Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 1

Running Head: Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge

What is Teacher Efficacy and How does it Relate to Teachers’ Knowledge?

A Theoretical Review

Helenrose Fives

The University of Maryland

Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference,

April 2003 - Chicago

DRAFT
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 2

Teacher efficacy can be defined as teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to organize and execute courses

of action necessary to bring about desired results (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).

Teacher efficacy is considered a future-oriented motivational construct that reflects teachers’

competence beliefs for teaching tasks. The construct of teacher efficacy has become a pillar in the

research on teachers’ beliefs. The resounding interest in this construct lies in its continued predictive

and relational power in research on teachers and teaching. Teachers’ beliefs in their ability to

perform tasks related to teaching have been and continue to be related to student achievement (e.g.,

McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978), student motivation (e.g., Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), teacher

valuing of educational innovations (e.g., Cousins & Walker, 2000), classroom management skills

(Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990), and teacher stress (Greenwood, Olejnik, & Parkay, 1990).

Despite the avid interest in this construct and although prior reviews have been conducted,

there are still gaps in our understanding of teacher efficacy. First, there are potential inconsistencies

in the way teacher efficacy has been defined and variability in the manner in which it is measured. It

is imperative not only to recognize these differences but also to understand the theoretical traditions

these differences reflect and their implications for research and practice. Second, we know that

efficacy is clearly related to a number of important variables but we do not understand the nature of

the relationship between efficacy and those variables. Third, little focus has been placed on teacher

efficacy as related to teachers’ demonstrated knowledge. In other words, it is not clear if high

efficacy is in fact related to high levels of teacher knowledge.

Therefore, the purpose of this review is to explore the relationship between teacher efficacy

and teacher knowledge as grounded in a deep understanding of the efficacy construct. Specifically,

this review seeks to achieve three primary goals.

• Provide a historical overview of the development of teacher efficacy as a theoretical

construct.
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 3

• Identify how or why teacher efficacy may be linked to student motivation, achievement, and

pedagogical variables.

• Consider the treatment of teacher knowledge in the research on teacher efficacy.

In constructing this review, a literature search was conducted using the PsychInfo database for

empirical articles related to teacher efficacy or the self-efficacy of teachers. This search was

narrowed by investigating only articles from peer reviewed journals for which a quantitative research

methodology was employed. Based on these criteria over 150 articles were identified for analysis.

Identified articles were analyzed and organized using the categories of purpose, key findings,

related variables, and definitions in order to ascertain the relationship between teacher efficacy and

other psychological variables (e.g., teacher beliefs) and educational outcomes (e.g. student

achievement).

Teacher Efficacy: Tracing its Roots, Finding its Meaning

From the time of its conception, the construct of teacher efficacy has been closely linked to

the measures by which it is assessed; therefore, any discussion of its meaning is linked to

measurement issues. The meaning of teacher efficacy carries with it a few alternative

understandings. Teacher efficacy was originally developed by Rand researchers using Rotter’s (1966)

work on locus of control. This meaning was extended by Ashton, Olejnik, Crocker, and McAuliffe

(1982), Guskey (1982, 1988), and Rose and Medway (1981), who kept the meaning and

measurement of this construct close to these roots. Alternatively, a second strand of research

emerged from the work of Albert Bandura (1977, 1986). Bandura’s social cognitive theory and the

construct of self-efficacy defined therein, served as the basis for the work that followed by Ashton et

al. (1984), Gibson and Dembo (1984), and a host of other researchers. Finally, based on the

understanding developed by those foundational theories and the work of many researchers, the
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 4

construct of efficacy continues to evolve as we seek to understand its meaning and role in the

teaching experience.

Given the theoretical and methodological confusion in this work, it is important to begin any

investigation of teacher efficacy with a firm grounding in how this and related terms are defined in

the research and operationalized in the literature. Specifically, developing a deep understanding of

previous and current definitions of teacher efficacy, as well as the evolution of this construct in the

research literature, will allow us to better understand the research findings that employ this term and

to assess the meaning and importance of the findings reported.

Teacher Efficacy Definitions and Measurement

The development and agreement on the conceptual meaning and parameters of the construct,

teacher efficacy, has been a theoretical discussion in the literature. Simultaneously, several measures

have been created and used to assess these beliefs in teachers, which reflect adherence to different

conceptualizations of efficacy. In order to understand the meaning of this construct as it is used in the

literature, it is important to outline its history and to ascertain salient features in evolving definitions

and related measures. In this section I will present a general overview of the measures focusing on

the interpretation of teacher efficacy that is rooted within the measure. For a more detailed treatment

of teacher efficacy measures interested readers should see Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy's

(2001) piece on the measurement of teacher efficacy.

Locus of Control and the RAND Research

The construct of teacher efficacy has been derived from two separate lines of research,

Rotter’s (1966) locus of control theory and Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory. See Table 1

(Appendix A) for an outline of this development. The term teacher efficacy was first employed by

RAND (Armor et al., 1976) researchers when they included two items in a massive survey that

reflected the locus of control constructs proposed by Rotter (1966). Locus of control refers to the
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 5

degree an individual believes that the perceived cause(s) of an intended outcome are within his or her

control (Rotter, 1966). That is, the extent that a person believes that events are determined by his or

her actions (Parkay, Greenwood, Olejnik, & Proller, 1988). Because teacher efficacy was

conceptualized in terms of locus of control, efficacy was seen as the extent to which teachers’

believed that factors, which they could control, had a larger impact on teaching outcomes than beliefs

that the environment held greater power (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Thus, with this focus on

locus of control and the teacher’s perceived role in effecting student outcomes regardless of

environmental factors, two items were created to assess the impact of such control beliefs. The

combined score on those items became the first assessment of teacher efficacy, and purported to

identify the degree to which a teacher believed that the consequences of teaching were within the

scope and ability of the teacher, or internally controlled.

The RAND researchers combined the score of the two items to determine one overall efficacy

score. The first item asked: "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" (Berman,

McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977, p. 137; McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978, p. 85). This item

reflected an external control orientation. In effect it highlights the powerlessness of teachers in the

face of students’ home experiences. The second RAND item asked: "If I try hard, I can get through to

even the most difficult or unmotivated students" (Berman et al., 1977, p. 137; McLaughlin & Marsh,

1978, p. 85). This item reflected an internal control orientation, emphasizing the power of the teacher

to reach students regardless of their environmental conditions (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).

The efficacy items in the RAND research study, seemingly buried in the midst of many others

items, were surprisingly strongly related to reading achievement (Armor et al., 1976), student

achievement, teacher behaviors known to foster achievement, a willingness to accept change

proposals and an increased likelihood of successfully implementing innovation (Berman et al., 1977).
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 6

In fact, this belief held by teachers, regarding the extent to which the teacher believed he or she had

the capacity to affect student performance, ended up among the most powerful factors examined by

RAND researchers in their investigation of teacher characteristics and student learning (Armor et al.,

1976).

Other researchers have followed Rotter’s tradition and used this first definition and

interpretation of the term teacher efficacy in their research on teachers and in the construction of

additional measures of efficacy (see Table 1 – Appendix A). For example, Rose and Medway (1981)

and Guskey (1981) developed measures to assess teacher efficacy from a locus of control standpoint.

Rose and Medway proposed the Teacher Locus of Control Scale (TLC), which required teachers to

determine responsibility for student success and failure as within or beyond the control of the teacher.

Similarly, Guskey (1981) developed the Responsibility for Student Achievement Scale (RSA), which

added to the locus of control framework by incorporating the specifics of Weiner’s (1979) attribution

theory.

Expanding on the RAND work and Rotter’s theory, Guskey (1981) developed a 30-item

instrument titled Responsibility for Student Achievement. Utilizing this scale, efficacy was defined as

“a teachers’ belief or conviction that he or she can influence how well students learn, even those who

may be difficult or unmotivated” (Guskey, 1987, p. 41). Thus, self-efficacy became equated with a

causal explanation for what an individual can do. Guskey’s scale measured the amount of

responsibility for student learning a teacher felt in general, as well as two subscale scores, which

reflected the degree of responsibility felt for student success and student failure.

The understanding of efficacy described by Guskey was deeply rooted in attribution theory

(Weiner, 1979, 1992) and conceptions of locus of control (Rotter, 1966). Both theories reflect an

individual’s willingness to act based on perceived amounts of control over consequences. In this case

the consequence referred to achieving positive student outcomes despite the impact of external
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 7

sources such as home life, television violence and the media. However, this understanding is

qualitatively different from a second line of theoretical inquiry, which is based on Bandura’s (1977)

social cognitive theory.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

The second strand of the research on teacher efficacy comes as a result of Bandura's (1977)

social cognitive theory. In social cognitive theory, Bandura (1977) introduced the concept of self-

efficacy as the primary motivational force behind an individual’s actions. Self-efficacy is one of the

most consistently defined motivational constructs used in the research (Murphy & Alexander, 2001).

As defined by Bandura (1977), self-efficacy is “the conviction that one can successfully execute the

behavior required to produce outcomes” (p. 193).

Sources of Efficacy. Efficacy beliefs have four sources: mastery experiences, vicarious

experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal (Bandura, 1977). Mastery experiences are

those instances in which individuals actually perform the act under question. When one teaches a

class, has a field experience, or tutors a child, these are instances that provide perspective or

practicing teachers with source material for the formation and development of their efficacy beliefs.

Efficacy beliefs are formed based on the degree of success or failure one feels in each of these direct

experiences.

Another source of efficacy beliefs are vicarious experiences in which individuals observe

others and use these observations as a source of information in the beliefs that are formed about the

self (Bandura, 1997). The power of vicarious experiences is dependent on the similarity of the model

observed to the observer and the actions observed (Bandura, 1997). The third source of efficacy

beliefs is verbal persuasion. This is found in the voiced support of our friends and colleagues as they

provide verbal support for our attempts to take on and complete tasks (Bandura, 1997). However,

verbal persuasion, like vicarious and mastery experience, can be negative as well as positive.
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 8

Feedback from the parents of students, colleagues, and the students themselves, may work to

convince teachers that they are not succeeding and should give up the effort. The last source of self-

efficacy beliefs is physiological cues. The human body can inform its owner of emotions that may

not be evident on the surface (Bandura, 1997). Thus, sweaty palms and butterflies in the stomach

serve to inform individuals of how they are doing in a mastery experience.

Self-efficacy as Mediator. Self-efficacy beliefs serve as a key motivational force in the

cognitive system. Self-efficacy is considered to lead individuals from knowledge to action. Bandura

(1986) posited that self-efficacy is the central mediator of effort. That is, increased efficacy beliefs

will lead to increased persistence and high levels of performance. With regard to teachers, Dembo

and Gibson (1984), Tuckman and Sexton (1990) and Woolfolk and colleagues (1990) have

documented the relationship between teachers’ efficacy and persistence in the face of difficulty.

Similarly, researchers have found a relationship between teachers’ efficacy and their performance.

For example, Ashton and Webb (1986), as well as Berman and colleagues (1977), have documented

the relationship of higher efficacy to the instructional practices known to foster academic

achievement.

