teachers' and teacher education students' sense of ...

TEACHERS' AND TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS' SENSE OF EFFICACY: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE COMPARISONS EDWARD HEBERT Southeastern Louisiana University

AMELIA LEE Louisiana State University

LYNNWILLIAMSON Northeast Louisiana University Teacher efficacy has emerged as an important variable in educational research related to many desirable outcomes. A number of factors have been advanced as influences of efficacy beliefs, the exploration of which is essential to understanding the construct. Bandura (1977, 1986) viewed personal experience as the most important determinant, and preliminary evidence suggests the sense of teaching efficacy is indeed related to teachers' experiences in schools. To examine the impact of teaching experience on teaching efficacy, 83 preservice and 156 experienced teachers completed a modified version of the Teacher Efficacy Scale, and responded to open-ended questions eliciting explanations for their efficacy ratings and perceptions of external factors which impact their sense of teaching efficacy. Quantitative and qualitative differences in the efficacy beliefs of teachers and teacher education students were found. Preservice teachers rated the external dimension of teacher efficacy, the impact of elements outside the classroom on students' behavior and performance, lower than did experienced teachers. Analysis of open-ended item responses revealed preservice and experienced teachers explained the reasons for the efficacy ratings differently, in ways that highlighted the experiential nature of efficacy expectations, and suggested a developmental change in teacher efficacy as a function of school-based experience.

Considerable evidence exists supporting the contention that teachers' beliefs and attitudes exert powerful influences on the teaching and learning process (for reviews, see Clark & Peterson, 1986; Pajares, 1992). The beliefs teachers hold have been shown to mediate their perceptions, judgments, and classroom behavior, and have been linked to students' beliefs, behavior, and achievement. One belief which appears to have important implications for education is the sense of teaching efficacy, the belief or conviction that one can affect student learning in a positive way. The construct emerged from two Rand Corporation studies of the 1970s' one examining the implementation of a reading program (Armor et al., 1976), the other studying teachers' use of innovative instruction (Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977). Both reported positive relationships between teachers' efficacy ratings and the dependent measures under investigation: improvement in stu-

dent performance, achievement of goals, and continued use of innovation. These initial investigations have been followed by a steady stream of research supporting the predictions ofAshton (1985; Ashton & Webb, 1986) and Denham and Michael (1981) that teachers' efficacy beliefs form an important component of their orientation to teaching which influences their instructional behavior, student outcomes, and career satisfaction. Efficacy ratings have been correlated to other teacher cognitions, such as attitudes toward student control (Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990) and the extent to which they take responsibility for student success and failure (Greenwood, Olejnik, & Parkay, 1990). High- and low-efficacy teachers have been differentiated by the atmosphere in their classrooms, and their interaction patterns with students (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Positive relationships between teacher efficacy and student out-

Journal of Research and Development in Education-Volume 31, Number 4, Summer 1998

Journal of Research and Development in Education-Volume 31, Number 4, 1998 comes include not only achievement, but also students' expectations for and perceptions of performance (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989). The construct also appears to have long-term implications which include job satisfaction and length of a career in teaching (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982; Trentham, Silvern, & Brogdan, 1985).

Factors Influencing the Development of Teaching EfJicacy With the establishment of teacher efficacy as an important educational variable, several authors have acknowledged that, for the construct to be useful, an important and necessary step is the examination of how it is developed and maintained (e.g., Ashton, 1984; Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Pajares, 1996). Theoretical models suggest a number of factors which may have an impact. Denham and Michael (1981) proposed efficacy beliefs could be affected by teachers' personal characteristics, professional preparation, experiences in the classroom, as well as "system variables" (i.e., characteristics of their workplaces). Ashton (1985; Ashton & Webb, 1986) detailed a framework organizing influences of teacher efficacy into four systems: (a) microsystem - those in the immediate classroom environment (e.g., student characteristics, class size); (b) mesosystem - those associated with teachers' professional relationships with peers, administrators, and parents; (c) exosystem - social structures influencing the teaching setting (e.g., the community, school district, mass media); and (d) macrosystem - cultural institutions and norms that impact conceptions of the learner and the role of education. The majority of research examining influences of teacher efficacy has focused on workplace factors, such as school climate and decision-making structure (e.g., Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). While these studies have helped to explain how school conditions influence teachers' beliefs and attitudes, the sense of teaching efficacy is conceived as a dynamic construct, subject to change over time. An issue which has received comparatively less attention, is that relating to the development of, or changes in, teachers' sense of efficacy as a function of experience, the factor identified by Bandura (1977,1986) as the most important determinant of self-efficacy. There is evidence supporting the notion that the sense

