Teacher Efficacy Research 1998 - 2009: Signs of Progress or Unfulfilled Promise?

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:21–43
DOI 10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8
REVIEW PAPER
Teacher Efficacy Research 1998–2009: Signs of Progress

or Unfulfilled Promise?
Robert M. Klassen & Virginia M. C. Tze & Shea M. Betts &

Kelly A. Gordon
Published online: 24 August 2010

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract This review investigates the state of teacher self- and collective efficacy research
conducted from 1998 to 2009. Two hundred and eighteen empirical articles published in
1998–2009 were examined for key characteristics and compared to research published in
the previous 12 years (i.e., 1986–1997). Results from the review show increases in overall
teacher efficacy research, methodological diversity, domain specificity, internationalization,
and focus on collective efficacy. Continuing problem areas were a lack of attention to the
sources of teacher efficacy, continued measurement and conceptual problems, a lack of
evidence for the links between teacher efficacy and student outcomes, and uncertain
relevance of teacher efficacy research to educational practice. An outline of directions for
future teacher efficacy research is provided.
Keywords Teachers . Self-efficacy . Collective efficacy
Teacher efficacy—the confidence teachers hold about their individual and collective
capability to influence student learning—is considered one of the key motivation beliefs
influencing teachers’ professional behaviors and student learning. In recent years, teacher
efficacy research has been described as being “on the verge of maturity” by Tschannen-
Moran et al. (1998, p. 202) and “ready to move beyond adolescent angst” by Henson
(2002, p. 148). Certainly, the growth of teacher efficacy research has been rapid since the
second half of the 1970s, the period that saw the RAND organization introduce two
efficacy items on a teacher questionnaire and Bandura (1977) publish his influential early
work on self-efficacy. Over the last 30 odd years, the volume of teacher efficacy research
has increased, but questions remain about the direction, quality, and influence resulting
from the increased attention given to the construct. Previous reviews and critiques have
highlighted key issues that need attention in order for teacher efficacy research to attain
maturity (e.g., Goddard et al. 2004; Henson 2002; Wheatley 2005), but the impact these
R. M. Klassen (*) : V. M. C. Tze : S. M. Betts : K. A. Gordon

Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta, Education North, 6-102,
Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2G5
e-mail: robert.klassen@ualberta.ca
22 Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:21–43
suggestions have had on teacher efficacy research is unclear, and no recent review has
examined the breadth of teacher efficacy research published in the last 12 years. This article
provides a descriptive and critical review of teachers’ self- and collective efficacy research
published from 1998 to 2009, with a focus on how researchers have attended to the advice
given by influential teacher efficacy and self-efficacy scholars. In particular, this article is
intended to define and summarize key issues surrounding the research investigating teacher
efficacy, examine recent research in order to describe the state of the field, identify
problems and gaps in the literature, and provide direction for next steps for research (for
stylistic purposes in this review, we use the term “teacher efficacy” as an umbrella term that
covers “teachers’ self-efficacy” and “teachers’ collective efficacy. We distinguish between
the two separate but related constructs when necessary for the sake of clarity).
Teachers’ Self-efficacy
According to Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory, self-efficacy beliefs refer to