Raudenbush, Rowan, and Cheong (1992) extended the discussion of self-efficacy as a

mediator between knowledge and action. Their research warned against the assumption that the mere

possession of knowledge and skills is sufficient for effective teaching. Rather, Raudenbush and

colleagues (1992) agree with Bandura’s (1986) contention that self-efficacy mediates the relationship

between knowledge and action. These researchers highlighted the importance of a teacher’s beliefs

and motivation in the teaching context, such that knowing the “what” and “how” of teaching does not

ensure a successful learning experience. The recognition that having knowledge and skills needed to

perform actions, does not, in and of itself, guarantee that an actor will perform said action. In this
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 9

conceptualization, the movement from knowledge to actions is mediated by the efficacy beliefs of the

actor.

Most individuals have knowledge and skills that are not utilized on a regular basis. Therefore

the knowledge alone does not ensure effective practice. Individuals must also be guided by a belief in

their ability to effectively use their knowledge in a given context in order to be moved to action. For

example, I have read numerous articles on portfolio assessments and I have even created one for

myself. I know what such assessments would entail and their potential benefits for students.

However, I have never used such an assessment with any group of students. I have doubts about my

ability to implement these measures appropriately and effectively. As this example illustrates, there

is a great deal of choice in any teaching experience that will be affected not only by teachers’

knowledge, but also by their beliefs regarding their ability to use that knowledge effectively.

As a construct, self-efficacy beliefs are an integral aspect of the teaching process. While

many authors refer to teachers’ sense of self-efficacy for teaching, meaning their beliefs about their

ability to perform the actions necessary to teach (e.g., Greenwood, Olejnik, & Parkay, 1990; Guskey,

1982; Lee Dedrick & Smith, 1991; Newman, Rutter, & Smith, 1989; Raudenbush et al., 1992; Ross,

1994; Smylie, 1988), many others have identified a specific form of self-efficacy pertaining to

teaching (e.g., Ashton & Web, 1986; McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).

These have been called teaching or teacher efficacy.

Toward a Combined Model

Several researchers have drawn from the work of both Rotter and Bandura and in doing so

have either attempted to reconcile these constructs or have simply ignored their differences. For

example, Ashton, Buhr, and Crocker (1984) generated a measure that employed a series of vignettes

describing situations common to a teacher’s practice. Respondents were asked to judge how well they

felt they could perform in each situation on a scale ranging from “extremely ineffective” to
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 10

“extremely effective.” Two sets of vignettes were created one set reflecting beliefs about teachers and

teaching in general, an outcome expectancy, and a second set related to the personal ability of the

respondent. However, the major contributors to this avenue of conceptualization were Gibson and

Dembo (1984) with the development of the teacher efficacy scale.

Gibson and Dembo. Among the first researchers to develop the link between teacher efficacy,

as conceived under the influence of Rotter (1966) and implemented by the RAND researchers

(Armor et al., 1976, Berman et al., 1977), and the theory of self-efficacy presented by Bandura

(1977) were Gibson and Dembo (1984). Gibson and Dembo (1984) determined that each of the

RAND items reflected a unique type of expectation: an outcome expectation and an efficacy

expectation (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Specifically, the first RAND item (i.e., "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.”) was identified as an outcome expectation and served as a

measure of general teaching efficacy. That means this item measured the extent to which teachers in

general could impact student learning regardless of environmental influences. The second RAND

item ("If I try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students.") was

interpreted as an example of a personal teaching efficacy expectation. In effect this item assessed the

individual’s belief in his or her ability to reach students, reflecting an assessment of self-efficacy as

described by Bandura (1977).

Using a combined conceptual framework from the foundation provided by the RAND

researchers and Bandura's self-efficacy theory, Gibson and Dembo (1984) created a new instrument

for measuring teacher efficacy. The measure was developed to assess what they perceived to be the

two aspects of teacher efficacy, namely outcome expectations, labeled general teaching efficacy, and

efficacy expectations, named personal teaching efficacy. These terms reflected those used by

previous researchers to distinguish between the two Rand Items (e.g., Ashton & Webb, 1986).
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 11

General teaching efficacy has subsequently been defined as “teachers’ expectations that

teaching can influence student learning” (Ashton & Webb, 1986, p. 4). Gibson and Dembo (1984)

referred to this factor as a teacher’s “belief that any teacher’s ability to bring about change is

significantly limited by factors external to the teacher” (p. 574). Personal teaching efficacy, on the

other hand, is considered to be a more specific individual belief of what the individual teacher can

accomplish (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Gibson and Dembo (1984) described this as a teacher’s

“belief that one has the skills and abilities to bring about student learning” (p. 573).

Common definitions. A longstanding tradition in the field of teacher efficacy has been built

on the distinction of these two dimensions or factors of teacher efficacy, namely teaching efficacy or

general teaching efficacy and personal teaching efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). This

distinction separates beliefs about what teachers can do in general from what individual teachers

believe themselves to be capable of doing.

Definitions of general teaching efficacy tend to focus on the ability of teachers to help or

reach students beyond the external factors that impact the learning process (e.g., Anderson, Greene &

Lowen, 1988; Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Lin & Gorrell, 1998; Ross, 1994). Rich, Lev, and Fischer

(1996) provide a definition that exemplifies this orientation when they describe teacher efficacy as “a

teacher’s general feeling that the education system is capable of fostering satisfactorily student

academic achievement despite negative influences external to the teacher” (p. 1016). This definition,

and others like it, have led to the suggestion that this construct is more an assessment of locus of

control or outcome expectancy rather than self-efficacy, which is rooted in the individuals’ beliefs

about their own abilities (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998).

Definitions of personal teaching efficacy focus on two key components, the individual’s

ability to perform actions and the power of those actions to influence student learning (e.g.,

McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978; Meijer & Foster, 1988; Ross, 1994, 1992; Soodak & Podell, 1996,
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 12

1993). A typical definition of personal teaching efficacy was put forth by Soodak and Podell (1996)

this definition states that personal teaching efficacy is “a teacher’s belief about his or her ability to

perform the actions needed to promote learning or manage student behavior successfully” (p. 406).

Personal efficacy focuses specifically on teachers’ belief about their own ability to impact

students rather than on the more distant notion of what teaching and teachers can do in general. As

such, the perspective of personal teaching efficacy more closely reflects the meaning and

understanding of self-efficacy as put forth by Bandura (1977, 1986, 1993, and 1997) and avoids

confounding teacher efficacy with locus of control. Therefore, some scholars have suggested that

personal teacher efficacy and its subsequent measurement is a more accurate description of teacher

efficacy than the construct called general efficacy or some composite of these two belief systems

(Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998).

Factor structure. The original measure constructed by Gibson and Dembo (1984) contained 30

items. Several researchers used these items and found additional evidence for the existence of the

two aforementioned factors, general and personal teaching efficacy (Anderson et al., 1988; Hoy &

Woolfolk, 1993; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Saklofske, Michaluk, & Randhawa, 1988; Soodak &

Podell, 1993). This measure was eventually narrowed down to a 16-item instrument, which has

enjoyed widespread use (Soodak & Podell, 1993; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Woolfolk & Hoy,

1990).

For example, the Gibson-Dembo instrument has been used to confirm that teacher efficacy

consists of the two distinct dimensions described previously, general and personal teaching efficacy

(Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Researchers have also investigated the relationship of this measure

and its two factors to the original Rand items. The subsequent research found the first RAND item

tended to load on the general teaching efficacy factor, where the second RAND item loaded on the

personal teaching efficacy factor (Coladarci, 1992; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Moreover, these two
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 13

areas of efficacy have been found to be "only slightly related or not at all correlated" (Tschannen-

Moran et al., 1998, p. 213). Many researchers interpret this finding to mean that teacher efficacy is

comprised of two distinct constructs of efficacy (e.g. Anderson et al., 1988, Gibson & Dembo, 1984).

Gibson and Dembo (1984) interpreted this distinction as reflecting the concepts of outcome

expectancy and efficacy as described by Bandura. This conceptualization has received criticism from

researchers and theorists in the field (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001) that will be

discussed in the next section. However, based on the Gibson and Dembo measure, and its widespread

usage, the working definition of teaching efficacy came to be understood as the combination of

general teacher efficacy (GTE) and personal teacher efficacy (PTE). Each teacher has a combined

belief of what teachers can accomplish (GTE) and a personal perception of what he or she as a

teacher can achieve (PTE). The two dimensions of the teacher efficacy construct are perceived as

unique and each is created over time simultaneously yet independently of the other.

Concerns Regarding the Gibson and Dembo Model

Dissension still remained in the interpretation of the Gibson and Dembo (1984) measure and

the understanding of the efficacy construct. For example, Guskey and Passaro (1994) implemented a

study with 342 prospective and experienced teachers to examine the difference between efficacy

measurement and control interpretations. Upon close review of the items in the Gibson and Dembo

(1984) scale, Guskey and Passaro (1994) questioned the true meaning of the factors found by Gibson

and Dembo (1984). Specifically, Guskey and Passaro (1994) determined that the items that fell on the

personal teaching efficacy factor “all use the referent I, all are also positive and have an internal locus

(i.e., ‘I can’)” (p. 630). In contrast, the items that fell on the general teaching efficacy factor were

found to “nearly all use the referent ‘teachers’ but also are negative and have an external locus (i.e.,

‘teachers cannot’)” (p. 630). Given this analysis Guskey and Passaro (1994) questioned the extent to

which the two factors confounded the type of efficacy with referent, positive or negative nature, and
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 14

locus. Specifically, they questioned whether these factors actually identified two types of efficacy or

if the dimension structure instead reflected internal and external locus of control.

For this study, Guskey and Passaro (1984) revised the altered version of the teacher efficacy

scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) proposed by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990). The altered version included

the 16-items from the Gibson and Dembo (1984) measure that were found to be constant, as well at

the two RAND items and three additional items which Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) found to yield

significant factor loadings. The two subscales reflecting general or teaching efficacy and personal

efficacy were each altered to reflect internal and external control dimensions. Thus, the existence of

four possible dimensions of efficacy (personal internal, personal external, general internal and

general external beliefs) were investigated.

Guskey and Passaro (1994) randomly selected seven out of the 12 personal efficacy items

from the Gibson and Dembo scale considered to reflect a personal internal orientation. The items

were reworded to reflect either a general teaching-internal or a personal-external orientation. For

example, Guskey and Passaro (1994) reworded the personal-internal item “I have enough training to

deal with almost any learning problem” (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990, p. 89) to reflect a personal external

orientation (i.e., “I have not been trained to deal with many of the learning problems my students

have” (Guskey & Passaro, 1994, p. 638). Similarly, Guskey and Passaro (1994) changed the personal

internal item “When a student does better than usually, many times it is because I exert a little extra

effort” (Gibson & Dembo, 1984, p. 581) to reflect a general or teaching-internal orientation (i.e.,

“When a student does better than usually, many times it is because the teacher exerts a little extra

effort” p. 638). In this way the items thought to reflect a personal internal orientation either remained

the same or were altered to reflect a general teaching-internal orientation or a personal-external

orientation. Thus, both the referent and locus were altered.