of teaching efficacy is highest during preservice years and decreases with teaching experience (Brousseau, Book, & Byars, 1988; Edwards, Green, & Lyons, 1996). This issue, however, is far from clear. Some studies comparing efficacy ratings of preservice and experienced teachers have reported no differences (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Imants & DeBrabander, 1996), and other data suggest the efficacy beliefs of teachers and teacher education students are qualitatively different, and may shift with entry into schools and the accompanying experiences of teaching. For example, Evans and Trimble (1 986) found preservice teachers' efficacy beliefs and commitment to teaching were only weakly related, and Benz, Bradley, Alderman, and Flowers (1992), in their comparison of experienced and preservice teachers, found differences in the types of teaching skills for which the two groups felt efficacious.

Concept~ialDevelopment and Measurement of the Construct One explanation for the inconsistent findings, as well as a persistent problem in interpreting teacher efficacy research, relates to the ongoing conceptual clarification of the construct, and the associated use of various scales to measure it (for in-depth discussions see Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Soodak & Podell, 1996; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). The sense of teaching efficacy, initially grounded in the locus-of-control concept, was strongly influenced by Bandura's (1977, 1986) self-efficacy conceptions, and has been undergone considerable theoretical discussion. The measurement of teacher efficacy began with two straightforward, face-valid, Likert-scaled items. Through the years, however, researchers have measured it using a variety of instruments, most often composed of collections of items selected from those used in the Rand studies, Gibson and Dembo's (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale, and items constructed for specific studies. Much of the literature is based on a two-dimensional conceptualization of teacher efficacy, conceived by Ashton and Webb (1982) and used by Gibson and Dembo (1984) to construct the Teacher Efficacy Scale. One dimension, teaching eflcacy, represents general beliefs about the relationship between teaching and learning. Likert-scaled items reflecting this component include, "A teacher is very limited in what s h e can achieve because a student's home environ-

Journul of Research and Development in Education-Volume 31, Number 4, 1998 ment is a large influence on his1hr.r achievement" (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). The second component of this model, personal teaching efficacy, concerns teachers' beliefs in their own abilities to execute actions which favorably impact student learning. Survey items representing this factor include, "When I really try, I can get through to most difficult students," and "When the grades of my students improve, it is usually because I found more effective teaching approaches" (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Recently however, this conceptualization was challenged by Guskey and Passaro (1994) who argued the difference between the two components, rather than reflecting personal versus general dimensions, was based on locus of attribution. They noticed survey items representing the teaching efficacy component were worded negatively so that agreement reflected lower efficacy beliefs, whereas items corresponding to the personal efficacy dimension were worded positively, such that agreement would reflect higher efficacy beliefs. They modified items from the scale so that those representing personal and teaching efficacy dimensions were worded both positively and negatively. Analysis of teachers' responses to this modified survey supported the author's contention that differences between the two components of teacher efficacy reflected an internal versus external locus of attribution. Therefore, Guskey and Passaro (1994) outlined an alternative interpretation of the two-dimensional teacher efficacy construct composed of an internal component and an external component. The internal dimension reflects teachers' "perceptions of personal influence, power, and impact in teaching and learning situations" (p. 239). It is measured by items such as "When a student does better than usual, many times it is because the teacher exerts a little extra effort." Agreement with these items is interpreted to indicate a teacher's positive and optimistic efficacy beliefs regarding the impact of teaching on student learning. The external dimension is represented by items such as "The time spent in my class has little influence on students compared to the influence of their home environment." Agreement with these items indicates a belief that elements outside the classroom, and beyond the control of teachers, exert strong influences on students' behavior and performance. Finally, Guskey and Passaro's.(l994) analysis suggested the two dimensions, rather than bipolar oppo-

sites of one continuum, were relatively independent factors. That is, teachers' perceptions of their influence on students are not based upon, nor strongly related to, their perceptions of the power of external factors, such as home environment. Some, for example, may believe that even though factors beyond their control influence are strong, they still have a positive effect. Conversely, other teachers may perceive their impact to be weak regardless of other factors in students' lives.