individuals’ beliefs about their capabilities to successfully carry out a particular course of
action. An impressive body of research supports the claim that self-efficacy is an important
influence on human behaviors in a variety of settings, including education, health, sports,
and business (Bandura 1997). In academic contexts, research has shown that the self-
efficacy beliefs of students play an important role in influencing achievement and behavior,
but increasingly, researchers are concluding that teachers’ sense of self-efficacy also plays a
key role in influencing important outcomes for teachers and students (e.g., Ross 1992).
Teachers’ self-efficacy is believed to influence student achievement and motivation
(Bandura 1997) and has been shown to positively affect teachers’ beliefs about teaching
and instructional behaviors (Skaalvik and Skaalvik 2007; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk
Hoy 2001). Teachers with low self-efficacy experience greater difficulties in teaching,
lower levels of job satisfaction, and higher levels of job-related stress (e.g., Betoret 2006).
Research on teachers’ self-efficacy dates back to educational studies carried out by the
RAND organization in the mid-1970s, when two questionnaire items were created to
investigate teachers’ beliefs in their ability to influence student achievement (Tschannen-
Moran et al. 1998). Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) influential measure of teacher efficacy
extended the RAND measure and consisted of two factors, one measuring personal
teaching efficacy—essentially teachers’ competence beliefs—and the other measuring
general teaching efficacy (GTE)—teachers’ expectancy beliefs that their effectiveness is
limited by environmental obstacles. Concerns with the Gibson and Dembo measure, and
especially with the GTE factor, led to further discussion about the measurement and validity
of teachers’ self-efficacy. Henson et al. (2001) questioned the continued use of the GTE
subscale due to its problems with reliability and questionable construct validity. Most of the
validity-focused apprehension centered on the external orientation of the GTE factor, which
focused not on a teacher’s confidence or beliefs about capabilities but on external
constraints that influenced student outcomes, e.g., The amount a student can learn is
primarily related to family background. Critics have questioned the validity of this focus on
external determinants of outcomes rather than on teachers’ capabilities to influence
outcomes (e.g., Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001). Researchers and theorists have
subsequently called for increased attention to measurement of teacher efficacy, with a
renewed call for adherence to Bandura’s original conceptualization of self- and collective
efficacy as beliefs about capabilities to carry out individual and collective action in the
service of a desired outcome.
Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:21–43 23
Teachers’ Collective Efficacy
Although Bandura (1997) stressed that the self-efficacy beliefs people hold play an
important role in their functioning, he recognized that individuals do not work as social
isolates and that people form beliefs about the collective capabilities of the group(s) to
which they belong. He defined collective efficacy as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels
of attainments” (Bandura 1997, p. 477). Similar to the role self-efficacy plays in individual
functioning, collective efficacy beliefs affect group performance in diverse fields of
functioning such as business, sports, politics, and education. Teachers’ collective efficacy
refers to the beliefs teachers possess in their collective capabilities to influence the lives of
their students (Bandura 1993). Whereas successful teachers are likely to possess a strong
sense of their own self-efficacy, successful schools are characterized by teachers’ collective
beliefs in their school staff’s capabilities to help students develop and learn.
Studies have shown that teachers’ collective efficacy is significantly related to student
achievement and academic climate, even after controlling for prior student achievement and
key demographic characteristics, such as socioeconomic status (e.g., Bandura 1993;
Goddard 2002). It is hypothesized that the collective efficacy beliefs of teachers are
nourished by the sources believed to influence personal efficacy beliefs—past experience,
vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and group-level emotional arousal—but experi-
enced at the group level (e.g., Goddard and Goddard 2001). When teachers experience
challenges and failures that may lower their individual motivation, these setbacks may be
ameliorated by beliefs in their colleagues’ collective capacity to effect change. Teachers’
collective efficacy beliefs, then, are related to teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, but are an
emergent group property that influence how teachers in a school cope with a variety of
challenges.
Proposed Directions for Teacher Efficacy Research
The year 1998 marked the publication of the influential summary of Tschannen-Moran et
al. of the first generation of teacher efficacy research. The authors were optimistic about
teacher efficacy and described it as standing on the “verge of maturity” (p. 242), with a
“promising and productive” future (p. 242). Since 1998, a number of researchers have
offered guidance about future directions for teacher efficacy research. Goddard et al.
(2004a, b); Henson (2002), and Wheatley (2005) have all authored critiques of teacher
efficacy research based on perceived shortcomings in the field and have provided
thoughtful guidance for researchers. In the section below, we highlight six key elements
the authors have identified as deserving of special attention in future studies.
Proposed Directions from Reviews of Teacher Efficacy
More diverse methodologies
Teacher efficacy researchers and theorists have called for more diverse methodological
approaches and, in particular, more qualitative and longitudinal studies investigating teacher
efficacy. Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) noted in their review that qualitative teacher
efficacy research was “overwhelmingly neglected” (p. 242) and that case study and
qualitative approaches would serve to deepen understanding of how teacher efficacy beliefs
operate. Henson’s 2002 commentary pointed out that most teacher efficacy research
published before the twenty-first century was based on correlational and cross-sectional
data obtained from self-report surveys and suggested that a diversity of methodologies—
experimental, longitudinal, observation, and qualitative—would lead to the maturation of
teacher efficacy research. Similarly, Wheatley’s (2005) critique of teacher efficacy research
called for qualitative studies that emphasized an interpretive focus on teachers’ efficacy
beliefs. In addition to a call for qualitative studies, teacher efficacy commentators pointed
out the need for more longitudinal studies of teacher efficacy as a means to shed light on the
development and stability of teacher efficacy (e.g., Henson 2002; Tschannen-Moran et al.
1998).
Investigation of the sources of teacher efficacy
In addition to increased diversity of methods, teacher efficacy commentators called for an

examination of the sources of teacher efficacy. Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) placed the
sources of teachers’ self-efficacy (i.e., mastery experience, verbal persuasion, vicarious
experience, and physiological arousal) in a prominent position in their model of how
teacher efficacy functions, but acknowledged that little is known about how these sources
operate in practice. Henson (2002) noted that research exploring the sources of teacher self-
efficacy was “practically nonexistent” (p. 142) and issued a call for further research
exploring the validity and potential impact of the hypothesized teacher self-efficacy
sources. Similarly, Goddard et al. (2004a, b) called for further research examining the
sources of teachers’ collective efficacy, questioning whether the hypothesized sources of
teachers’ self-efficacy hold true at the group level. Until recently, research examining the
sources of students’ self-efficacy had been plagued by low reliabilities and questionable
validity, but recent progress has been made through Usher and Pajares’ (2009) efforts to
build a stronger measure of the sources of self-efficacy. Research investigating the sources
of teacher efficacy would help explain the process by which teacher efficacy develops and
might lead to insights into how to better enhance the self- and collective efficacy of
teachers.
Attention to domain specificity
Self-efficacy researchers have differed on how to achieve an optimal level of specificity