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 15

Using the same method, Guskey and Passaro (1994) changed four of the nine general teaching

efficacy items. Most of these items were considered to reflect a general teaching-external orientation.

For example, Guskey and Passaro (1994) changed an original item “A teacher is very limited in what

he/she can achieve because a student’s home environment is a large influence on his/her

achievement” (Gibson & Dembo, 1984, p. 581) to reflect a personal-external item (i.e., “I am very

limited in what I can achieve because a student’s home environment is a large influence on his/her

achievement” p. 638).

Guskey and Passaro (1994) performed a principal components analysis on the responses of

283 inservice teachers and 59 preservice teachers. This analysis found that two dimensions of

efficacy did exist. However, these factors fell along the lines of internal and external control

orientations rather than along the dimensions of general and personal efficacy. Guskey and Passaro

(1994) found that “whether the item referent was ‘my influence’ or ‘teachers’ influence’ made no

difference.” (p. 637). Instead the factors fell along the lines of control attributions. However, Guskey

and Passaro (1994) also noted that their findings are not in complete agreement with the theoretical

understanding of the internal-external control component of attribution theory. In attribution theory,

locus of control is seen as a bi-polar continuum. That is, the more one contributes to an internal

cause, the less one explains outcomes based on external factors. Thus, locus of control should be

understood as one factor with responses falling along the internal to external continuum. In Guskey

and Passaro’s (1994) study, however, two separate, modestly correlated, factors were unearthed

suggesting a slightly different interpretation from locus of control. Guskey and Passaro (1994)

suggested that this distinction “more accurately represents teachers’ perceptions of the strength of

different and independent factors” (p. 639).

A concern regarding the acceptance of the external/internal findings put forth by Guskey and

Passaro (1994) exists. This concern has to do with the positive and negative nature of the items,
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 16

which they discussed at the introduction of their study, but then failed to address in their

methodology. The items used by Gibson and Dembo (1984) and Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) were

found to fall in two dimensions relating to personal and general teaching efficacy. However, it can

also be noted that all of the personal efficacy items reflected a more positive outlook regarding the

teacher’s abilities (i.e., “When I really try, I can get through to the most difficult students,” Gibson &

Dembo, 1984, p. 581). In contrast the items assessing general teaching efficacy tended to reflect a

more negative orientation regarding teachers abilities (i.e., “The hours in my class have little

influence on students compared to the influence of the home environment,” Gibson & Dembo, 1984,

p. 581).

When Guskey and Passaro (1994) set out to challenge the current meaning of the factor

structure using their modified measure, they altered the referent (from I to teachers and the reverse)

as well as the locus (internal to external and the reverse). However, they did nothing to address the

positive and negative orientation of these items. As a result, the two factors which they found and

identified as internal and external can also be interpreted as positive and negative, such that all of the

internal items reflected a positive orientation to what teachers can accomplish (e.g. “When a student

does better than usually, many times it is because the teacher exerts a little extra effort” p. 638). In

contrast all of the external items in their analysis represented a more negative orientation (e.g. “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/her home environment.” P. 638).

In conjunction with this concern regarding the positive and negative nature of the items, there

was an issue of the placement of a seemingly internal item in the external factors. One item states:

“When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, I often have trouble adjusting to his/her

level” (Guskey & Passaro, 1994, p. 638). This item has a factor loading of .42 on the external factor.

However, at face value this item seems to reflect an internal, albeit negative, orientation. This
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 17

situation highlights the concern that these factors may be more sensitive to the optimistic or

pessimistic orientation of the responder than an internal/external or general/personal teaching

efficacy.

The work of Guskey and Passaro demonstrated the important need to better clarify and

understand the meaning of teacher efficacy from both a theoretical and a measurement perspective.

Through this work these researchers started a movement toward a better understanding of teacher

efficacy and the development of a new model and measure of this construct.

Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, and Hoy Model of Teacher Efficacy

Tschannen-Moran and colleagues (1998) proposed a new model of teacher efficacy based on

the previous work in the field. This new model is firmly rooted in Bandura’s construct of self-

efficacy (1977, 1986, and 1997). The Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) model is based on a five-step

circular process through which efficacy beliefs are created, assessed, utilized, and then lead to new

beliefs (see Figure 1 – Appendix B). Sources of efficacy beliefs in this model explicitly follow those

proposed by Bandura (1977): mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and

physiological cues. These sources are considered to provide a backdrop for the mechanisms of

cognitive processing, which lead to efficacy in teachers (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Cognitive

processing in this model is referred to as the combined examination and evaluation of the task to be

completed (i.e., task analysis) and the assessment of the individual’s personal competence (i.e.,

personal competence). The resulting judgment regarding the ability to plan and execute actions

necessary to achieve the desired outcome is the individual’s teaching efficacy. This belief is then

parlayed in to the goals, effort, and persistence teachers employ which in turn impact their

performance. The resulting performance then serves as a mastery experience in future efficacy

judgments.
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 18

Using this model, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy (2001) proposed a new measure of

teacher efficacy. In this measure, both dimensions of the teacher efficacy judgment (i.e., personal

competence and analysis of the task) are tapped. Specifically, these researchers developed a measure

of teacher efficacy that assessed critical tasks associated with teaching in the domains of engagement,

classroom management, and instructional practices. The measure was constructed with the aid of

current teachers enrolled in a seminar on self-efficacy in teaching and learning (Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001).

Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy (2001) consider this new measure to be superior to

previous assessments of efficacy for two reasons. First, this measure has demonstrated a unified and

stable factor structure. Second, this measure assesses a broad range of important teaching tasks

without being so specific that it cannot be used to compare across subjects, levels, or school contexts

(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). Additionally, the three-factor structure of the measure

enables researchers to identify specific areas of concern in teachers and relationships between these

domains of teaching tasks, teacher performance outcomes, and student achievement.

The next step in the development of this model and measure of teacher efficacy is an

investigation of the factors which affect task analysis and resulting efficacy beliefs. Specifically, to

what degree does the role of the teachers’ knowledge and prior experience play in analyzing the task,

identifying possible solutions, and assessing teaching efficacy which ultimately affects the decisions

and actions made by the teacher?

Based on the overview presented, the following observations and implications can be made

with regard to the historical development of teacher efficacy:

• The meaning and definition of teacher efficacy has experience change and diversity

throughout the course of its development.

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 19

• The analysis of all prior studies of teacher efficacy must give consideration to the underlying

theoretical perspective of the researcher and the selection of measurement tool used.

• The current conceptualization of teacher efficacy relies on Bandura’s self-efficacy theory and

seeks to develop an understanding of teacher efficacy nested in this work.

• The current conceptualization of teacher efficacy recognizes the cyclical nature of this

construct and accepts that any teacher’s efficacy is in a state of development at any time, as

new experiences are encountered.

• Little focus has been given to understanding and demonstrating the process by which efficacy

affects teachers’ daily practice. Specifically, we must investigate the factors that affect

teachers’ abilities to analyze tasks as well as their efficacy beliefs, that is the roles knowledge

and pedagogical beliefs play in the development of efficacy.

The Power of Teacher Efficacy

Pajares (1992), based on the works of Bandura (1986), concluded that "beliefs are the best

indicators of the decisions individuals make throughout their lives" (p. 307). It follows that teachers’

beliefs about their personal teaching abilities would be a key indicator of teacher behavior, decisions,

and organization of their classroom environments. Pajares (1992) also remarked that while much

research has been done on how teachers think, this has been fruitless in determining expectations of

teachers’ actions, while knowledge of teacher beliefs (teacher efficacy) has had powerful predictive

powers.

Previous work in this area has used the Gibson and Dembo instrument (16 item) and

variations of the RAND items. These studies have established the distinct dimensions of teacher

efficacy, and have found that the construct correlates to areas such as student achievement (e.g.,

McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978), student motivation (e.g., Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), teacher
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 20

valuing of educational innovations (e.g., Cousins & Walker, 2000), classroom management skills

(Woolfolk et al., 1990) and teacher stress (Greenwood et al., 1990).

The existence and maintenance of high positive teacher efficacy in educators appears to be

vital to the existence of successful classrooms and schools (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). People

who believe in their own abilities as teachers (high personal efficacy) and in teachers as a significant

influence on students (high general efficacy) tend to have classrooms that are well run (e.g., Ashton,

Webb, & Doda, 1983), less stressful (e.g., Parkay, Greenwood, Olejnik, & Proller, 1988), and have

students with higher achievement (e.g., Ross, 1992). The impact that positive teacher efficacy has on

the school environment is likewise clear. Positive efficacy in teachers, general teaching efficacy or

personal teaching efficacy, creates positive outcomes for students and an enriched learning

environment (e.g. Ashton & Webb, 1984).

The following section serves to highlight the research to date that emphasizes the important

role efficacy plays in teaching practice. However, when reading this section one must keep in mind

three key elements. First, we need to attend to the theoretical base on which the research presented

was predicated. Was the study designed from a locus of control understanding of efficacy or from a

social cognitive approach? Second, and related to the first element, is the consideration of the

measure used to assess efficacy. What is the measure asking and therefore what do the findings mean

in light of it? Finally, one must consider the type of analysis that is employed. The majority of

research on teachers’ efficacy has utilized correlational analysis which precludes any claims of

causality or direction of the relationships observed. Thus, as you read the following sections these

elements should be kept in mind and considered as the studies are presented. Any causal tone related

to correlational research in the following descriptions is derived from the original authors, and the

overall presentation of findings that is common in the teacher efficacy literature.

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 21

Teacher Efficacy and Positive Student Outcomes

Student Achievement

McLaughlin and Marsh (1978) were among the first researchers to put forth the extended

causal chain from teacher efficacy to student achievement. Simply stated these researchers proposed

that a teacher’s level of efficacy will influence said teacher’s behavior which will in turn affect the

behavior of the students which leads to changes in student achievement levels (McLaughlin & Marsh,

1978). Several researchers have identified a link between student achievement and levels of teacher

efficacy (e.g., Allinder, 1995; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Tracz & Gibson, 1986; Ross, 1992, 1994).

Some researchers using the Gibson and Dembo (1984) measure have found that the proposed

two dimensions of teacher efficacy have had differential effects on teacher practice and student

outcomes. Specifically teachers with positive personal teacher efficacy have demonstrated an

increased willingness to experiment in the classroom with various strategies and curriculum ideas,

and have students with higher scores on language arts achievement tests (e.g., Meijer & Foster, 1988;

Podell & Soodak, 1993; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Further, teachers who were rated as having

high general teacher efficacy were found to have students with high achievement in mathematics and

a greater number of students interested in school (e.g., Tracz & Gibson, 1986; Ross & Cousins,

1993).

This research has often found links between teacher efficacy and specific content areas. One

example is the work of Anderson and colleagues (1988) who conducted a comparison study in which

two groups of teachers were compared based on their levels of personal teaching efficacy.