Summary and Purpose At present, there is little disagreement that teachers' efficacy beliefs influence their decisions and behavior and are associated with students' achievement and efficacy beliefs. However, the existing literature offers a limited explanation of factors affecting the development and maintenance of teaching efficacy, and has yet to adequately examine the impact of teaching experience. Further, much of the existing research on teaching efficacy has been grounded in the personal and teaching efficacy model, rather than Guskey and Passaro's recent framework. Finally, we feel that understanding has been limited by the primary use of Likert-scaled instruments and quantitative analysis. Generally lacking from the literature are the voices of teachers, their perspectives, explanations for efficacy beliefs, and the factors they perceive to impact their own sense of teaching effectiveness. The purpose of this study was examine how one factor, teaching experience, influences teacher efficacy. In addition, we sought to extend the literature by collecting data using open-ended questions in addition to the traditional Likert-scaled items. The following research questions guided the study: 1. How do efficacy ratings change as a function of teaching experience? 2. How do experienced teachers and teacher education students explain the reasons for their efficacy beliefs? 3. What external factors do teachers and teacher education students perceive to impact their abilities to influence student learning?

Participants Data for this study consist of survey information collected from teachers and teacher education students

Journal of Research and Development in Education-Volume 31, Number 4, 1998

from the state of Louisiana. Efforts were made to survey a varied sample of the state's preservice and experienced teachers. The instrument was distributed by teacher preparation faculty from three universities located in different geographic regions of the state. The sample consisted of 83 students (mean age = 24.50, SD = 6.09 years) enrolled in undergraduate teacher preparation programs at five state universities. Fifty-one were in their first or second year of college and 32 were at the junior or senior level. We sought to include teachers of several content areas and grade levels, employed in schools of varying size, and located in rural and urban areas. The teacher sample (mean age = 37.50, SD = 8.46 years) numbered 156, 107 who taught at elementary schools, 22 at middle schools, and 27 at high schools. Twenty-eight of the surveyed teachers were employed at schools located in large cities, 60 in small cities, and 68 in rural and semirural areas. Sixty-seven teachers taught multiple content areas, with the remaining 89 teaching single subjects including English, math, science, music, and physical education. All participants were informed the purpose of the study was to investigate beliefs about teaching, their participation was voluntary, and their identity would not be revealed in reports of the study's findings.

Survey Instrument Data were collected using an instrument composed of three parts. In the first section, participants provided demographic information. For the purposes of this study, teachers indicated years of teaching experience, content area, and school grade level and location, while students indicated their classification. The second section consisted of Guskey and Passaro's (1994) modification of the Teacher Efficacy Scale composed of 2 1 items, 10 representing the internal scale and 11 representing the external scale, arranged in random order. Participants indicated their degree of agreement with each item by responding on a Likert-scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 6 (strongly agree). The final section of the survey was designed to elicit participants' explanations for their efficacy beliefs and the factors they perceive to influence these beliefs. It consisted of four questions constructed for the study: two scaled items, each followed by an open-ended question. The first item was designed to represent the main idea of the internal scale: "How

confident are you that you can change student learning in positive ways?" Participants responded using a scale ranging from 1 (not at all confident) to 6 (very confident). This item was followed by the openended question, "Why did you rate your level of confidence as you did?" The second scaled item paralleled the external dimension, and read, "To what extent dolwill factors beyond your control influence your confidence to impact student learning?'It was answered using a similar scale anchored by 1 (not at all) and 6 (very much). This item was followed by the open-ended question "What are these factors?"

Quantitative Analysis The first set of analyses was quantitative in nature, conducted to analyze differences in teacher efficacy as a hnction of teaching experience. Following the two-dimensional model, two scores were derived for each participant from responses to the Teacher Efficacy Scale, an internal score and an external score. To select items for calculating these scores, the total set of responses was subjected to a principal components factor analysis with a varimax rotation, generating a two-factor solution. The results yielded 13 items loading on single factors (criterion level > 0.40), six items which loaded on the internal factor, and seven on the external factor. Factor loadings of the remaining eight items failed to reach the criterion level. The resultant model accounted for 3 1% of the total variance in item responses. Items, factor loadings, and reliability coefficients are presented in Table 1. Using these 13 items, two teacher efficacy scores were calculated. Each participant's responses to the six items which loaded in the internal scale were averaged, as were the seven items loading on the external scale. Consistent with Guskey and Passaro's (1 994) analysis, a moderate, negative correlation was found between internal and external scores (r = -.18). To analyze differences in scores as a function of teaching experience, participants were divided into four groups: (a) teacher education students (0 years of teaching experience), (b) teachers with between 1 and 5 years of experience, (c) teachers with 6 to 15 years of experience, and (d) teachers with more than 16 years of experience. Internal and external scores of these groups, shown in Figure 1, were analyzed using sepa-