where a balance between domain specificity and practical usefulness of results is reached.
Self-efficacy measures are most predictive of future behaviors when measures are narrowly
defined, but they lose generalizability to other settings as specificity increases. Pajares
(1996) warned that “microscopically operationalized” measures lose practical utility, even
as predictive power increases. Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) noted that few teachers’ self-
efficacy measures strike the right balance between specificity and generality and proposed
that their own three-factor measure struck an appropriate balance by measuring a range of
activities common to most teaching contexts. The earliest measures of teacher efficacy (e.g.,
Gibson and Dembo 1984) reflected a broad level of teachers’ sense of efficacy, whereas
later measures (e.g., Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998) narrowed the focus to examine multiple
facets of the teaching environment. More recent studies have examined teachers’
confidence to teach specific subject areas, such as science, reading, and math. Little is
known about the level of specificity of recent teacher efficacy research, and little is known
about domains in which teacher efficacy has been investigated.
Internationalization of teacher efficacy research
Teacher efficacy research began in the USA, and most of the early researchers and theorists
were Americans conducting research with American populations. Recently, teacher efficacy
researchers have called for an exploration of teacher efficacy in a wider variety of cultural
and national settings, mirroring the call in psychology for increased research contributions
from outside of the USA (e.g., Arnett 2008). Exploring teacher motivation in diverse
settings is informative because teaching practices and conditions show considerable
variation within and across countries, and variations in teaching environments and teaching
practices may influence teachers’ beliefs about their roles and responsibilities (Ho and Hau
2004). For example, teachers in East Asian settings may have very different day-to-day
working experiences than teachers in North American settings due to differences in teacher
preparation, induction, professional development, and expectations for student behavior and
achievement (Yeom and Ginsburg 2007). Self-beliefs like self-efficacy may operate
differently in non-Western collectivist settings where beliefs about personal capabilities
might be more strongly influenced by perception of in-group expectations rather than
personal desires and goals (e.g., Klassen et al. 2010). Pajares (2007) called for culturally
attentive research in educational psychology that examines human functioning in social
and cultural contexts, regularly includes samples from diverse social and cultural groups,
and attends to the complex relationships between cultural background, social class, and
motivation beliefs. Ho and Hau noted that teacher efficacy research has proliferated since
the inception of the field, but that most of the research continues to focus on Western
samples. The authors concluded that further investigations are needed in diverse contexts to
extend the generalizability and cultural adequacy of the construct. Investigating the scope of
teacher efficacy research in non-North American settings would illuminate the extent to
which teacher efficacy research has reached into global contexts.
Increased attention on collective efficacy research
Most teacher efficacy research has focused on teachers’ self-efficacy, and teacher efficacy
commentators have called for an increase in studies examining how teachers’ collective
efficacy beliefs influence student and teacher outcomes. Goddard (2001) labeled teachers’
collective efficacy a “neglected construct” (p. 467) in educational research and called for
further research examining the links between teachers’ collective efficacy and student
achievement. Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) noted that relatively little research was
directed at teachers’ collective efficacy and called for inquiries into the interrelationship
between teachers’ self- and collective efficacy and between the organizational climate in a
school and teachers’ collective beliefs. Henson (2002) drew attention to the dearth of
collective teacher efficacy research, noting that although the findings from collective
teacher efficacy studies have been compelling, the research conducted was limited. A
survey of researchers’ responses to the calls for teachers’ collective efficacy has not been
conducted, but the results of such a survey might serve to highlight the progress made in
this research domain.
Resolution of conceptual/measurement problems
Teacher efficacy researchers have singled out measurement of the construct as an area
requiring increased attention. Due to historical problems with teacher efficacy measures
(e.g., Goddard et al. 2004a, b; Henson 2002; Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998), greater
attention to the congruence of measurement with theory has been demanded. Self-efficacy
and collective efficacy refer to judgments about individual and collective capabilities and
are conceptually distinct from other self- and group-referent constructs. Self-efficacy
theorists draw distinctions between beliefs about self- and collective efficacy—forward-
looking beliefs about capability—and beliefs about ability, intentions, or outcome
expectations. For example, whereas beliefs about self-efficacy reflect judgments of
capability, beliefs about self-concept refer to beliefs about current ability, and beliefs about
self-esteem reflect self-worth (Bandura 1997). Numerous researchers have raised concern
about conceptual and psychometric problems in self-efficacy measurement (e.g., Pajares
1996) and specifically about teachers’ self-efficacy measurement (e.g., Henson 2002;
Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998). Cautions have been issued about one of the first measures of
teachers’ self-efficacy—Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale—which was
modeled after the original locus of control-influenced RAND measure of teacher efficacy
(Henson 2002). In order to avoid conceptual and measurement problems that hampered
early teacher efficacy studies, researchers have been encouraged to phrase self-efficacy (or
collective efficacy) items with phrasing reflecting forward-looking capability and
specifically to word items in terms of can, rather than will, e.g., “How confident are you
that you can carry out x task?” (Bong 2006). An examination of teacher efficacy measures
over the last 12 years would draw attention to the attention paid to best measurement
practice.
Purpose of Current Study
Teacher efficacy researchers have written critiques of the state of teacher efficacy research (e.g.,
Goddard 2001; Henson 2002; Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998) and have provided valuable
guidelines and suggestions for future research, but no recent reviews have examined the state
of teacher efficacy research or have investigated how the teacher efficacy research field has
responded to these earlier critical suggestions. A review of the literature over the last 12 years
would let teacher efficacy researchers know how the field has progressed in response to
suggestions provided by earlier reviews and would alert the field to new and continuing
problems needing further attention. Specifically, a review of research from the last 12 years
would inform researchers about the following six questions: How has the field responded to
the call for more diverse methodological approaches to teacher efficacy research? What do
we know about the sources of teacher efficacy? In which academic domains has teacher
efficacy been most studied? Is most research still conducted in North American settings, or
have international researchers embraced teacher efficacy research? How much research
attention has been paid to teachers’ collective efficacy? How have researchers attended to
warnings about conceptual and measurement problems?
The purpose of the current study was to examine teacher efficacy research conducted in
the 12-year period stretching from 1998 to 2009 and, furthermore, to gauge how teacher
efficacy research conducted in this 12-year period grew and changed in comparison to the
research conducted in the preceding 12-year period (i.e., 1986–1997). We chose 1998 as the
starting point for the review in order to build on the influential and comprehensive review
of teacher efficacy research completed by Tschannen-Moran et al. in 1998. In the remainder
of this article, we discuss the state of the research conducted in 1998–2009 vis-à-vis the six
aforementioned questions and compare results with the previous 12 years. After offering
some additional observations, we conclude our study by proposing key suggestions for
researchers for the next generation of teacher efficacy study.
Method
Search strategy and analysis
Studies were selected according to the following procedures. To begin, the PsycINFO, Web of
Science, and ERIC databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles written in English with
“teacher or teachers” and “efficacy or self-efficacy or collective efficacy” in the title in journal
articles published in the 12-year period 1998–2009. We chose to focus on the search terms in
article titles rather than as keywords because we wanted to select articles in which the central
research focus was on teachers’ self-efficacy or collective efficacy. The alternate strategy of
choosing to search for keywords rather than title would have broadened the search and
increased the number of hits, but would also have included articles in which self- and collective
efficacy were not the stated focus of the research. Our title search reflected our choice to
spotlight studies in which teacher efficacy was the primary focus or one of the primary foci of
the research. Previous self-efficacy literature reviews (e.g., Klassen 2002) have used title search
as the main inclusion criterion in order to sharpen the focus of the findings.
The resulting hits were examined to determine if the article: (a) reported one or more empirical
studies published in a journal (not reviews, theoretical articles, or meta-analyses), (b) reported an
empirical measure or other operational definition of teachers’ self- or collective efficacy, and (c)
included participants that were pre-service or practicing teachers in K-12 settings. Next, the
reference sections from the database hits were hand-searched for additional articles with “teacher”
and “efficacy” or “self-efficacy” in article titles. An initial 312 hits were uncovered, of which 94
did not meet the study criteria or were not available. Of the 94 excluded hits, 27 did not report
empirical research or were not published in journals (e.g., the hit referred to an abstract from a
scientific meeting), 12 did not include teachers’ self- or collective efficacy (e.g., “efficacy” was
used to describe effectiveness of an intervention), 24 did not include teachers in the K-12 system
(e.g., included pre-school or post-secondary teachers), 9 were not written in English (in spite of
our search restriction to English language only), and 31 were not available for download or inter-
library loan (e.g., Hacettepe University Journal of Education; note that some of these exclusion
categories overlapped). After exclusions, there were 218 articles left for analysis.
The analysis was designed to capture the breadth of the work conducted in the last 12 years,
with a focus on research characteristics such as methodology, sample attributes, geographical
location of research, and domain of research focus. Although the early years of teacher efficacy
research have been reviewed in previous reports (e.g., Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998), we
repeated our search for the 12-year period preceding our target years; that is, we also
summarized research conducted from 1986 to 1997 in order to provide a baseline for
comparisons for the main search period (1998–2009). The intention of our analysis of teacher
efficacy research was to provide a summary of research direction and focus, to examine
growth and change, and to uncover gaps in the literature that need further investigation.
Findings and Implications
Overview
We compared characteristics of articles published from 1998 to 2009 with articles published
in the 12-year period beginning in 1986 and ending in 1997. The search for “self-efficacy”
or “collective efficacy” and “teacher(s)” for the 1986–1997 period resulted in 68 articles.
Figure 1 presents a graphic overview of the pattern of overall publication, domain-specific
Fig. 1 Characteristics of teacher efficacy research conducted from 1986 to 2009
research, international publications (defined as data collected in non-North American