Specifically, the groups were formed by classifying the teachers with the highest and lowest levels of

personal teaching efficacy, as measured using the Gibson and Dembo (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale.

The data collected in this study were analyzed using correlation and multiple regressions in an

attempt to determine which variables best accounted for student achievement. The analyses revealed
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 22

that teacher efficacy contributed to student achievement in language arts and social studies, as well as

to student levels of efficacy for achievement. Further, it was determined that the level of personal

teaching efficacy held at the beginning of the school year by the teacher had a significant effect on

the development of efficacy in the students and their achievement.

Student Motivation

Brophy and Good (1974) documented how teacher expectancies and beliefs influence student

motivation and achievement. Teacher efficacy was found to be a belief that guides teacher actions

and communication with students and, in turn, influences student motivation and achievement. Thus,

teacher efficacy has also been related to non-academic student outcomes. Such outcomes include:

increased motivation to learn in students, higher self-perceptions, and better self-management

(Midgely, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Rose & Medway, 1981; Saklofask, et al., 1988; Ross, 1994;

Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990). Anderson et al. (1988) found that teacher efficacy was related to

student efficacy for achievement. Strong positive correlations were found between teacher efficacy

and student perceptions of ability and student self efficacy (Ashton, 1984; Ashton, et al., 1983).

Connections have also been made linking teacher efficacy to student levels of self-esteem (Borton,

1991). In essence, teachers with higher levels of efficacy for teaching tended to have students who

demonstrate greater motivation for school and higher levels of academic self-efficacy (Duncan &

Biddle, 1974; Dusek, 1985).

Teacher Efficacy and Positive Teacher Outcomes

Teacher efficacy as a belief is expected to guide teachers in their behaviors, decisions, and

motivation with regard to teaching. The power of self-efficacy is rooted in its ability to guide the

decisions that teachers make in the course of their role as teachers. If one begins with Bandura’s

(1977) proposal that self-efficacy “determines whether coping behavior will be initiated, how much

effort will be expended and how long it will persist in the face of aversive experiences” (p. 191), one
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 23

can see how this same construct can and does aid teachers in the course of their professional life.

Specifically, teachers’ level of efficacy for teaching affects their daily decisions related to teaching,

(e.g., the selection of materials, or the amount of effort used to reach all students) and their

willingness to invoke specific strategies and techniques.

This contention has been well supported in the research, where teacher efficacy has been

related to high expectations for students (Allinder, 1995; Ashton et al., 1983; Dembo & Gibson,

1985; Ross, 1994), the use of behaviors known to foster academic achievement (e.g., Hoover-

Dempsey, Bassler & Brissie, 1987; McKinney, Sexton & Meyerson, 1999; Vanek, Snyder, Hull &

Hekelman, 1996; Ross, 1992; Woolfolk et al., 1990), a motivation to teach (Lin & Gorrel, 1988;

Parkay, Olejnik & Proller, 1986; Trentham, Silvern, & Brogdon, 1985; Tuckman & Sexton, 1990;

Shunk, 1985) and the types of decisions teachers make with regard to student needs (e.g., Emmer &

Hickman, 1991; Kim & Corn, 1998; Kruger, 1997; Soodak & Podell, 1993, 1994; Saklofske et al.,

1988; Shunk, 1985; Woolfolk et al., 1990).

Teacher Motivation

There is an important relationship between teacher efficacy and the motivation to teach found

by many researchers (e.g., Ashton & Webb, 1986; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Specifically,

teachers with high levels of teacher efficacy also demonstrate a love or passion for teaching that

impacts their practice as teachers (Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Tuckman & Sexton, 1990; Shunk, 1985;

Woolfolk et al., 1990). In addition, teacher efficacy has also been linked to a greater commitment to

the teaching profession as well as job satisfaction (Parkay et al., 1986; Trentham et al., 1985).

Teachers’ level of efficacy has also been related to a willingness to teach children with

physical disabilities (Stephens & Braun, 1980). In an investigation of teacher characteristics on the

placement recommendations of students with visual impairment, teacher’s efficacy was found to be

related to these decisions. Teachers with higher levels of efficacy were more likely to recommend
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 24

that the child with a visual impairment remain at the local school rather than sending these students

out for special services (Kim & Corn, 1998).

Teacher Actions

Teachers with higher levels of teacher efficacy have been found to have higher expectations

for their students (Allinder, 1994; Ross, 1994). Allinder (1994) working with special education

teachers on the implementation of a new means assessment in mathematics education, found that

teachers with higher personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy increased the end of the

year goals for their students more than their less efficacious peers. Teachers with higher general

teaching efficacy also set more ambitious goals for their students and affected significantly greater

academic growth in their students. Thus, efficacy has been linked to both more demanding goals and

increased student achievement.

Teaching efficacy has also been related to specific instructional behaviors performed by

teachers known to foster academic achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1984; Berman et al., 1977). Such

behaviors include maintaining on-task behavior in students, concentrating on academic instruction,

and demonstrating “withitness” in the classroom (Ashton et al., 1983; Dembo & Gibson, 1985).

Cooper and Burger (1980) investigated the relationship between teaching efficacy and intended

teaching behavior in a group of preservice teachers. Using a free response methodology, the

preservice teachers were asked to describe how they would respond to 12 possible reasons for student

performance, and efficacy was measured by asking each participant to describe the extent of their

perceived role in each situation. These researchers found that teacher efficacy was related to the

intended behavior of these student teachers.

Teachers with a high sense of efficacy have demonstrated persistence when faced with student

failure and school difficulties and have been identified as effective problem solvers with regard to

classroom management (Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Tuckman & Sexton, 1990; Woolfolk et al., 1990).
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 25

Similarly, teachers with high general teaching efficacy have been found to be less likely to criticize

students for giving an incorrect answer (Gibson & Dembo, 1984).

Teacher Decisions

Teacher efficacy beliefs are related to the decisions teachers make with regard to use of time,

classroom management strategies, and pedagogical techniques (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Saklofske et

al., 1988; Woolfolk et al., 1990). Emmer and Hickman (1991) investigated the role of teacher

efficacy in classroom management and found that efficacy beliefs predict preference for particular

strategies to be employed in responding to the behavior problems presented in vignettes.

A series of studies have been done on the relationship between teachers’ efficacy and the

likelihood of their referring students for special education. Specifically, teachers with high personal

teaching efficacy as determined by the Gibson and Dembo measure found to be less likely to refer

low socio-economic status students and or students with behavior problems to special services (e.g.,

Meijer & Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1994). Similarly, self-efficacy for

resolving problems is predictive of teachers’ intervention decisions (Hughes, Barker, Kemenoff, &

Hart, 1993). Specifically, the more confident teachers are in their ability to solve the problem (i.e.,

the higher their self-efficacy), the less likely they are to refer the child to special education or to seek

a consultation (Hughes et al., 1993).

Response to Innovation and Change

The valuing, adoption, and successful implementation of new innovation or program are

related to teachers’ efficacy beliefs (Stein & Wang, 1988). Specifically, teachers who expressed

higher levels of efficacy for teaching also tended to express a valuing of educational innovations

(Cousins & Walker, 2000; DeForest & Hughes, 1992). More efficacious teachers also rated new

practices as more aligned with their current routines, more important for student learning, and less

difficult to implement than do teachers with less efficacy (Guskey, 1988). Kruse (1997) found that
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 26

teachers who are able to practice focused reflection also reported a greater sense of efficacy.

Additionally, these more efficacious teachers directed their searchers for innovations and new

pedagogical practices with a specific purpose or goal in mind, thus they used their reflective abilities

to identify needed innovations and improvements (Kruse, 1997).

Positive teaching efficacy has revealed teachers who are more willing to experiment in the

classroom with various strategies and curriculum ideas, (e.g., Meijer & Foster, 1988; Soodak &

Podell, 1993). These high efficacy teachers are more likely to adopt instructional innovations in the

classroom (e.g., Berman et al., 1977; Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Guskey, 1988; Rohrbach, Graham,

Hansen, 1993). Higher efficacy for teaching was also associated with successful implementation of

adopted innovations (Berman et al., 1977). Dembo and Gibson (1985) reported that efficacy was one

of the best predictors of “the percentage of goal achieved, amount of teacher change, improved

student performance, and continuation of both project methods and material” (p. 173).

Many investigations have identified important relationships between teacher efficacy and

desirable outcomes within learning environments. The following statements highlight the research

findings and identify areas of omission or concern.

• Teacher efficacy has been related to many positive outcomes relating to both student

outcomes (i.e., achievement and motivation) and teacher outcomes (i.e., motivation, actions,

decisions, and response to innovation and change).

• However, the majority of the empirical work looking as these and other relationships has been

correlational or comparative in nature. Future research should include investigations of the

process by which efficacy effects behavior.

The Relationship Between Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Efficacy

If one considers teacher efficacy to be a mediator between knowledge and action as suggested

by Raudenbush and colleagues (1992), then clearly the understanding of this mediational role should
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 27

become a focus of study. Moreover, an understanding of how knowledge and efficacy are related

warrants consideration, as an avenue for improving teacher practice. The following section seeks to

thoroughly review research that has investigated this relationship.

Conceptualizing Teacher Knowledge

In order to appreciate the relationship between teacher knowledge and teacher efficacy it is

important to consider how teacher knowledge is conceptualized in the field. However, a detailed

review of the conceptualization of teacher knowledge is beyond the scope of the current review (to

find such reviews see: Carter, 1990; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Kagen, 1990; Morine-Dershimer, 1991;

Shavelson & Stern, 1981). Provided here is only a cursory outline of the meaning of teacher

knowledge as it has been expressed in the literature.

Any work investigating teacher knowledge has often been linked closely with teacher beliefs.

In fact, in their 1996 Handbook chapter on learning to teach, Borko and Putnam collapsed knowledge

and beliefs into a single category for investigation. Calderhead (1996) clarified these terms, stating

that knowledge is generally refered to "factual propositions and the understandings that inform

skillful action" (p. 715). In contrast beliefs tend to reflect "suppositions, commitments, and

ideologies." Still, knowledge and beliefs are not always clearly delineated in the field. Additionally,

a large array of content and structure has been identified to describe teachers' knowledge and beliefs.

Borko and Putnam (1996) organized their discussion of learning to teach around three

domains of knowledge they considered relevant to the practice of teaching, namely, general

pedagogical knowledge and beliefs, subject matter knowledge and beliefs, and pedagogical content

knowledge and beliefs. In this organization general pedagogical knowledge and beliefs includes

teachers' knowledge and beliefs with respect to teaching, learners and learning. This domain includes

general teaching areas, across subject areas, such as classroom management, instructional strategies,

and knowledge of learners and learning. The remaining two categories identified by Borko and
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 28

Putnam (1996) focus specifically on knowledge and beliefs regarding specific content area. Namely,

the subject matter it self and the specialized pedagogy for instruction of that content area.

