.47 −0.55

PDS: Professional Disposition Scale; MPES: Music Performance Efficacy Scale; PMTES: Preservice Music Teacher Efficacy
Scale.

Table 2.  Correlation Matrix for Predictor Variables.

Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Observation hours .58 .68 .45 .47 .44 .47 .03 .26
2. Peer teaching hours .60 .45 .50 .33 .49 .01 .13
3. K–12 teaching hours .40 .42 .31 .38 .03 .29
4. Non-required teaching hours .33 .18 .34 .16 .23
5. Music education credits .52 .42 .06 .19
6. Education credits .45 −.12 .15
7. Professional development .16 .26
8. Professional dispositions .37
9. Music performance efficacy  

Table 3.  Predictors of Preservice Music Teacher Efficacy.

Predictor variables B β 95% CI

Observation hours 1.09 .02 [−15.87, 18.05]
Peer teaching hours −0.42 −.01 [−10.72, 9.89]
K–12 teaching hours −3.65 −.05 [−20.85, 13.55]
Non-coursework teaching hours −2.53 −.03 [−15.97, 10.92]
Music education credit hours 2.56 .06 [−6.90, 12.02]
Education credit hours 3.31 .05 [−12.17, 18.79]
Professional development hours 0.70 .02 [−7.90, 9.31]
Professional dispositions 3.06 .35* [1.55, 4.57]
Performance efficacy 1.38 .39* [0.74, 2.02]

CI: confidence interval.

*p < .001.

The unstandardized coefficient for participants’ PDS scores was 3.06, indicating that for every
1-point increase in PDS scores, PMTES scores increased by 3.06 points. The unstandardized coef-
ficient for participants’ MPE scores was 1.38, indicating that for every 1-point increase in MPE
scores, PMTES scores increased by 1.38 points.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the factors that influence preservice music teacher effi-
cacy. Results from this study revealed our predictor variables explained 38% of the variance in
Fisher et al. 11

participants’ PMTES scores with professional dispositions and music performance efficacy serv-
ing as the stronger predictors. Results should be interpreted with caution, as response rates could
not be tracked and all responses consisted of participants’ self-reported data.
Participants’ scores for music performance efficacy contributed significantly to the variance in
PMTES scores. This finding aligns with previous research that indicates music teacher identity
may be impacted by educators’ perceptions of their competence as musicians (Ballantyne, 2005).
In addition, preservice teachers in other domains such as science experience higher teacher effi-
cacy when they engage in more domain-specific activities (Cantrell et al., 2003).
This study found that participants’ PDS scores contributed significantly to the variance in
PMTES scores. Professional dispositions include adaptive behaviors such as promptness and social
skills, as well as personality traits such as honesty and trustworthiness. Such adaptive behaviors
have been connected with excellent music teaching; for example, previous research indicates that
social skills are considered crucial for effective music educators (Hamann et al., 1998; Juchniewicz,
2010). Higher self-ratings of teacher competencies positively predicted preservice teachers’ effi-
cacy (González et al., 2017). Teacher efficacy has been linked to adaptive professional dispositions
such as persistence (Good, 1981), as well as organization, confidence, and enthusiasm (Allinder,
1994). Admissions officers and students believe that dispositions positively impact success in col-
lege music education programs (Fitzpatrick et al., 2014; Royston & Springer, 2017). Both NASM
and CAEP recommend that schools of music and colleges of education recruit students who pos-
sess adaptive professional attitudes and skills (CAEP, 2018; NASM, 2017, p. 118). The results
from this study may support music education program admission practices involving the assess-
ment of candidates’ dispositions.
Our results indicated that music education credit hours and education credit hours did not con-
tribute significantly to the variance in PMTES scores. This finding is in contrast to previous
research. Teachers’ level of preparation has been found to positively predict teacher efficacy (Pas
et al., 2012; Raudenbush et al., 1992). The teacher efficacy of Master of Education students rose
throughout their coursework (A. W. Hoy, 2000). Preservice music teacher efficacy was positively
impacted by university coursework in previous studies (Bergee & Grashel, 2002; Brownell &
Parares, 1999; Cantrell et al., 2003; Prichard, 2017). Prichard (2017) found that field experiences,
individual mentoring, and peer teaching experiences could impact the music teacher efficacy of
preservice teachers enrolled in introductory music education courses. In-service teachers have
reported higher efficacy levels for teaching students with disabilities when their preservice course-
work included instruction on how to include students with diverse needs (Brownell & Parares,
1999). Our contrasting results may indicate the quality of our participants’ coursework may be
uneven or too theoretical, which may explain why these variables did not serve as strong predictors
of preservice music teacher efficacy.
Hours of field experience did not contribute significantly to the variance in PMTES scores,
which is surprising in light of Bandura’s (1977) description of mastery and vicarious experiences
as having the greatest impact on self-efficacy. We examined participants’ observation hours, peer
teaching, and hours of K–12 teaching experience, as well as non-coursework teaching hours.
This is in contrast to previous research (Bergee, 2002; Brownell & Parares, 1999; Cantrell et al.,
2003). Cantrell et al. (2003) found that increased hours of field experience positively impacted
preservice science teachers’ teacher efficacy. Preservice music teachers’ classroom management
efficacy increased as a result of practice using classroom management strategies (Bergee, 2002).
As stated previously, our study simply asked participants to self-report the number of hours of
teaching and observation experiences they have had; we did not measure the quality of these
experiences.
12 International Journal of Music Education 00(0)