Journal of Research and Development in Education-Volume

31, Number 4, 1998

Table 1 Item Loadings for the Teacher Efficacy Scale Factor 1 Internal

Questionnaire item

1.

When a student does better than usual, many times it is because the teacher exerts a litle extra effort

.51

When a student performs higher than usual, it is often because I found better ways of teaching himther.

.57

18.

When I try really hard, I can get through to most difficult students.

' I.

When the performance of a student improves, it is usually because their teacher found more effective teaching approaches.

.

Factor 2 External

-.08

If a students masters a new skill or concept quickly, it might be because the teacher know the necessary steps in teaching it.

IY.

If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students.

2.

The time spent in my class has little influence on students compared to the influence of their home environment. Student learning is primarily related to their family background. If students are not disciplined at home, they are not likely to accept discipline at school.

I have not been trained to deal with many of the problems my students have. I am very limited in what I can achieve because a student's home environment is a large influence on hislher achievement.

i. 20.

If parents would do more for their children, teachers could do more. When ~tcomes right down to it, a teacher really cannot do much because most of a student's motivation and performance depends on hislher home environment.

Eigenvalue Percent variance Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha)

rate one-way ANOVAs, which revealed a significant difference in external scores [F (3, 207) = 10.76, p < ,00011 and no difference in internal scores [F(3,207) = 1.90, p = ,131. Further investigation using the Student-Newman-Keuls multiple range test (p < .05) indicated the external score of teacher education students was significantly lower than all three groups of experienced teachers, which did not differ from one another (see Table 2). As an indicator of the magnitude of these differences, or the strength of the relationship between years of teaching experience and external efficacy, omega-squared was calculated (Grimm, 1 993). The results indicated 12% of the variance in external efficacy could be attributed to teaching experience, considered a moderate to large effect (Cohen, 1977).

Qualitative Analysis The second set of analyses was qualitative, focusing on responses to the two open-ended survey items in which participants explained reasons for their efficacy beliefs and identified external factors which impacted their confidence. The two groups of responses were analyzed separately, yet in a similar manner, using the recommendations of Bogdan and Biklen (1992) and Lincoln and Guba (1985). Responses were first typed verbatim onto index cards identified only by participant identification number. Each set of responses was read as a group, and a preliminary list of coding categories developed. Each response was then coded individually using the con-


Internal External

Years of teaching experience Mean internal and external teacher efficacy scores as a function of teaching experience.

Figure I .

stant comparison technique. Once all responses were tentatively categorized, those from each category were read as a group. Categories were then discussed and modified. Analysis was completed when all responses were categorized and agreement was reached by all three researchers. Reasonsfor eficacy beliefs. The first open-ended item, "Why did you rate your level of confidence as you did?" yielded 239 total responses: 195 explanations for high- efficacy beliefs and 44 explanations for low-efficacy beliefs. On average, teachers offered

1.04 explanations for high-efficacy beliefs and 0.17 reasons for low-efficacy, while teacher education students provided an average of 0.54 explanations for high efficacy and 0.23 for low efficacy. Analysis of explanations for high efficacy yielded six higher-order categories: (a) confidence in knowledge, (b) evidence of effectiveness, (c) personal qualities, (d) use of effective teaching strategies, (e) positive relationships with students, and ( f ) general feeling of confidence. The frequency and percent of responses in each category are presented in Table 3. In explaining high efficacy ratings, teachers cited confidence in their knowledge most often (37% of responses), followed by evidence of effectiveness (19%), personal qualities (19%), and effective teaching strategies (1 1%). Responses indicating confidence in knowledge centered on that gained through teaching experience, a representative example being, "After 17 years, I've experienced a varied type of student and learned how to make adjustments for student success." Teachers' explanations categorized as evidence of effectiveness were most often based on personal observations (e.g., "I have seen students do well in third grade who struggled through second grade"). The frequency of these responses was matched by those citing personal qualities which enhanced their feelings of effectiveness (e.g., "My enthusiasm for what I'm doing. I'm tenacious about what I'm trying to do"). Finally, 1 1% of teachers' responses indicated high efficacy was related to specific teaching strategies they perceived as effective. For example, one teacher wrote, "I know several ways of relating information to students using hearing, touching, smell, etc." Teacher education students' responses were coded most often into three categories: personal qualities (47% of responses), confidence in knowledge (3 I%),