settings), and prevalence of qualitative and mixed methodologies in articles published from
1986 to 2009. Table 1 presents a statistical comparison of the mean number of articles
published per year from the two 12-year periods. Statistically significantly more articles
were published in the 12 years between 1998 and 2009 than in the 12 years between 1986
and 1997, with a mean of 18.2 articles per year in 1998–2009 (total of 218) and a mean of
5.7 articles per year published in 1986–1997 (total of 68; p<0.001, d=1.72). As shown in
Table 1, similar and statistically significant increases were noted in all categories that were
compared. The results suggest that the quantity of teacher efficacy research published in
peer-reviewed journals has increased significantly, with statistically significant increases in
diversity of methodology, domain specificity, internationalization, and focus on collective
efficacy.
Table 1 Comparison of characteristics of studies conducted from 1986–1997 and 1998–2009
1986–1997 (n=68) 1998–2009 (n=218) p d
M SD M SD
Qualitative and mixed methods 0.58 0.67 4.17 4.10 0.01 1.21
Domain-specific 1.33 1.56 5.67 5.03 0.01 1.17
International 0.75 1.21 7.92 5.83 <0.001 1.70
Collective efficacy 0 0 1.33 1.72 0.01 1.09
Total studies 5.7 2.87 18.2 9.89 <0.001 1.72
Means and standard deviations reflect articles published per year in each 12-year period. Comparison
statistics (p and d) are for total studies in each 12-year period
We also examined changes in proportions of qualitative and mixed methods research,

domain-specific research, international research, and collective efficacy research in the two
time periods. Looking at changes in proportions in these research areas answers the
question of whether or not larger proportions of studies are focused on examining these
areas or whether increases in these areas are largely due to the overall increase in research
production. The results showed that there was no statistically significant change in
proportions of qualitative and mixed methods research from the earlier to the later time
period (p=0.14) or in domain-specific research (p=0.08), but that proportions of
international and collective efficacy research both increased significantly (p’s<0.01).
Diverse methodologies
Table 2 examines the methodologies used in 1998–2009 and provides an overview of

methodology, mean sample size, and range of numbers of participants included in the 218
articles. Most of the studies used quantitative approaches (76.7%), with 8.7% using
exclusively qualitative methods and 14.7% using mixed methods approaches. The majority
of quantitative studies (81.4%) collected data from teachers at one time point using self-
report surveys. Research that moved beyond cross-sectional survey research included Ross
and Bruce’s 2007 randomized field trial that tested the effects on teachers’ self-efficacy of a
professional development program based on the sources of self-efficacy. Schwerdtfeger et
al. (2008) examined the psychobiological correlates (heart rate, heart rate variability, and
cortisol response) of teachers’ self-efficacy in two samples of teachers in Germany and
concluded that teachers’ self-efficacy might act as a psychological and physiological
adaptive resource with a range of positive health consequences. The authors suggest that the
self-efficacy of teachers might serve the role of a physiological “toughening agent” (p. 358)
corresponding with emotional stability and immune system enhancement. Sample sizes
were generally large in the quantitative studies, with a median sample size of 242, with a
range extending from 29 participants to over 26,000 participants. Most of the quantitative
studies (62.3%) used self-report surveys, with smaller proportions using phased or
longitudinal studies (8.7%) and experimental or quasi-experimental approaches (5.5%).
Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) discussed the lack of qualitative research investigating
teacher efficacy, but our results show that there has been an increase in the amount of
qualitative and mixed methods research even if the proportions have not increased
Table 2 Methodology and sample sizes in teacher efficacy studies conducted in 1998–2009 (N=218)
Design/methodology Frequency % of studies Mean sample size Range
Quantitative 167 76.7 620 29–26,257