Implications for music teacher education

In examining the factors that contributed significantly to the variance in preservice music teachers’
PMTES scores, some recommendations may be made for teacher preparation programs. Music
teacher preparation programs may wish to focus on dual preparation of future music teachers as
both musicians and educators, since music performance efficacy positively influences teacher effi-
cacy. NASM recommends that university music students pursuing a degree in music education be
provided with opportunities to develop skills both as soloists and ensemble musicians (NASM,
2017, p. 120). Current practice of music education students performing alone and with ensembles
would be supported by our findings. While CAEP already requires teacher preparation programs to
monitor preservice teachers’ dispositions, such programs may wish to design intervention strate-
gies to positively impact dispositions and adaptive behaviors. It may also be advisable to regularly
assess and provide music education students feedback regarding their professional behaviors in the
classroom and field experiences. Preservice music teacher candidates may also benefit from regu-
lar self-evaluation of professional dispositions as they develop their teacher identity.
Although observation hours and teaching hours did not predict preservice music teacher effi-
cacy, it does not mean these experiences are not important in developing effective music educators.
Past research has consistently shown that vicarious and mastery experiences are predictors of
teacher efficacy. Our results could be attributed to the large number of freshman music education
majors who had not had field experiences. In addition, it could be that participants in this study
may have had uneven or negative experiences in their observations or early teaching experiences.
Rather than simply acquiring participants’ hours of observation and teaching, it may have been
more revealing to understand participants’ perceptions of the quality of their observation and/or
teaching experiences.

Future research
It is possible that the results of this study may have been impacted by attrition in music teacher
preparation programs. Researchers may wish to investigate means of measuring teacher efficacy
for students who leave teacher preparation programs. Since teacher efficacy was positively
impacted by preservice music teachers’ dispositions, researchers may wish to further investigate
the impact of personality traits on music teacher efficacy. More research into factors that influence
music performance efficacy may be warranted by its positive influence on preservice music teacher
efficacy. It may be that the link between the two constructs is the perception of being “in front” of
an audience for both teachers and musicians. Alternatively, it could be that teachers possess more
confidence for instruction in a domain in which they possess more expertise and skill. Finally,
future researchers may wish to investigate the influence of music performance efficacy and profes-
sional dispositions on in-service music teachers’ efficacy.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Ryan A Fisher https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3798-4050
Fisher et al. 13