The framework put forth by Borko and Putnam (1996) serves to highlight the way that

knowledge and beliefs have been considered in the research on teachers and teaching. This structure

identifies how knowledge and beliefs can be considered in relation to other constructs of interest such

as teachers' sense of efficacy. The next section serves to review the research that has investigated the

relationship between knowledge and efficacy, however, the research completed to date does not

easily fall into the categories of knowledge described due to the manner in which knowledge was

assessed. A challenge to the field at this time is to make an explicit investigation of the relationship

across these constructs.

Research Investigating the Relationship between Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Efficacy

Raudenbush et al. (1992) highlighted the important intersection between teachers’ efficacy

and the knowledge and skills that are necessary to be successful. They contend that neither

knowledge nor efficacy alone can generate effective teaching. Rather, these researchers emphasize

the role of efficacy as a mediator between knowledge and action, such that efficacy provides the

impetus for teachers to utilize their knowledge and skills in new situations and with persistence

(Raudenbush et al., 1992). In this light, Raudenbush and colleagues (1992) saw positive feelings of

self-efficacy as necessary, but not sufficient, for effective teaching. That is, these positive feelings

produce a generative capability that will allow teachers to develop new teaching strategies, increase

their effort, and extend their persistence in the face of difficult or uncertain teaching situations. Thus,

these authors conclude that “from this perspective feelings of positive self-efficacy cannot guarantee

effective teaching, since teachers with high levels of perceived self-efficacy may lack the requisite

knowledge or skills to be effective. But low feelings of self-efficacy almost certainly work against
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 29

effective teaching by decreasing teachers’ generative capability to cope with the uncertainties of

classrooms” (Raudenbush et al., 1992, p. 151).

Some researchers have looked at the extent to which teachers’ knowledge is related to their

efficacy beliefs, however, these investigations were often embedded in larger questions. The

research that has investigated the relationship between knowledge and efficacy can be categorized by

the manner in which knowledge is assessed, focusing on educational level, explicit learning

experiences, and measures of demonstrated knowledge. Each of these categories of studies is based

on what I interpret to be an assessment of knowledge. The first group, entitled “education” consists of

those studies in which formal education was used as a proxy variable for knowledge in relation to

teacher efficacy. In these studies, education was assessed as education level (e.g., Hoy & Woolfolk,

1993) or as courses taken (i.e., Enochs, Scharmann, & Riggs, 1995).

The second category, “specific learning experiences” outlines those studies that investigated

specific, usually structured, experiences of teachers or teacher education students. These specific

learning experiences were defined in such as way so as to convey an expectation of specialized

knowledge (e.g., experience teaching in an inclusive setting, Minke, Bear, Deemer, & Griffin, 1996).

The final group of studies, classified as demonstrated knowledge, include investigations that assessed

participants demonstrated knowledge through paper and pencil assessment (e.g., Emmer & Hickman,

1991) or teacher performance through supervisor ratings (e.g., Trentham et al., 1985). Each of these

categories includes investigations that emphasized the importance of knowledge in understanding

teacher efficacy.

Table 2 (Appendix C) provides a skeletal outline of the studies that demonstrated the central

features of each of these categories. The table includes the author(s) and title, as well as, the research

question(s) that pertain to the relationship between knowledge and efficacy, the measures used, type

of analysis, and related findings. The descriptions in this table are intended to provide the reader with
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 30

an overview of the work done in this area. In many cases, this is but a snapshot of a larger study.

However, this overview will allow us to look closely at the knowledge-efficacy connection.

Following the discussion of the tabled studies, unasked questions will be raised and areas for future

research will be outlined.

Education

Studies that assessed education focused on either educational level achieved or specific

courses taken. Across the studies is the common reliance on participants (pre- and inservice teachers)

self-report information regarding the extent of their prior learning. Additionally with these studies, it

should be noted that education is being considered a proxy variable for knowledge. Of course, this

approach relies on the potentially faulty assumption that higher education levels equate to higher

levels of knowledge.

Education level. Benz, Bradley, Alderman, and Flowers (1992) conducted a cross-sectional

study to assess the development of personal teaching efficacy in preservice students through college

education faculty. Six groups were assessed, entering students (n=95), students in advanced

education courses (n=121), student teachers (n=47), practicing teachers (n=38), teacher education

faculty (n=29), and non-faculty student teaching supervisors (n=29). Each of these groups responded

to the Ashton Vignettes (1984), which measure personal teaching efficacy. This measure presents

participants with a detailed scenario of a teaching dilemma and asks how confident they would be in

resolving this situation.

Several interesting differences were found across the groups assessed. First, there seemed to

be a distinction between groups based on the task for which efficacy was measured. For example, the

preservice teachers reported higher levels of efficacy for motivating their future students than did

inservice teachers. In contrast, the inservice teachers demonstrated higher levels of efficacy for
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 31

planning and evaluating lessons, tasks that the authors felt involved a larger knowledge base (Benz et

al., 1992).

Second, when all groups are considered, college faculty demonstrated some of the highest

levels of efficacy. College faculty members had higher self-efficacy for motivation and classroom

management than all other groups except the student-teaching supervisors. Similarly, with regard to

planning, college faculty had higher efficacy than student teachers. Lastly, college faculty also

demonstrated higher efficacy for socialization processes than entering students. It is interesting to

note that college faculty had high levels of efficacy for these teaching tasks, even though the

completion of such work was not part of their daily practice. Although these professionals are

committed to training teachers and should, in turn, have extensive knowledge regarding the types of

tasks assessed, they are not in reality, confronted–or expected to be confronted–with these dilemmas

as part of their daily professional practice. It may be that the lower efficacy beliefs of preservice and

inservice teachers are related to the reality of their future and current situations. Moreover,

preservice and inservice teachers will have or do have their efficacy beliefs for these tasks tested on a

regular basis and, as such, may receive more information with which to make these assessments.

Two other studies looked at the relationship between personal teaching efficacy and

educational level (Campbell, 1996; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Both of these studies assessed personal

teaching efficacy using the Gibson and Dembo (1984) instrument. The first study, conduced by Hoy

and Woolfolk (1993), investigated the relationship between teacher efficacy and the organizational

health of schools. In addition to this larger focus, these researchers explored the relationship between

personal and demographic characteristics and teachers’ sense of personal and general teaching

efficacy. Data were collected from 179 practicing teachers. In addition to the efficacy measure,

demographic information requested included age, gender, years of teaching experience, and

education level. Among the personal variables, education level was the only factor that predicted
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 32

personal teaching efficacy. Correlational analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between

education level and personal teaching efficacy (r =.21, p<.01). In multiple regression analysis,

education level was the only personal variable that had an independent effect on personal teaching

efficacy (R2=.03843, p>.05).

The final study to be assessed was conducted by Campbell (1996) and compared teaching

efficacy of preservice and inservice teachers in Scotland (preservice=34; inservice=39) and the

United States (preservice=32; inservice=35). Although the development of teacher efficacy was

found to be the same across the two countries, differences in efficacy as related to education level

differed. Specifically, three education levels were identified, pre-Bachelor’s degree, Bachelor’s

degree, and post-graduate (these included Master’s degrees, or other graduate certificates or

diplomas). When teacher efficacy was compared across these groups it was determined that teachers

with post graduate work both in Scotland and the United States, reported the highest level of teaching

efficacy.

Each of these three studies demonstrated a relationship between educational level and teacher

efficacy. Most often, higher levels of education were associated with higher levels of efficacy. This

may seem like a logical relationship. People who earn more degrees, gain more knowledge about

teaching, and feel more confident in their ability to teach successfully. However, these studies do not

address two key concerns. First, there is no attention given to the personal characteristics that

influence individuals’ decisions to pursue graduate study. It could be that these individuals had

higher efficacy prior to investing in graduate work, and it was this higher efficacy that pushed them

to learn more so that they could fill their own expectations.

The second concern is the assumed link, between education level and knowledge. The actual

knowledge base and abilities of these individuals was not tapped, so a true understanding that more

education leads to more knowledge and eventually to higher efficacy cannot be verified by this work.
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 33

There could be other events happening within the continuing education experience that are increasing

efficacy unrelated to knowledge.

Specific courses. Enochs et al. (1995) explored the extent to which preservice teachers’ sense

of teaching efficacy for science instruction was related to the coursework they had received. Enoch

and colleagues (1995) assessed 73 preservice elementary teachers’ efficacy for teaching science using

the Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument-B or STEBI-B, (Enochs & Riggs, 1990), as well as

the amount of science education these preservice teachers had received at both the college and high

school levels. Significant correlations were found between personal science teaching efficacy and the

number of college science courses taken (r = -.21, p<.05) and years of high school science (r = -.22,

p<.05). These negative relationships suggest that the more science classes taken in college and high

school, the less personal science teaching efficacy was reported by these students.

Enochs et al. (1995) explained the negative relationship between science teaching efficacy

and the number of science courses taken, by focusing on the manner in which sciences classes are

taught at the secondary and college level. Namely, these courses are often taught in a traditional

lecture format with a heavy focus on memorization, which is the antithesis of how preservice teachers

are instructed to conduct science lessons in their methods courses. Thus, according to Enochs et al.

(1995), the students with more science courses, also had greater exposure to poor models of how to

teach science that, in turn, served as a source for efficacy beliefs (vicarious experiences).

I would offer a second explanation for this difference that is, the advanced level of these,

courses, in conjunction with the way that they are delivered, may inhibit preservice teachers’ beliefs

in their ability to reconstruct this material for elementary school children. Further, these preservice

teachers may not be able to see or make the connections between college level physics and a second

grade unit on simple machines, because the two courses, while rooted in the same science, are at very

different levels of understanding. The advanced courses in science may influence how these
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 34

preservice teachers view the domain of science, such that their teaching efficacy beliefs are inhibited

by their larger scope and understanding of the field. Because they do know, supposedly, the field

better, they may in fact be making more informed efficacy judgments, which may reflect their

concern for and desire to provide conceptually sound lessons for their future students. Additionally

this study also highlights the reality that there are a multitude of other variables embedded in any

educational experience that can also influence teacher efficacy.

The preceding section highlighted those investigations that explored the relationship between

education level and teachers’ sense of efficacy for teaching. In large part, it seems that greater

amounts of education are associated with higher levels of teaching efficacy, excluding the case

presented by Enochs et al. (1995). However, hidden in these result are the unique reasons these

preservice and inservice teachers chose to advance their education. Perhaps personal interest or

aptitude led them to pursue additional education, and perhaps these individuals would have

demonstrated similar levels of efficacy had they not furthered their education. Additionally,

education level does not inform us as to the specific experiences that may have served to build and

enhance participating teachers’ sense of efficacy. In targeting education level, as a variable we seem

be assuming knowledge. However, there may be something else in the educational experience that is

increasing efficacy other than knowledge. Clearly, the Enochs et al. (1995) article suggested that the

learning experience may serve to enhance or limit individuals’ teaching efficacy. The next section

outlines a variety of studies that address this issue, investigating the relationship between learning

experiences and teaching efficacy of preservice and inservice teachers.