Table 2 Mean (SD) Internal and External Teacher Eficacy Scores of Groups Differing in Teaching Experience Experience group Teacher education students - 0 years experience Teachers with 1 to 5 years experience Teachers with 6 to 15 years experience Teachers with 16 or more years experience

Internal score

External score

31, Number 4, 1998

Journal of Research and Development in Education-Volume Table 3 Teachers'and Teacher Education Students 'Explanationsfor High and Low Efficacy Ratings

Teacher educ. students' responses

Teachers' responses Category

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

150

45

56

14

Gained via teaching experience

37

2

Gained via teacher preparation

9

6

Gained via professional development

G

0

Gained via personal experience

4

6

Total Explanations for High Efficacy Beliefs Confidence in Knowledge

Evidence of Effectiveness

29

19%

0

24

0

Feedback from parents & students

3

0

Teacher evaluations

2

0

Own observations

Personal Qualities Caring attitude

Determinationfmotivation Positive outlook Ability to get along with people Using Effective Teaching Strategies

Specific instructional approaches Attention to planning Communicating with parents

Positive Relationships with Students From positive teacher-student rapport From being a positive role-model ~-

General Feeling of Confidence Total Reasons for Low Efficacy Beliefs Student Home Environment

Student Characteristics Limited Contact with Students Lack of Experience

Percent

0%

Journal of Research and Development in Education-Voli~rne 31, Number 4, 1998

and general feeling of confidence (1 8%). Personal qualities teacher education students offered as underlying high efficacy centered around caring about students (e.g., "Because I believe I am a caring person. It takes someone who cares about the students to change student learning...") and being determined to reach them (e.g., "Because when I set my mind to do something I am going to do it..."). Explanations coded into the confidence in knowledge category most often referred to that gained during teacher preparation and personal experiences, such as helping siblings with their homework or other interactions with children (e.g., "I am a youth minister and have had lots of experience with kids"). The final category frequently cited by students, general feeling of confidence, was composed of statements indicating hture expectations of effectiveness with only a general or vague reason for believing so (e.g., "I have enough confidence in myself to believe I can have a positive effect on students"). In comparison to the number of explanations for high efficacy, relatively few participants provided reasons for low-efficacy beliefs. Teachers cited the home environment of their students (36% of responses) and student characteristics (28%) most often, while teacher education students most often linked low-efficacy ratings to a lack of teaching experience (84%). External factors. The second open-ended item, eliciting participants' perceptions of external factors which influenced their efficacy expectations, yielded a total of 431 responses, 305 from teachers and 126 from teacher-education students. External factors were coded into six major categories: (a) homelfamily, (b) school context, (c) student characteristics, (d) community, (e) administrative factors, and (f) society. The frequency and percent of responses in each of these categories are presented in Table 4. External factors identified by teachers fell primarily into the categories designated as homelfamily (39% of responses), school context (23%), and student characteristics (23%). When identifying students' home environment as significant, teachers cited family problems such as divorce, characteristics of parents (e.g., financial status), and parents' lack of involvement in their children's education. Teachers also indicated a number of school context factors which negatively impacted their perceptions of effectiveness (lack of supplies, minimal administrative support, large class sizes, and overloaded schedules). An equal number of responses noted characteristics of students, most

notably classroom behavior and attitudes. Similar to teachers, when teacher education students identified external factors, they also often cited hornelfamily (48% of responses) and student characteristics (19%). However, in comparison to teachers, teacher education students mentioned those related to school context less often (7%), instead indicating reservations about administrative requirements (16%) such as hnding for education, textbook requirements, and standardized testing mandates.