References
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special edu-
cation teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 86–95. https://doi.
org/10.1177/088840649401700203
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking skills,
sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148–165.
Armor, D., Conroy-Osequera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnel, L., Pascal, A., Pauley, E., & Zellman, G.
(1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools
(R-2007-LAUSD). Rand Corp.
Baker, P. J. (1981). The development of music teacher checklists for use by administrators, music supervisors,
and teachers in evaluating music teaching effectiveness [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 8201803)
Ballantyne, J. (2005). Identities of music teachers: Implications for teacher education. In M. Cooper
(Ed.), Teacher education: Local and global: Australian Teacher Education Association Conference
Proceedings (pp. 39–44). Australian Teacher Education Association.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84,
191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986a). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 4, 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence
and education: Vol. 5. Self-efficacy and adolescence (pp. 307–337). Information Age.
Bergee, M. J. (2002). Direct and mediated experiences: Effects on classroom management self- efficacy.
Journal of Music Teacher Education, 12, 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837020120010301
Bergee, M. J., & Grashel, J. W. (2002). Relationship of generalized self-efficacy, career decisiveness, and
general teacher efficacy to preparatory music teachers’ professional self-efficacy. Missouri Journal of
Research in Music Education, 39, 4–20.
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5–13. https://doi.
org/10.2307/1175505
Brownell, M. T., & Pajares, F. (1999). Teacher efficacy and perceived success in mainstreaming students
with learning and behavior problems. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 154–164. https://
doi.org/10.1177/088840649902200303
Butler, A. (2001). Preservice music teachers’ conceptions of teaching effectiveness, microteaching experi-
ences, and teaching performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 258–272. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3345711
Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of preservice elementary
teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025974417256
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teach-
ers’ job satisfaction and students’ academic performance: A study at school level. Journal of School
Psychology, 44, 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001
Chong, S., Low, E. L., & Goh, K. M. (2011). Emerging professional teacher identity of pre- service teachers.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(8), 50–64.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 60(4), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.9943869
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2018). CAEP accreditation standards.
Cousins, J. B., & Walker, C. A. (2000). Predictors of educators’ valuing of systematic inquiry in schools.
Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, Special Issue, 25–53.
DataUSA. (2020). Music majors, diversity, degrees awarded. https://datausa.io/profile/cip/music#demographics
Ekici, D. I. (2018). Development of preservice teachers’ teaching self-efficacy beliefs through an online
community of practice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-
017-9511-8
14 International Journal of Music Education 00(0)

Fitzpatrick, K. R., Henninger, J. C., & Taylor, D. M. (2014). Access and retention of marginalized popula-
tions within undergraduate music education degree programs. Journal of Research in Music Education,
62, 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429414530760
Gao, Z., Xiang, P., Chen, S., & McBride, R. (2013). The influence of student teaching on physical education
student teachers’ self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Journal of Teaching, Research, and
Media in Kinesiology, 2, 1–15. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1053425.pdf
Garza, R., Werner, P., & Wendler, L. F. (2016). Transitioning from student to professional: Pre- service
teachers’ perceptions. New Waves Educational Research & Development, 19(2), 19–35.
Ghaith, G., & Shaaban, K. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of teaching concerns, teacher effi-
cacy, and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 487–496. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0742-051x(99)00009-8
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the
implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451–458. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0742-051x(96)00045-5
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.76.4.569
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and
impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479–507. https://doi.
org/10.2307/1163531
González, A., Conde, Á., Díaz, P., García, M., & Ricoy, C. (2017). Instructors’ teaching styles: Relation with
competences, self-efficacy, and commitment in preservice teachers. Higher Education, 75, 625–642.
https://doi.org//10.1007/s10734-017-0160-y
Good, T. L. (1981). Teacher expectations and student perceptions: A decade of research. Educational
Leadership, 38, 415–422.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self concept, and attitudes towards the implementation of instructional
innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051x(88)90025-x
Hamann, D. L., Lineburgh, N., & Paul, S. (1998). Teaching effectiveness and social skill development.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345762
Hancock, C. B. (2008). Music teachers at risk for attrition and migration: An analysis of the 1999-2000
schools and staffing survey. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 130–144. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022429408321635
Hoy, A. W. (2000, April). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A com-
parison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2005.01.007
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 93, 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1086/461729
Jackson, C. R. (2008). Effectiveness of preservice experiences and course work in music education toward
teacher self-efficacy in classroom management [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Database. (UMI No. 304828487)
Jamil, F., Downer, J., & Pianta, R. (2012). Associations of preservice teachers’ performance, personality, and
beliefs with teacher self-efficacy at program completion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(4), 119–138.
Juchniewicz, J. (2010). The influence of social intelligence on effective music teaching. Journal of Research
in Music Education, 53, 276–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429410378368
Kelly, S. N. (2008). High school instrumental students’ perceptions of effective music student teacher traits.
Journal of Music Teacher Education, 17(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083708317648
Kladder, J. R. (2017). Re-envisioning music teacher education: A comparison of two undergraduate music
education programs in the U.S. (Publication No. 10266554) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South
Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids”: The influence of contextual
factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 166–179. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.05.005
Fisher et al. 15