Qualitative 19 8.7 28 1–193
Mixed Methods 32 14.7 109 4–1386
Total if the QUAN studies 100
Survey 136 62.3 730 43–26,257
Phased/longitudinal 19 8.7 156 29–1203
Experimental/quasi-experimental 12 5.5 106 47–298
Total 100
Studies were counted as “phased/longitudinal” if self-efficacy data were gathered at more than one time
point. Four quantitative studies were not counted in mean/median/range of sample size because they used
schools as number of participants
significantly from 1986 to 1997. A range of data gathering procedures was used in the
qualitative research, including individual interviews (e.g., Cantrell and Callaway 2008),
focus group interviews (e.g., Onafowora 2005), observation of teachers in situ (e.g., Bruce
and Ross 2008), open-ended responses on surveys (e.g., Cheung 2008), and “talk-aloud”
protocols (e.g., Gabriele and Joram 2007). Two case studies of individual teachers were
reported (Milner 2002; Milner and Woolfolk Hoy 2003), with both studies involving
structured interviews, informal conversations, and context observations. Puchner and Taylor
(2006) used a collective case study methodology with inexperienced elementary teachers
and found evidence for the effect of a collaborative approach to teaching, called “lesson
study” (p. 922) on teachers’ self-efficacy. Cheung (2008) used a mixed methods approach,
combining self-report surveys with open-ended questions completed by 86 teachers in
China. In Cheung’s study, teachers were asked to list factors contributing to teacher
efficacy, with three resulting themes: respect or confidence from students and their parents,
training received from teacher preparation programs, and enactive experience gained from
daily teaching. The author concluded that knowledge of the three factors could be of benefit
to other teachers in China and elsewhere.
Examples of longitudinal or phased designs were represented by 8.7% of total studies
represented by this category. Brouwers and Tomic (2000) collected two waves of self-
efficacy and burnout data from 243 Dutch secondary school teachers 5 months apart during
one school year. Using structural equation modeling to explore the direction of the
relationship between self-efficacy and burnout, the authors concluded that teachers’ self-
efficacy had a longitudinal effect on the depersonalization aspect of burnout and a
synchronous effect on emotional exhaustion. Schwarzer and Hallum (2008) measured
teachers’ self-efficacy, general self-efficacy (i.e., broadly defined as efficacy for problem
solving and coping), and burnout in a sample of 458 teachers in Germany with a 1-year
time gap. In results that paralleled results from the Brouwers and Tomic (2000) study, the
results from the Schwarzer and Hallum (2008) study supported the directionality hypothesis
that earlier self-efficacy leads (inversely) to later teacher burnout. Furthermore, the authors
found that job stress played a mediating role in the relationship between self-efficacy and
burnout. Henson (2001) gathered longitudinal quantitative and qualitative data from eight
teachers and three instructional assistants in an alternative school over one school year
(September to May) and found statistical and qualitative evidence of significant gains in
general and personal teaching efficacy over time. Finally, Woolfolk Hoy and Burke Spero
(2005) gathered three waves of self-efficacy data from 29 teachers, with Wave 1 collected
during the first quarter of teacher training, Wave 2 gathered near the end of teacher training
and student teaching, and Wave 3 gathered at the end of the first year of actual teaching.
Results showed an increase in teachers’ self-efficacy from Wave 1 to Wave 2, but a
significant decline after the first year of teaching, with level of efficacy at Wave 3 related to
teachers’ perception of the level of offered support.
Implications
Teacher efficacy researchers have begun to respond to the call for increased diversity of
research methods, with an increasing number of studies adopting qualitative, mixed
methods, and longitudinal designs to explore teacher efficacy. The domination of cross-
sectional survey research continues, however, with modest longitudinal and experimental
work conducted and most longitudinal work investigating teacher efficacy over relatively
brief time periods. Although longitudinal research presents challenges to the researcher
(time, expense, problems with participant retention), it also provides insight into the
development of the phenomenon under study that cross-sectional research cannot address.
Increased attention to the development of teacher efficacy over the career span and in late
career stages is largely absent in the current research. The increase in qualitative research
has resulted in increased attention to explanation of the factors that shape teachers’ efficacy
beliefs. Milner’s case studies (Milner 2002; Milner and Woolfolk Hoy 2003) provide richly
detailed descriptions of fluctuations in the sources of self-efficacy over time and the
influence of ethno-cultural context on teacher efficacy and highlight the oft-repeated
research dictum that context matters in conducting research.
Sources of teacher efficacy
Although a number of researchers have commented that investigating the sources of teacher
efficacy is essential to build a better understanding of how teacher efficacy is formed (e.g.,
Goddard et al. 2004a, b; Henson 2002), only seven studies—most qualitative or mixed
methods—offered empirical explorations of the issue. Adams and Forsyth (2006) found that
contextual factors like school structure, student SES, and grade level influenced the
cognitive processing of teachers’ perceptions of school-level collective efficacy. Bruce and
Ross (2008) collected data from multiple sources (teacher observation, teacher self-report,
and peer coaching summaries) to explore how the sources of teacher self-efficacy operated
in a group of 12 elementary school teachers. The authors found evidence for the influence
of mastery experiences, verbal persuasion, vicarious experience, and physiological and
emotional cues on teacher self-efficacy and concluded that the four sources of teacher
efficacy reinforced one another and led to continued implementation of new and
challenging teaching strategies. Gabriele and Joram (2007) explored the sources of teacher
self-efficacy for ten elementary teachers using a talk-aloud procedure and found differences
in how veteran and new teachers interpreted successful past experiences. The authors
concluded that veteran and new teachers use different sets of criteria for judging efficacy
information and, in particular, the salience of past experiences. Cheung (2008) discovered
that teachers in China noted three sources of teacher efficacy, with only one directly
mapping onto Bandura’s four hypothesized sources. Milner and colleagues (Milner 2002;
Milner and Woolfolk Hoy 2003) conducted a pair of case studies that focused on
examinations of the sources of teacher self-efficacy. Milner (2002) found that verbal
persuasion operated as a critical source of self-efficacy until successful mastery experiences
occurred for a European American high school teacher. Milner and Woolfolk Hoy (2003)
highlighted the importance of contextual factors influencing the self-efficacy of an African
American high school teacher in a predominantly European American school. Memories of
a successful mastery experience proved to be a strong influence on the teacher’s self-
efficacy, as did the physiological and emotional state stemming from the challenges of the
teaching situation. In a randomized field study conducted by Ross and Bruce (2007), the
authors found that teachers receiving profession development based on the four sources of
self-efficacy showed significantly higher self-efficacy for classroom management than
teachers in the control group, but there were no differences for engagement efficacy or
instructional strategies efficacy.
Implications
Insufficient attention has been paid to the sources of teachers’ self- and collective efficacy,
and progress in teacher efficacy research has suffered as a result. A scientific understanding
of teachers’ self- and collective efficacy can only be fostered if reliable and valid
measurements of the sources of teacher efficacy—the very foundation of the construct—are