The sense of teaching efficacy has emerged as an impressive factor in educational research, linked to a myriad of desirable teaching and learning variables. However, little research has moved beyond the establishment of such relationships, to the examination of factors influencing the development and maintenance of these beliefs. Bandura (1977, 1986) identified experience as the primary determinant of self-efficacy, a suggestion echoed in theoretical models of teaching efficacy which predict it will vary as a function of teaching experience. Research examining the impact of teaching experience on efficacy has reported inconsistent findings, due in part to ongoing conceptual development and the variety of instruments used to measure the construct. However, existent data suggest efficacy beliefs change as preservice teachers enter the profession and participate in the activities of educating students. The purpose of this study was to examine how teacher efficacy varies as a function of teaching experience, with special attention to the differences between the beliefs of preservice and experienced teachers. Analyses of responses to Guskey and Passaro's (1 994) modification of the Teacher Efficacy Scale and open-ended items focused on answering three questions: (a) How to efficacy ratings change as a hnction of teaching experience? (b) How do experienced teachers and teacher education students explain the reasons for their efficacy beliefs? and (c) What external factors do experienced and preservice teachers perceive to impact their ability to teach effectively?

Changes in EfJicacy as a Function of Teaching Experience The first conclusion supported by our data is that efficacy ratings of teachers and teacher-education students were quantitatively different. Analysis of

Journal of Research and Development in Education-Volume 31, Number 4, 1998 Table 4 External Factors which Influence Teaching Eflcacy Teacher educ. students' responses

Teachers' responses Frequency Total responses

Percent

Frequency

305

126

9

4

Percent

Home environment/problems Characteristics of arents (e.g., education, financial status, retgious bellefs) Lack of parental involvement in child's education Lack of discipline at home Parental neglectlabuse School Context

71

23%

9

Lack of administrative support

12

3

Lack of equipmentlfacilities/supplies

27

4

Large class sizellack of space

10

1

Lack of timelschedule overload

10

0

9

0

School events/interruptions

7%

School climate/morale Student Characteristics Abilities Absenteeism Academic background Behavior Behavior disorders Emotional problems Learning disabilities Medical problems Motivationlattitudes Self-esteedconfidence Substance abuse Community Environmentlneighborhood

Peer pressure Administrative Factors (e.g., funding, required textbooks, standardized testing)

Socieg.g., violence, drugs, television\

13

4%

6

5%


responses to the Teacher Efficacy Scale revealed scores representing the external dimension were significantly lower in preservice teachers than in experienced teachers, while scores on the internal dimension did not vary (see Table 2 and Figure 1). These data differ from those previously reported which suggested teaching efficacy is highest in preservice years and decreases with experience. The discrepancy may be, in part, due to differences in methods for measuring the construct. The pattern reported here, based on Guskey and Passaro's (1994) two-dimensional model, is that the internal dimension (teachers' beliefs about their influence on students) begins at a high level and is maintained throughout the teaching career. However, the external dimension (reflecting teachers' perceptions of factors external to themselves) varies with teaching experience. Specifically, students enrolled in teacher preparation programs have a relatively low perception of the impact of elements outside the classroom on students' behavior and performance, but with entry into teaching, come to rate these external factors at higher levels. Our data also support Guskey and Passaro's (1 994) conceptualization of teaching efficacy as a twodimensional construct, composed of relatively independent internal and external components. As shown in Figure 1, participants' ratings of these dimensions did not appear to vary as a function of the other, but rather suggest that teachers may indeed perceive both themselves and external factors to exert strong influences on students. This notion is also supported by the relatively small relationship between internal and external scores.

Explanations for EfSicacy Ratings With respect to the second question, our data suggest that the sources of teaching efficacy, or explanations for efficacy ratings, are different for experienced teaches than for students enrolled in teacher preparation programs. As a basis of high efficacy, experienced teachers most often relied upon knowledge gained from their years in schools, while preservice teachers tended to cite personal qualities, such as caring about students and being motivated. Notable discrepancies were also observed in explanations based upon evidence of effectiveness and the use of specific teaching strategies (in favor of experienced teachers), as well as reasons categorized as a general feeling of confidence (with more responses from pre-

service teachers). These data align favorably with Bandura's (1977, 1986) notion that efficacy beliefs are strongly related to personal experiences. Preservice teachers, with little or no actual experience upon which to ground efficacy beliefs, instead have what we interpreted to be efficacy aspirations. These were either difficult for preservice teachers to explain, or based upon the notion that caring about children and being motivated to reach them, coupled with college preparation, will transfer positively to effective teaching. This pattern of explanation is strikingly different from that of experienced teachers, who base high efficacy beliefs primarily on pedagogical knowledge gained from actual experience in schools, and their own observations of students in their classrooms. Categories including the majority of explanations for high efficacy beliefs also parallel two factors identified in conceptual models: teaching experience and personal qualities. Both factors were specifically identified by Denham and Michael (1981) as antecedents of efficacy expectations and fall within the arena described by Ashton (1985, Ashton & Webb, 1986) as microsystem variables.