Learning Experiences

A few studies have investigated the relationship between specialized training or unique

learning experiences and teacher efficacy. These studies have found that teachers (inservice and

preservice) who are given explicit training or experiences with regard to unique teaching tasks tend to
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 35

demonstrate higher levels of teacher efficacy for those tasks than their peers who did not have the

same learning opportunity. One area where this work has been investigated is special education,

specifically, teachers’ feelings of efficacy for teaching special needs children (Minke, 1996; Reid,

Vasa, Maag, & Wright, 1994). In another direction, however, Parameswaran (1998) investigated the

extent to which specific learning experiences in an educational psychology class can influence

students’ feelings of general teaching efficacy and efficacy for meeting the needs of diverse students.

Across these studies we will see the influential relationship that seems to exist between specific

training or learning experiences and teachers’ sense of efficacy.

Minke and colleagues (1996) investigated differences in teacher efficacy across three teaching

groups: regular education teachers (n=189), regular education teachers in an inclusion setting (n=71),

and special education teachers in an inclusion setting (n=64). Teacher efficacy was assessed using a

modified version of the Gibson and Dembo (1984) measure (Soodak & Podell, 1993). Results from

this study indicated that special education teachers and regular education teachers in an inclusion

setting demonstrated higher levels of personal teacher efficacy than regular education teachers.

Similarly, those regular education teachers, in regular classrooms, who had prior experience in

inclusion classrooms, also demonstrated higher levels of personal teaching efficacy. Thus, there

seems to be a relationship between feeling more able to perform the actions necessary to create

student learning, personal efficacy, and the unique experience of working in an inclusion setting.

Perhaps, as the regular education teacher and the special educator work together to meet the needs of

the children in the class learning takes place among these teachers. They are able to give and receive

important feedback and to discuss potential methods of meeting their students’ needs. Therefore, I

would contend that teaching in this type of environment would provide the teachers with a unique

learning experience that permits them access to a unique knowledge base and set of skills that may, in

turn, enhance their overall teaching abilities and efficacy.

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 36

Reid and colleagues (1994) also investigated the extent to which teacher efficacy, assessed as

confidence to attain goals pertaining to working with children having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder (ADHD), was related to prior experience or training. These researchers, in addition to

gathering demographic data, asked 449 third-grade Nebraska teachers to describe the amount of

confidence they felt for accomplishing 10 goals or activities directly relevant to the successful

instruction of children with ADHD (e.g., “Teach in such a way that students with ADHD can learn in

the classroom.” Reid et al., 1994, p. 199). Comparisons were made between teachers with and

without prior experience, and with and without prior training. Results of analysis of covariance

found unique differences in confidence related to both prior experience and prior training.

Specifically, teachers with prior training felt more confident in their ability to teach in such a way

that a student with ADHD can learn (F[1,444]=6.17 p=.013), to determine when a student manifests a

behavior requiring intervention (F[1,444]=9.64 p=.002), and to determine when progress is being

made in behavior (F[1,444]=5.10 p=.024). In contrast, teachers with prior training expressed greater

efficacy than those without prior training in their ability to set up an effective behavior contract

(F[1,444]-10.80 p=.001), to adjust lessons or materials for students with ADHD (F[1,444]=5.02

p=.026), to determine when a student requires an intervention (F[1,444]=9.65 p=.002), and to assess

when progress in behavior is made (F[1,444]=3.87 p=.049). In essence, this investigation

demonstrates the relationship between efficacy and prior training and the experiences in a specialized

area of teaching.

A final study assessing a specific learning experience was conducted by Parameswaran

(1998). This work investigated the impact of field experiences on educational psychology students’

knowledge about problems facing adolescents in the local area and efficacy for meeting the needs of

those adolescents. Twenty-nine experimental and 31 control students enrolled in two educational

psychology classes. The students in the experimentation condition, in conjunction with the standard
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 37

curriculum, also participated in a series of short term site visits to service providers in the

community. Pre- and post-assessments of knowledge, general teaching efficacy, personal teaching

efficacy, and specific areas of efficacy were gathered from students in both groups. Knowledge

regarding issues important to the adolescents in the service area was assessed with a test constructed

by the author. The Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) was used to assess general and

personal teaching efficacy. Areas of specific interest included efficacy for dealing with multicultural

issues in the classroom and efficacy in dealing with classroom problems related to adolescents were

also assessed with a measure generated by the author (Parameswaran, 1998). T-tests were used to

assess differences between the groups. The experimental group demonstrated greater knowledge,

higher levels of general teaching efficacy, and higher teaching efficacy with regard to cultural

differences than the control group.

The previous studies have revealed that there is a relationship between specific types of

training and experience that can enhance teachers’ sense of efficacy. Moreover, the first two of these

studies have shown that specialized training in the area of inclusion and ADHD can lead to greater

feelings of efficacy overall. The final study demonstrated that positive changes in efficacy can be

made in preservice teachers through specific changes in their educational experiences. I would

contend that these learning experiences imbued these inservice and preservice teachers with greater

knowledge which, in turn, aided them in developing these higher levels of efficacy. However, we still

have the unanswered question of why these teachers choose to enter these fields and gain these

unique experiences.

Additionally, using these specific learning experiences or educational level as a proxy for

knowledge masks the specific content and structure of these teachers’ knowledge base. What is this

that teachers gained from extended education that allowed them to exhibit increased feelings of

efficacy? What knowledge do they hold and how does it affect their efficacy beliefs? In teachers
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 38

with lower educational achievements, what knowledge might they be lacking that may be limiting

their confidence in their ability to teach? The articles reviewed in the next section attempt to address

some of these questions.

Demonstrated Knowledge

Two studies explicitly investigated the link between demonstrated knowledge and teachers’

level of content specific efficacy. Schoon and Boone (1998) investigated the relationship between

science teaching efficacy beliefs and the specific alternative conceptions of science they held. In a

similar study Sciutto, Terjesen, and Bender Frank (2000) investigated the relationship between self-

efficacy for teaching a child with ADHD and teachers’ knowledge of ADHD. These two studies

demonstrated the often assumed relationship between knowledge and efficacy. Moreover, each of

these studies also revealed, to some extent, the knowledge that is missing among some teachers with

respect to these specific fields. Thus, it may be most appropriate to target interventions and

instruction for preservice and practicing teachers at specific areas of knowledge and efficacy.

Schoon and Boone (1998) assessed the science teaching efficacy beliefs and knowledge

regarding alternative conceptions of science for 619 university students. Efficacy beliefs were

assessed using the Elementary Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI-B, Enochs &

Riggs, 1990). Alternative conceptions were assessed with a 12-item multiple-choice test. Each of

the items on this test was constructed so that there was one acceptable answer, one common

alternative conception, and two distracters. These items covered three areas of science: life, physical,

and earth/space. The alternative conceptions were selected based on prior research that identified

these conceptions as common among respondents. Examples of the alternative conceptions included,

“summer occurs when the earth is nearer the sun,” “venous blood is blue,” “any mineral that

scratches glass is a diamond” (Schoon & Boone, 1998, p. 559).

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 39

Schoon and Boone assessed the relationship between knowledge and self-efficacy in two

ways. First, they compared levels of science teaching efficacy to the number of correct responses on

the alternative conceptions measures. Results indicated that the student with the greatest number of

correct responses (8 or more) had significantly higher (stronger) levels of self-efficacy than those

students with fewer correct answers (3 or less). The second means of analyzing this data was to

determine what relationship, if any, existed between having specific alternative conceptions and

science teaching efficacy. Comparisons of science teaching efficacy were made per item between

students’ responding to the item correctly and those who held alternative conceptions. It was

determined that five specific alternative conceptions were associated with lower feelings of science

teaching efficacy. These conceptions were: “Planets can be seen only with a telescope (p=.03),

Dinosaurs lived at the same time as cavemen (p=.03), Rusty iron weighs less than the iron that it

came from” (p=.07), electricity is used up in appliances (p=.03), and North is toward the top of a map

of Antarctica (p=.00)” (Schoon & Boone, 1998, p. 563).

These results indicated a strong link between the role of knowledge in science and science

teaching efficacy beliefs. With regard to the second finding that holding specific alternative

conceptions was more often associated with lower science teaching efficacy, Schoon and Boone

(1998) offered a reasonable explanation. Specifically they reasoned that these five alternative

conceptions are “fundamental barriers to a full understanding of their respective sciences; they are,

using Hawkins’s (1978) terminology, ‘critical barriers’” (Schoon & Boone, 1998, p. 564). These

alternative conceptions frequently interfere with the learning process. Thus, these preservice teachers

may have to struggle to understand scientific concepts and as a result feel less able to interpret and

present this information to others in a meaningful way.

Sciutto et al. (2000) examined teachers’ knowledge and misperceptions with regard to

ADHD. Specifically, they investigated the knowledge of 149 elementary teachers with regard to the
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 40

symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of this disorder, in addition to some other general information.

This information was assessed using the Knowledge of Attention Deficit Disorders Scale (KADDS)

consisting of 36 items to which respondents could answer true, false, or don’t know. This measure

was designed specifically for this study. In addition to this knowledge measure, teachers’ sense of

self-efficacy was rated along a 7-point scale that gauged the extent to which participants “felt they

could effectively teach an ADHD child” (Sciutto et al., 2000, p. 118).

Correlational analyses indicate that teacher self-efficacy [r (145) =.29, p<.001], the number of

ADHD children taught [r (128) =.22, p<.011], and years of experience [r (142) =.18, p<.29] were all

positively related to ADHD knowledge (Sciutto et al., 2000). Thus, those teachers who were able to

demonstrate more extensive and correct information about ADHD also held stronger beliefs in their

own ability to teach these children.

The work of Schoon and Boone (1998) and Sciutto et al. (2000) serve as a springboard for

this proposed investigation of the relationship between knowledge and efficacy. Specifically, these

studies have demonstrated that there exists a strong link between the demonstrated knowledge of

teachers and their reported feelings of teaching efficacy. The next major step is to develop an

understanding of how teacher efficacy serves to move individuals from knowledge to action. That is,

what is the process by which knowledge is sorted, selected and employed within the confines of

teachers’ daily practice?

Given the exhaustive study of the research investigating the relationship(s) between teacher

efficacy and knowledge several statements can be made about this work.

• Studies investigating the relationship between knowledge and efficacy can be organized based

on how knowledge was measured (e.g., education level, experience).

• The relationship that exists between knowledge and efficacy demonstrated in these studies

suggests that higher levels of knowledge are associated with higher levels of efficacy.
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 41

However this was not the case for one study that found that preservice teachers with higher

levels of science knowledge had lower levels of science teaching efficacy.

• This research has relied heavily on correlational analyses and has established that a

relationship between knowledge and efficacy exists. However, this work does not establish

the direction of this relationship or the possible circular process through which efficacy and

knowledge interact to affect each other. Further this work does not investigate the potential

effects of knowledge and efficacy working in tandem or isolation to impact teaching

outcomes.

• The next step for this work is to explore the process by which efficacy and knowledge

interact, and to explore how this relationship manifests in teachers’ practice.