designed. The related area of student self-efficacy has been well served by recent advances
by Usher (e.g., Usher 2009), but no similar work has been completed for teacher efficacy.
The largely qualitative investigations conducted up to this point set the stage for the
development of quantitative investigations of the sources of teacher efficacy, a development
that is critical for theoretical advancement and practical relevance of the field.
Domain specificity
Table 3 presents the domains of focus in the 218 studies. Most of the studies (93%)
investigated teachers’ self-efficacy, with 7% examining collective efficacy, although the two
categories are not exclusive, with four studies (2%) investigating self- and collective
efficacy. Six studies explored how teachers’ collective efficacy was related to student
achievement, but the six studies represented only three unique data sources. Goddard
(2001) and Goddard et al. (2000) reported different aspects of the validation of a collective
efficacy measure using the same sample of 47 elementary schools, and three studies
(Goddard and LoGerfo 2007; Goddard et al. 2004b; Hoy et al. 2002) reported different
facets of a large-scale study in which teachers’ collective efficacy was found to explain a
large proportion of the between-school variance of 97 high schools in Ohio. In a study of
66 middle schools in Virginia, Tschannen-Moran and Barr (2004) found that collective
efficacy accounted for 18%, 28%, and 14% of the variance in middle school math, writing,
and English scores, respectively, although the variance was reduced after accounting for
school SES. Domain-general self-efficacy studies were most common, representing 60% of
the studies, with self-efficacy for science teaching (15%) the next most frequent area of
inquiry. Smaller proportions of studies examined self-efficacy for teaching with technology
(8%) and other domains (self-efficacy for teaching math, physical education, language and
literacy). A number of domains (e.g., teaching nutrition, character education) were
represented by only single studies.
Implications
Domain-specific teacher efficacy studies increased in number, but not in proportion, from
1986–1997 to 1998–2009. We agree with Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) and others (e.g.,
Table 3 Domains of focus across self-efficacy studies conducted from 1998 to 2009 (N=218)
Study domain of focus Frequency % of all studies
Teachers’ self-efficacy 202 93

General 130 60
Teaching with technology (computers) 17 8
Teaching language and literacy 4 2
Teaching science 32 15
Teaching math 9 4
Teaching physical education/sports 7 3
Teachers’ collective efficacy 26 12
Only domains with two or more studies are listed. Only one study reflected the following domains: social
studies, psychology, school climate, early intervention, character education, and engineering. Some studies
measured both TSE and TCE, so the TSE and TCE frequencies do not add up to 100%
Bong 2006) that gauging the specificity level of self- and collective efficacy presents
“thorny issues” (Tschannen-Moran et al., p. 219). On the one hand, an increase in domain-
specific research presents the opportunity for teachers to provide context-specific judgments
about specific teaching behaviors. On the other hand, investigating teachers’ self-efficacy to
incorporate technology in the classroom may not provide much theoretically useful
information for researchers or practical information for teachers in broader domains.
Overall, we endorse the continuing two-pronged approach to teacher efficacy research that
includes multifaceted general teacher efficacy relevant to most teaching situations, along
with domain-specific measures that may lack relevance for some groups of teachers.
Teacher characteristics: internationalization and teaching levels
Table 4 describes the sample characteristics—teaching level and geographical location—of