Künsting, J., Neuber, V., & Lipowsky, F. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy as a long-term predictor of instruc-
tional quality in the classroom. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31, 299–322. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10212-015-0272-7
Madsen, K. (2003). The effect of accuracy of instruction, teacher delivery, and student attentiveness on musi-
cians’ evaluation of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 38–50. https://
doi.org/10.2307/3345647
Magno, C., & Sembrano, J. (2007). The role of teacher efficacy and characteristics on teaching effectiveness,
performance, and use of learner-centered practices. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 16, 73–91.
https://doi.org/10.3860/taper.v16i1.93
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related
beliefs in mathematics during transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
247–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.247
Miskel, C., McDonald, D., & Bloom, S. (1983). Structural and expectancy linkages within schools and organiza-
tional effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 19, 49–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161
Morris, J. E., Lummis, G. W., McKinnon, D. H., & Heyworth, J. (2017). Measuring preservice teacher self-
efficacy in music and visual arts: Validation of an amended science teacher efficacy belief instrument.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.014
Moulding, L. R., Stewart, P. W., & Dunmeyer, M. L. (2014). Preservice teachers’ sense of efficacy:
Relationship to academic ability, student teaching placement characteristics, and mentor support.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.007
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing self-effi-
cacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(00)00054-8
National Association of Schools of Music. (2017). National Association of Schools of Music handbook.
https://nasm.arts-accredit.org/accreditation/standards-guidelines/handbook/
Palmer, D., Dixon, J., & Archer, J. (2015). Changes in science teaching self-efficacy among primary teacher
education students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(12), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.14221/
ajte.2015v40n12.3
Parkay, F. W., Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S., & Proller, N. (1988). A study of the relationships among teacher
efficacy, locus of control, and stress. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 21(4), 13–22.
Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Hershfeldt, P. A. (2012). Teacher- and school-level predictors of teacher effi-
cacy and burnout: Identifying potential areas for support. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 129–145.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.003
Prichard, S. (2017). A mixed-methods investigation of preservice music teaching efficacy beliefs and
commitment to music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65, 237–257. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022429417710387
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112680
Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy
belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740605
Rohwer, D., & Henry, W. (2004). University teachers’ perceptions of requisite skills and characteristics of
effective music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(2), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1
0570837040130020104
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: Implications for
teacher induction programs. Elementary School Journal, 89, 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1086/461584
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of
Education, 17(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/1495395
Ross, J. A. (1994). The impact of an inservice to promote cooperative learning on the stability of teacher effi-
cacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051x(94)90020-5
Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 12, 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051
16 International Journal of Music Education 00(0)

Royston, N. S., & Springer, D. G. (2017). Beliefs of applied studio faculty on desirable traits of prospec-
tive music education majors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65, 219–236. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022429417714470
Sezgin, F., & Erdogan, O. (2015). Academic optimism, hope and zest for work as predictors of teacher
self-efficacy and perceived success. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 7–19. https://doi.
org/10.12738/estp.2015.1.2338
Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological
antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1–30. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00028312025001001
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted con-
struct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742
Stallings, J. A., & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow-through classroom observation evaluation 1972-1973.
Stanford Research Institute.
Steele, N. A. (2010). Three characteristics of effective teachers. Update: Applications of Research in Music
Education, 28(2), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123310361769
Stipek, D. (2012). Context matters: Effects of student characteristics and perceived administrative and
parental support on teacher efficacy. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 590–606. https://doi.
org/10.1086/664489
Swanson, P. (2012). Second/foreign language teacher efficacy: Multiple factors and their relation to pro-
fessional attrition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 68(1), 78–101. https://doi.org/10.3138/
cmlr.68.1.078
Teachout, D. J. (1997). Preservice and experienced teachers’ opinions of skills and behaviors impor-
tant to successful music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 41–50. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3345464
Trentham, L. L., Silvern, S., & Brogdon, R. (1985). Teacher efficacy and teacher competency ratings.
Psychology in the Schools, 22, 353–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00036-1
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of nov-
ice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2006.05.003
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review
of Educational Research, 68, 202–248. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170754
Viel-Ruma, K., Houchins, D., Jolivette, K., & Benson, G. (2010). Efficacy beliefs of special educators: The
relationship among collective efficacy, teacher-efficacy, and job satisfaction. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 33, 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409360129
Wagoner, C. L. (2011). Defining and measuring music teacher identity: A study of self-efficacy and commit-
ment among music teachers [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (UMI
No. 3457596)
West, J. J., & Frey-Clark, M. L. (2019). Traditional versus alternative pathways to certification: Assessing
difference in music teacher self-efficacy. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 28, 98–111. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1057083718788035