Significance and Implications for Future Research

This review sought to achieve three goals: to provide an overview of the development of

teacher efficacy, to illustrate the power of this construct in relation to both student and teaching

outcomes, and to analyze the empirical work that has investigated the relationship between teacher

efficacy and teacher knowledge. In meeting the first of these goals, the evolution of teacher efficacy

as a motivational construct was detailed. This detailing revealed that teacher efficacy was built on

two theoretical frameworks, namely locus of control and self-efficacy theory. These frameworks

assessed distinct components of teachers' belief systems and must be recognized when considering

any work investigating teacher efficacy. A central way to recognize these frameworks is through the

careful consideration of the measurement tools used to assess efficacy as well as the research

questions explored. The meaning of teacher efficacy and our understanding of the power of this

construct continues to evolve. Specifically, a new model and measure of efficacy has been presented

by Tschannen-Moran and her colleagues (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Tschannen-Moran &

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 42

Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). This current model emphasizes teacher efficacy within the theoretical base of

self-efficacy theory and highlights the cyclical nature of this construct.

This review also highlighted the research that has been done to illustrate the importance of

teacher efficacy with regard to both student and teacher outcomes. While this work has revealed that

teacher efficacy has been and continues to be a contributor to positive educational outcomes, we must

also recognize the holes in this research. Specifically, the majority of this work has been descriptive

in nature, relying heavily on self-report measures and correlational analysis. Considering the model

proposed by Tschannen-Moran and colleagues (1998) of teacher efficacy as a cyclical construct, we

need to begin to investigate the ways in which efficacy in teachers can be enhanced so that important

educational outcomes can be assessed. Currently, the research has demonstrated that efficacy is

related to important outcomes, however little work has looked at our ability to influence teachers'

efficacy.

The final goal of this paper was to provide a detailed analysis of the empirical work on the

relationship between teacher efficacy and teacher knowledge. However, what this systematic search

revealed is that this relationship has not been given an in-depth investigation. Rather, in the few

studies found that looked at this relationship we see that knowledge has rarely been directly assessed.

Instead proxy variables such as education level, courses taken, and specific learning experiences were

used as measures of knowledge. In the studies that did assess knowledge, the knowledge assessed

was subject matter knowledge or knowledge related to the components of specific learning

disabilities, rather then an assessment of teachers' knowledge about teaching.

The preceding review offers several implications for the theory, research, and practice. First,

this work highlights the need for efficacy theorists to extend the understanding of teacher efficacy to

its relationship with knowledge. Extending this, we must also explore and test the role of efficacy as a

mediator between knowledge and action. Efficacy researchers must employ new measures of efficacy
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 43

that extend beyond simple self-report responses to identified tasks. We need to consider and assess

the role of teachers' knowledge in the interpretation of efficacy items. Further, the relationships that

exist between teachers' efficacy and knowledge must be explored empirically. Finally, given our

knowledge of teacher efficacy as a powerful contributor to many positive educational outcomes, this

construct should be actively encouraged in preservice and practicing teachers. Specifically, efficacy-

knowledge research should guide the professional development of preservice and practicing teachers.
 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 44

References

Allinder, R.M. (1995). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and

curriculum-based measurement and student achievement. Remedial & Special Education,

27, 141-152.

Anderson, R.N., Greene, M.L., & Loewen, P.S. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and

students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. The Alberta Journal

of Educational Research, 34, 148-165.

Armor, D., Conroy-Osefuera, P, Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., &

Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los

Angeles minority schools. REPORT NO. R-2007-LAUSD. Santa Monica, CA: Rand (Eric

Document reproduction service no: ED 130 243).

Ashton, P.T. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education.

Journal of teacher education, 35, 28-32.

Ashton, P.T., Buhr,D., & Crocker, L. (1984). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: A self- or norm-

referenced construct? Florida Journal of Educational Research, 26, 29-41.

Ashton, P.T., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L., & McAuliffe, M. (1982, April). Measurement problems in

the study of teachers’ sense of efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, New York.

Ashton, P.T. & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student

achievement. New York: Longman.

Ashton, P.T., Webb, R.B., & Doda, C. (1983). A study of teachers’ sense of efficacy (final report,

Executive Summary). Gainsville: University of Florida.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

Review, 84, 191-215.

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 45

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Benz, C.R., Bradley, L., Alderman, M.K., & Flowers, M.A. (1992). Personal teaching efficacy:

Developmental relationships in education. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 274-285.

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs

supporting educational change (Vol. 3): Factors affecting implementation and continuation

(Report no R-1589/8-Hew). Santa Monica, CA: Rand. (ERIC Document reproduction

service no: ED 140 432).

Borko, H. & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),

Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 673-708). New York: Macmillan.

Borton, W.M. (1991). Empowering teachers and students in a restructuring school: A teacher

efficacy interaction model and the effect on reading outcomes. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Brophy, J.E. & Good, T. (1974). Teacher behaviors and student learning in second and third

grades. In Borich, G.D. (Ed.). The Appraisal of Teaching: Concepts and Process. MA:

Addison Wesley.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),

Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 709-725). New York: Macmillan.

Campbell, J. (1996). A comparison of teacher efficacy for pre- and in-service teachers in Scotland

and America. Education, 117, 2-12.

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 46

Carter, K. (1990). Teachers' knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook

of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan.

Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp255-296). New York: Macmillan.

Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of

Experimental Education, 60, 323-337.

Cooper, H.M. & Burger, J.M. (1980). How teachers explain students’ academic performance: A

categorization of free response academic attribution. American Educational Research

Journal, 17, 95-109.

Cousins, J.B., & Walker, C.A. (2000). Predictors of educators’ valuing of systematic inquiry in

schools. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, Special Issue, 25-53.

De Forest, P.A. & Hughes, J.N. (1992). Effect of teacher involvement and teacher self-efficacy on

ratings of consultant effectiveness and intervention acceptability. Journal of Educational &

Psychological Consultation, 3, 301-316.

Dembo, M.H. & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in school

improvement. Elementary School Journal, 86, 173-184.

Duncan, M.J. & Biddle, B.J. (1974). The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Dusek, J. (1985). Editor: Teacher Experiences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Emmer, E.T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline.

Educational & Psychological Measurement, 51, 755-765.

Enochs, L.G., Scharmann, L.C., & Riggs, I.M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to

preservice elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science

Education, 79, 63-75.

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 47

Enochs, L.G., & Riggs, I.M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching

efficacy beliefs instrument: a preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics,

90, 695-706.

Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes

toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education,

13, 451-458.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M.H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

Greenwood, G.E., Olejnik, S.F., & Parkay, F.W. (1990). Relationships between four teacher

efficacy belief patterns and selected teacher characteristics. Journal of Research &

Development in Education, 23, 102-106.

Guskey, T.R., (1981). Measurement of responsibility teachers assume for academic successes and

failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 44-51.

Guskey, T.R. (1982). Differences in teachers’ perceptions of personal control of positive versus

negative student learning outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 70-80.

Guskey, T.R. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. Journal of

Educational Research, 81, 41-47.

Guskey, T.R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of

instructional innovation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 63-69.

Guskey, T.R., & Passaro, P.D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions.

American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Bassler, O.C., & Brissie, J.S. (1987). Parent involvement: Contributions

to teacher efficacy, school socioeconomic status, and other school characteristics. American

Educational Research Journal 24, 417-435.

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 48

Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of

schools. Elementary School Journal, 93, 355-372.

Hughes, J.N., Barker, D., Kemoff, S., & Hart, M. (1983). Problem ownership, causal attributions,

and self-efficacy as predictors of teachers’ referral decisions. Journal of Educational &

Psychological Consultation, 4, 369-384.

Kagen, D.M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks

Principle. Review of Educational Research, 60, (3), 419-471.

Kim, Y. & Corn, K.L. (1997). The effects of teachers’ charactistics on placement recommendations

for students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92, 491-

502.

Kruger, L.J. (1997). Social support and self-efficacy in problem solving among teacher assistance

teams and school staff. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 164-168.

Kruse, S.D. (1997). Reflective activity in practice: Vignettes of teachers’ deliberative work.

Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31, 46-60.

Lee, V.E., Dedrick, R.F., & Smith, J.B. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on

teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190-208.

Lin, H., & Gorrell, J. (1998). Preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs in Taiwan. Journal of Research

& Development in Education, 32, 17-25.

Meijer, D., & Foster, S. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. Journal of

Special Education, 22, 378-385.

McLaughlin, M.W., & Marsh, D.D. (1978). Staff development and school change. Teachers

College Record, 80, 70-94.

McKinney, M., Sexton, T., & Meyerson, M.J. (1999). Validating the efficacy-based change model.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 471-485.

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 49

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S., (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(2), 247-258.

Minke, K.M., Bear, G.G., Deemer, S.A., & Griffin, S.M. (1996). Teachers’ experiences with

inclusive classrooms: Implications for special education reform. Journal of Special

Education, 30, 152-186.

Moore, W. & Esselman, M. (1992). Teacher efficacy, power, school climate and achievement: A

desegregating district’s experience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Morine-Dershimer, G. (1991). Learning to think like a teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education,

7(2), 159-168.

Murphy, P.K. & Alexander, P.A. (2001). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-53.

Newmann, F.M., Rutter, A., & Smith, M.S. (1989). Organizational factors that affect school sense

of efficacy, community, and expectations. Sociology of Education, 62, 221-238.

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.

Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

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 and Development

in Education, 21, 13-22.

Parameswaran, G. (1998). Incorporating multi-cultural issues in educational psychology classes

using field experiences. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 9-13.

Podell, D., & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. Journal

of Educational Research, 86, 247-253.

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 50

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.

Reid, R., Vasa, S.F., Maag, J.W., & Wright, G. (1994). An analysis of teachers’ perceptions of

attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Research & Development in Education,

27, 195-202.

Rich, Y., Lev, S., & Fischer, S. (1996). Extending the concept and assessment of teacher efficacy.

Educational & Psychological Measurement, 56, 1015-1025.

Riggs, I.M., & Enochs, L.G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science

teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625-637.

Rohrbach, L.A., Graham, J.W., & Hansen, W.B. (1993). Diffusion of a school-based substance

abuse prevention program: Predictors of program implementation. Preventative Medicine:

An International Devoted to Practice & Theory, 22, 237-260.

Rose, J.S., & Medway, F.J. (1981). Measurement of teachers’ beliefs in their control over student

outcome. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 185-190.

Rosenholtz (1989). Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization of School. New York:

Longman.

Ross, J.A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement. Canadian

Journal of Education, 17, 51-65.

Ross, J.A. (1994). The impact of an inservice to promote cooperative learning on the stability of

teacher efficacy. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 381-394.

Ross, J.A., Cousins, J.B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 385-400.

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 51

Ross, J.A., & Cousins, J.B. (1993). Enhancing secondary school students’ acquisition of

correlational reasoning skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 11, 191-

205.

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28).

Saklofske, D.H., Michayluk, J.O, & Randhawa, B.S. (1988). Teachers’ efficacy and teaching

behaviors. Psychological Reports, 63, 407-414.