External Factors Influencing Student Learning and Teachers' EfJicacy Beliefs When asked to provide specific examples of external factors which influence their sense of efficacy, participants in this study overwhelmingly responded with those having negative implications. The external factors identified were grouped into six areas, which also tend to parallel categories proposed by Ashton. Both preservice and experienced teachers cited (a) characteristics of students, such as poor classroom behavior and a lack of motivation (microsystem variables); (b) characteristics of the school context (mesosystem variables); (c) characteristics of students' home and community environments (mesosystern); and (d) issues in contemporary society (macrosystem) which exerted negative influences on students' academic habits and achievement, and tended to lower efficacy expectations. Differences in the responses of experienced and preservice teachers were noted in three categories: homelfamily, school context, and administrative requirements. Preservice teachers cited the negative influences of students' home lives and administrative mandates more often than did experienced teachers,

Journal of Research and Development in Education-Volume

while the reverse was true for factors related to school context. Our interpretation of these differences, again centers on the experiential nature of efficacy beliefs. Preservice teachers, with a limited understanding of and background in teaching, are aware of difficult home environments of many children, as well as curricular and testing requirements, all highly publicized in the media. However, they are less aware of the challenges to effective teaching offered by the school context (e.g., lack of supplies, space, and time) than are experienced teachers who encounter these difficulties daily.

SUMMARY Our data add to the existent literature on factors which influence teachers' efficacy beliefs and support the conclusions that they are likely to change over the course o f a teaching career, and in part, are a function of teaching experience. In addition, our data agree to a large extent with theoretical predictions of the influences of teacher efficacy. Despite considerable research interest, teacher efficacy remains a conceptually elusive construct, rendering it difficult to assess with certainty. The sense of efficacy has been evaluated most often using Likert-scaled instruments addressing teachers' general beliefs about their influence and that of external factors (primarily students' home environment) on academic achievement. This

31, Number 4, 1998

practice, which does not correspond to Bandura's (1977, 1986) conception of self-efficacy as a situation- and context-specific expectation, has been questioned by several authors, who recommend the exploration of alternative assessment approaches (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Good & Tom, 1985; Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Pajares, 1996). Our strategy involved augmenting Likert-scaled responses with open-ended questions soliciting explanations. We found this approach to add depth and understanding to numerical ratings, and perhaps of more importance, provide evidence supporting the experiential and contextual underpinnings of these beliefs, which we suggest as a worthy direction of future study. Our data also suggest that factors promoting high-efficacy beliefs (positive teaching experiences, effectiveinstructional strategies, and positive interactions with students) may be different from those associated with reduced efficacy (e.g., students' home lives and attitudes, and challenges in the school context and society). Future research is needed which continues to examine the sources of efficacy beliefs of current and future teachers, as well as investigates specific tasks about which they feel more and less efficacious. These topics, unlikely to be probed effectively using the current Likert-scaled instruments, urge for the employment of alternative approaches such as open-ended survey items and interview questions more responsive to teachers' interpretations and explanations.

REFERENCES Anderson, R. N., Greene, M. L., & Loewen, I? S. (1988). Relationships among teachers' and students' thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34, 148-165. Armor, D., Conroy-Osequera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnel, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). AnaIysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools (Report No. R-2007LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 140 432).

Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 28-32. Ashton, P, T. (1985). Motivation and the teachers' sense of efficacy. In C . Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, Vol. 2: The classroom milieu

(pp. 141-171). New York: Academic Press.

Ashton, P., & Webb, R. (1982, March). Teachers sense of efficacy: Toward an ecological model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Ashton, P., & Webb, R. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers 'sense of efJicacy and student achievenzent. New York: Longmon. Bandura, A. (1 977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1986). Socialfoundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Benz, C. R., Bradley, L., Alderman, M. K., & Flowers, M. A. (1992). Personal teaching efficacy: Developmental relationships in education. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 274-286.