Schoon, K.J., & Boone, W.J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of

preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82, 553-568.

Sciutto, M.J., Terjesen, M.D., & Bender Frank, A.S. (2000). Teachers’ knowledge and

misperceptions of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 37,

115-122.

Shavelson, R. J. & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments,

decisions and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-498.

Smylie, M. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and

psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research

Journal, 25, 1-30.

Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problems as factors in special

education referral. Journal of Special Education, 12, 66-81.

Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1996). Teacher efficacy: toward the understanding of a multi-faceted

construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401-411.

Stein, M.K. & Wang, M.C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: the process of

teacher change. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 171-187.

 Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 52

Stephens, T.M., & Braun, B.J. (1990). Measures of regular classroom teachers’ attitudes toward

handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 46, 292-294.

Tracz, S. M. and Gibson, S. (1986). Effects of efficacy on academic achievement. Paper presented

at the California ERA; ERIC doc # 281853.

Trentham, L.L., Silvern, S., & Brogdon, R. (1985). Teacher efficacy and teacher competency

ratings. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 343-352.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning

and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.

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

construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

Tuckman, B.W., & Sexton, T.L. (1990). The relationship between self-beliefs and self-regulated

performance. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 465-472.

Vanek, E.P., Snyder, C.W., Hull, A.L., & Hekelman, F.P. (1996). The relationship between

teachers’ confidence and use of clinical teaching skills in ambulatory care settings.

Teaching & Learning in Medicine, 8, 137-141.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 71, 3-25.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Woolfolk, A.E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about

control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.

Woolfolk, A.E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W.K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs

about managing students. Teaching & Teacher Education, 6, 137-148.

 Appendix A
TABLE 1
The Development of Teacher Efficacy
Rotter Bandura
Locus of control: the degree an individual believes Theoretical Framework Self-efficacy: the conviction that one can
that the perceived cause(s) of an intended outcome successfully execute the behavior required to
are within his or her control (Rotter, 1966) produce outcomes (Bandura, 1977, p. 193)

Teachers’ beliefs in their ability to control factors Teacher Efficacy Conceptualization Teachers’ beliefs in their ability to organize and
in order to achieve desired outcomes. execute courses of action in order to achieve
desired outcomes (Tschannen-Moran, et al., 1998)

Research Trends
Researcher(s) Definition Measurement Researcher(s) Definition Measurement
RAND Researchers “the extent to which the RAND Items: Two item Ashton, Buhr, & A teacher’s belief in his Ashton Vignettes:
McLaughlin & Marsh, teacher believed he or measure reflecting Crocker (1984) or her ability to have a Assessed outcome and
(1978); she had the capacity to internals and external positive effect on efficacy expectations.

Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 56

Berman & McLaughlin affect student control, described as student learning
(1977) performance” personal and general
(McLaughlin & Marsh, teaching efficacy
1978, p. 84)
Rose & Medway (1981) The extent to which a Teacher Locus of Gibson & Dembo “a belief that teachers Teacher Efficacy Scale
teacher believes that he Control (TLC) Scale: (1984) can help even the most (TES): Two factor
or she can control Assessed teachers difficult or unmotivated model of general and
student outcomes. feelings of an internal or students” (p. 569). personal teaching
external locus of control efficacy.
for student outcomes
Guskey (1981) A teacher’s belief or Responsibility for Tschannen-Moran & “…a judgment of his or Teachers Sense of
conviction that he or she Student Achievement Woolfolk-Hoy (2001) her capabilities to bring Efficacy Scale: Assesses
can influence how well (RSA) Scale: assessed about desired outcome efficacy for student
students learn, even general responsibility, of student engagement engagement,
those who are difficult responsibility for and learning…” (p. 783) instructional practices
or unmotivated. student success and for and classroom
student failure. management.
Appendix C Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 57

Sources of Efficacy
Information

Analysis of
Teaching Task
Verbal Persuasion
Cognitive
Vicarious Experience Teacher
Physiological Arousal Processing Efficacy
Mastery Experience
Assessment of
Personal
Teaching
New Source of Competence
Efficacy Information

Consequences of
Teacher Efficacy
Performance
Goals, effort, persistence,
etc.
FIGURE 1: The cyclical nature of teacher efficacy
Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy (1998, p. 228)
 Appendix C
TABLE 2
Articles Investigating Teacher Efficacy and Knowledge
Education Level
Authors Title Purpose/Research Questions Sample Measures Analysis Key Findings
Benz, Bradley, Personal teaching Explored the differences between Entering Ashton vignettes One way o Preservice teachers were more
Alderman, & efficacy: Developmental measures of PTE among several pre- students=95; (1984) measure ANOVA confident than experienced teachers
Flowers (1992) relationships in professional groups: a) entering students in of personal with respect to vignettes involving
Journal of education secondary teacher education students; education teaching student motivation.
Educational b) students in professional education courses=121; efficacy o In planning and evaluating lessons,
Research courses; c) secondary student student experienced teachers were more
teachers; d) practicing teachers; c) teachers=47; confident.
teacher education faculty; and f) non- inservice o College faculty had higher levels of
college-faculty student teaching teachers=38; motivation for classroom
supervisors college management than all other groups
faculty=29; except for supervisors
supervisors= o For planning, college faculty had
29 higher efficacy than student teachers.
o For socialization, college faculty had
greater efficacy than mid- and
entering-students.
Hoy & Teachers' sense of Explored the relationships between 179 Teacher Descriptive o Education level was the only
Woolfolk efficacy and the personal characteristics of teachers elementary Efficacy Scale- data, personal variable of the study that
(1993) organizational health of and their general and personal school (Gibson & correlations, uniquely predicted personal teaching
Elementary schools teaching efficacy. teachers in Dembo, 1984) regression efficacy.

Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 58

School Journal NJ
Campbell A comparison of teacher Investigated to the efficacy scores of Scottish: 39 Teacher One-way o Teachers with graduate work in
(1996) efficacy for pre and Scottish and American preservice inservice, 34 Efficacy Scale ANOVA education or related experiences had
Education inservice teachers in teachers, compared with the efficacy preservice; (Gibson & more teaching efficacy than
Scotland and America scores of inservice teachers? American: Dembo, 1984) - preservice teachers.
35 inservice, 15 items; o Teachers in the Post-Grad group had
32 Questionnaire the highest levels of teacher efficacy
preservice. (Naring, 1984)
3 groups: perception of
Pre-BS, BS teachers’ ability
and Post- to execute a
Grad specific teaching
task (PTE)
 Appendix C
TABLE 2 – Continued
Specific Courses
Authors Title Purpose/Research Questions Sample Measures Analysis Key Findings
Enochs, The relation ship of Explored the potential relationship n=73 STEBI-B correlations Significant negative correlations were
Scharmann, & pupil control to between personal science teaching preservice (Enochs & found between personal science
Riggs (1995) preservice elementary efficacy and other mediating elementary Riggs, 1990): teaching efficacy and
Science Teacher science teacher self- variables: number of college science teachers measure of o number of college science courses
Education efficacy and outcome courses, number of years in HS science teaching taken,
expectancy. science. self-efficacy and o number of years of HS science taken
outcome
expectancy.
Learning
Experiences
Authors Title Purpose/Research Questions Sample Measures Analysis Key Findings
Minke, Bear, Teachers' experiences Compared teacher efficacy across Teachers: 14 items ANOVAs o Regular and Special education
Deemer, S. & with inclusive three professional groups: regular 185 regular modified from correlations teachers in inclusive classrooms
Griffin, (1996) classrooms: implications classroom teachers, regular classroom education, 71 Gibson & reported higher levels of PTE than
Journal of for special education teachers in inclusive classroom, and Regular Dembo’s (1984) regular teacher in traditional
Special reform special education teacher in inclusive Education in Teacher classrooms.
Education classrooms. Inclusion Efficacy Scale o Higher personal efficacy was found
classrooms, (Soodak and in regular education teachers in
64 Special Podell, 1993). regular classrooms who had had
Ed in experience in inclusive settings.
Inclusion

Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 59

Classrooms
Reid, Vasa, An analysis of teachers' Gathered initial data pertaining to 449 third Confidence in 2 x2 o Both prior experience and training
Maag, & Wright perceptions of attention teachers' perceptions of instructional grade attaining goals: ANCOVA significantly affected perceived
(1994) deficit-hyperactivity barriers and their self-efficacy in teachers in 10 items confidence.
Journal of disorder working effectively with students with Nebraska. reflecting o Teachers with prior experience and
Research and ADHD. 2 perspectives: previous activities that training had higher perceived
Development in experience & previous training with would be confidence in ability to determine
Education ADHD students. encountered in when an intervention is required and
classroom when progress is made.
practice – o Teachers with prior training had
confidence=self- more confidence to: set up behavior
efficacy contract; adjust lessons; determine
behaviors requiring intervention;
determining when progress is made.
 Appendix C
TABLE 2 – Continued
Authors Title Purpose/Research Questions Sample Measures Analysis Key Findings
Parameswaran, Incorporating multi- Explored the effectiveness of using 29 Teacher t-tests o Field trips led to a more
(1998) cultural issues in short term site visits in enhancing experimental Efficacy Scale comprehensive understanding of the
Journal of educational psychology sensitivity to diversity among 31 control (Gibson & problems that adolescents in the
Instructional classes using field students. Site visits were incorporated Dembo, 1984) region faced and community
Psychology experiences into the broader context of an Knowledge- resources available to them.
undergraduate educational issues important o Students who participated in the
psychology class. to Springfield short visits perceived themselves as
adolescents; more confident in dealing with
Efficacy in children from diverse backgrounds,
dealing with as compared to those without the
multicultural field experience.
and adolescent
issues in the
classroom;
Demonstrated
Knowledge
Authors Title Purpose/Research Questions Sample Measures Analysis Key Findings
Schoon & Self-efficacy and Investigated the relationship between 619 Science teacher Rasch model, o The students with the greatest
Boone (1998) alternative conceptions science teaching efficacy and the university efficacy: t-tests number of correct answers had
Science of science of preservice number of alternative conceptions students Elementary significantly higher science teaching
Education elementary teachers. held and determined the relationship across 10 Science Teach efficacy
between science teaching efficacy and campuses Efficacy Belief o There was no relationship between

Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Knowledge 60

the holding of specific alternative Instrument the number of alternative
conceptions. (Enoch & Riggs, conceptions held and science
1990); teaching efficacy.
Alternative o Holding certain alternative
Conceptions conceptions was associated with
Measure persons of low science teaching
efficacy
Sciutto, Teachers' knowledge and Examined teachers' knowledge and 149 Knowledge of Correlations o Teacher self-efficacy, prior exposure
Terjesen, & misperceptions of misperception of ADHD regarding elementary Attention Deficit to ADHD child, and years of
Bender Frank attention- symptoms/diagnosis, treatment, and school Disorders Scale; experience were all positively related
(2000) deficit/hyperactivity general information. teachers. Self-efficacy for to ADHD knowledge.
Psychology in disorder teaching ADHD
the Schools child (1 item);
Demographic
Information