the participants in the 218 studies. We found that teacher efficacy research conducted in non-
North American settings showed a statistically significant increase in 1998–2009 in
comparison to the preceding 12 years, and proportionately more research was conducted
outside of North American in 1998–2009 compared to 1986–1997. It should be emphasized
that our decision to search only English language journals likely resulted in an
underestimation of the internationalization of teacher efficacy research. Over one quarter of
studies investigated the efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers, and about one quarter of the
studies included participants from multiple teaching levels. Elementary school teachers were
well represented with 24% of the participants from that level, and high school teachers were
the target of investigation in 15% of the studies. Only six studies were focused solely on
middle school teachers. Most of the studies (57%) included participants from North America,
along with representation from Asia (15%) and Europe (18%). Weaker representation was
found from the southern hemisphere, with modest proportions of research from Oceania (i.e.,
Australia and New Zealand at 5%), South America (<1%), and Africa (2%). Six studies were
cross-cultural investigations that included participants from multiple countries.
Table 4 Sample characteristics of participants (N=218)
Frequency % of all studies
Teaching level
Pre-service teachers 64 29
Elementary school teachers 52 24
Middle school teachers 6 3
High school teachers 33 15
Multiple levels 54 25
Not specified 9 4
Continent of study participants
North America 124 57
Asia 33 15
Europe 39 18
Oceania 10 5
South America 1 <1
Africa 5 2
Multiple locations 6 3
Implications
Pajares (2007) called for a “culturalizing (of) educational psychology” (p. 19) that would
result in enhanced understanding of how cultural variations influence motivation. The
results from this review reveal impressive progress towards a more culturalized and
globalized understanding of teacher efficacy. One striking finding is the internationalization
of teacher efficacy research, with researchers and samples representing many regions of the
world, and our findings likely underestimate the level of internationalization due to our
English-focused search procedure. Just over half of the articles reported samples
exclusively from the USA, and teacher efficacy research shows strong representation from
Asia and Europe, although with very modest representation from South America and
Africa. Within Asia, researchers and samples from Hong Kong and Singapore dominated
the studies, likely due to historical and current emphasis on English as a language of
instruction in many schools and universities and the resulting research and publication in
English language journals. The lack of representation of research from India in relation to
its regional and international impact is a glaring omission in the teacher efficacy research.
The internationalization of teacher efficacy research presents clear benefits for the field;
researchers that test theories in diverse contexts provide evidence for validity and
universality of the theory under study.
The range of settings notwithstanding, research conducted in diverse locales does not
automatically lead to a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between culture
and motivation. As an example, the impressive research program conducted by Caprara and
his colleagues (Caprara et al. 2003a, b, 2006) in Italy provides an illumination of how
teacher efficacy operates in Italian schools, but does not directly provide enlightenment
about how cultural beliefs differentially influence teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Similarly,
Chan’s (2008a, b, c, d) series of teacher efficacy studies situated in Hong Kong may lead
theorists to conclude that teacher efficacy appears to operate in more or less similar ways in
Hong Kong as it does in the USA, but without an explicit cross-cultural comparison
providing evidence; the conclusions about cultural similarities or differences are founded on
speculation. Fostering knowledge that illuminates the relationship between cultural
environment and teacher efficacy requires deliberate attempts to unpack culturally based
differences, typically accomplished through the research approaches associated with
cultural psychology or cross-cultural psychology.
Researchers have responded well to the calls to increase attention to the efficacy beliefs
of teachers at a variety of teaching levels, including pre-service teachers (Tschannen-Moran
et al. 1998). Pre-service, elementary, and high school teachers were all well represented in
the research, with less attention paid to the efficacy beliefs of middle school teachers.
Investigations that differentiate between teaching levels add to knowledge of how context
influences teacher efficacy beliefs.
Teachers’ collective efficacy research
Research investigating teachers’ collective efficacy has grown over the last 12 years, with
significantly more studies investigating collective efficacy in the 1998–2009 time period
compared to the previous 12-year period. Goddard’s work in this area has been
foundational and provided much of the initial impetus in collective efficacy research, with
the creation of an oft-used measure (e.g., Goddard 2002) and with the establishment of
links between teachers’ collective efficacy and student achievement (e.g., Goddard et al.
2004a, b). Other researchers have explored teachers’ collective efficacy outside of
American settings, notably in Italy, Hong Kong, Norway, Israel, and in English- and
French-speaking regions of Canada. However, in spite of the impressive progress made
over the last dozen years, the maturity of teachers’ collective efficacy research in 2009 is
still undecided, with little research adopting qualitative or longitudinal approaches and only
modest understanding of how teachers’ collective efficacy is influenced by context.
Conceptual definitions of collective efficacy were congruent with Bandura’s definition.
Caprara et al. (2003a, b) defined collective efficacy as judgments that people make about
groups and their capabilities and effectiveness in specific domains of action. Goddard et al.
(2004a, b) defined teachers’ collective efficacy as “the judgment of teachers in a school that
the faculty as a whole can organize and execute the courses of action required to have a
positive effect on students” (p. 4). Tschannen-Moran and Barr (2004) defined teachers’
collective efficacy as “the collective self-perception that teachers in a given school make an
educational difference to their students over and above the educational impact of their
homes and communities” (p. 188).
The actual measures of collective efficacy showed less fidelity with theory. The most
widely used measures of collective efficacy were variations of the 21-item measure created
by Goddard et al. (2000) or the12-item short form revised by Goddard (2002). Although
Goddard and colleagues’ work in designing a reliable measure of collective efficacy
advanced teacher motivation research, some of the content of the measures displays a lack
of congruence with theory. Using the short form as an example, several items refer to
environmental characteristics believed to influence teacher beliefs, e.g., “These students
come to school ready to learn,” and “Homelife provides so many advantages the students
here are bound to learn” (Goddard 2002, p. 107). Other items focus on teachers’ current
abilities rather than the more theoretically congruent forward-looking capabilities, a subtle
but important distinction in efficacy theory, e.g., “Teachers here don’t have the skills
needed to produce meaningful student learning” (Goddard 2002, p. 107). Additional
measures of teachers’ collective efficacy included item content that was incongruent with
efficacy theory. Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2000) used variations of a measure that
included items such as “The teachers of this school have excellent job skills” and “Team
teachers that can perform their jobs as well as this team are rare” (p. 653). Other scales
examined in this review, however, were more congruent with efficacy theory. Chan (2008c)
used a scale focusing on teachers’ collective certainty that they could carry out a set of tasks
and Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) focused on capability to carry out a task (i.e., “we can get
even the most difficult students engaged in their schoolwork,” p. 615). Several studies used
Tschannen-Moran and Barr’s (2004) collective efficacy scale, a 12-item scale focusing on
teachers’ collective capabilities, e.g., “How much can teachers in your school do to produce
meaningful student learning?” (p. 196), displaying a closer congruence to collective
efficacy theory. Measurement issues and congruence with established theory are a serious
problem affecting collective efficacy research.
Implications
If teachers’ self-efficacy research was described as being “on the verge of maturity” in 1998
(Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998), the same might be said for the current status of collective
efficacy research. Research attention has increased, but what we know about teachers’
collective efficacy is not very substantial, with almost nothing known about how collective
efficacy beliefs are formed in school settings. We found only two studies examining
teachers’ collective efficacy using a qualitative approach (Puchner and Taylor 2006; Rivard
et al. 2004) and no studies exploring teachers’ collective beliefs using a longitudinal design.
As a result, little is known about how context influences teachers’ collective efficacy and
how collective efficacy changes over time. Although impressive progress has been made, it
is equally clear that the adult status ascribed to teachers’ self-efficacy research has not yet
been attained by research in teachers’ collective efficacy and that measurement problems
have hampered research growth.
Measurement and conceptual problems
Use of conceptually troubled measures plagues teacher efficacy research. Almost one third
of teachers’ self-efficacy studies in our search used variations of the conceptually troubled
Gibson and Dembo (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), notwithstanding the prominent
warnings offered by Henson (2002), Henson et al. (2001), and Tschannen-Moran and
Woolfolk Hoy (2001). Chief among the conceptual difficulties in the Teacher Efficacy Scale
and its variants is a focus on teachers’ beliefs about their control of student outcomes
(originating in locus of control theories) rather than a focus on the teachers’ capabilities to
effectively teach students. A lack of conceptual clarity was not restricted to global measures
of teacher efficacy, and use of domain-specific measures, like the Science Teaching
Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (Riggs and Enochs 1990), based on the flawed foundations of
Gibson and Dembo’s TES, proliferated in teachers’ efficacy for science teaching. Other
measures labeled as self-efficacy were conceptually incongruent with self-efficacy tenets.
As an example (and there are many other studies that could serve the purpose), Betoret
(2006) used a seven-item measure that focused on teachers’ efficacy for instructional
processes and classroom management. However, the measure was made up of items that do
not clearly fall within accepted definitions of self-efficacy beliefs and reflected beliefs about
perceptions of current ability based on past performance rather than capability to carry out a
course of action, e.g., “I have sometimes had the feeling of not being cut out for this
profession” (p. 523). The examination of current abilities based on past performance was
seen in other studies. Tournaki and Podell (2005) asked teachers to reflect on past
experiences rather than on forward-looking capabilities, e.g., “When a student does better
than usual, many times it is because I exerted a little extra effort” (p. 303). Other measures
purporting to measure teachers’ self-efficacy strayed even further from theory-based
understanding of the construct, e.g., “I suffer from self-doubts” (Evers et al. 2005, p. 40), “I
believe I enjoy a good rapport with the administrators at my school” (Friedman and Kass
2002, p. 682), “Few teachers in my school can do a better job than I can” (Somech and
Drach-Zahavy 2000, p. 653), and “I feel good about myself” (Tobin et al. 2006, p. 315). In
total, almost one half of the 218 studies used measures that were not congruent with the
Bandurian concepts of self- and collective efficacy theory and did not assess teachers’
confidence or capabilities to carry out a course of action. These measures can be considered
conceptually suspect, and results from these studies may result in misleading conclusions
about how teacher self- and collective efficacy motivates behavior.
Examples of close congruence with self-efficacy theory were also found in a number of
studies. The series of studies by Caprara and colleagues included measures that focused on
teachers’ forward-looking capabilities, e.g., “I can get even the most resistant and difficult
students to attend to class work” (Caprara et al. 2003a, b, p. 824). Likewise, the short and
long version of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES, but also labeled the Ohio State
Teacher Efficacy Scale [OSTES] in some studies) created by Tschannen-Moran and
Woolfolk Hoy (2001) was used in 16 of the studies. The TSES includes three factors
(efficacy for instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement) and
is composed of items with the stem “To what extent can you…?” and “How much can you
do to…?” which both assess teachers’ capabilities to carry out a particular course of actions.
Two other studies explicitly based their self-efficacy measures on Bandura’s work. Paneque
and Barbetta (2006) used Bandura’s Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales (now most
readily accessible in Bandura 2006), and Rimm-Kaufman and Sawyer (2004) adapted their
measure from Bandura’s 1993 article, with items such as, “How much can you do to control
disruptive behavior in the classroom?” The measures most congruent with self-efficacy
theory attended closely to (a) context specificity (judgments related to specific outcomes)
and (b) a focus on capabilities to carry out a particular course of action.
Implications
Much of the teacher efficacy research continues to use discredited, poorly conceptualized, and
flawed measures. Mis-measurement has “plagued” research in self-efficacy (Pajares 1996,
p. 547), partly due to the fact that self- and collective efficacy measures have to be adapted to
fit the domain of functioning. Two key measurement problems were encountered in
problematic measures used in this review: a lack of focus on measuring capability versus
intentions or current ability and a misconceptualized focus on outcome expectancy as a part
of self- and collective efficacy. Bandura (1997, 2006) clearly distinguishes between efficacy
beliefs and outcome expectancies, with the former assessing judgment of capabilities for
various types of performances and the latter measuring outcomes that are expected to result
from these performances. Peoples’ beliefs about outcomes are dependent on their judgments
of their beliefs in their capabilities to perform in given settings (Bandura 2006). Researchers
using flawed efficacy measures are doubtless well-intentioned, but findings from the studies
using flawed measures can lead to misleading conclusions, as well as a kind of definitional
entropy where the meaning of carefully defined psychological constructs lose precision over
time, eventually losing predictive power and theoretical distinctiveness.
Additional observations
During the review process, we noted the predominance of research focusing on the
relationship of teacher efficacy with other within-teacher factors (e.g., job satisfaction or job
stress) and the relative lack of attention paid to how teacher efficacy influences student
outcomes. According to theory, teachers’ sense of individual and collective efficacy
promotes positive teaching practices that in turn should result in enhanced student learning.
After completing our initial review of the literature, we examined the 286 retrieved articles
to better understand the links between teachers’ self- and collective efficacy and a variety of
student outcomes. For the initial 12-year period (1986–1997), we found 3 of 68 studies
(4.4%) that examined the links between teacher efficacy and student outcomes. For the
second 12-year period (1998–2009), we found 6 of 218 studies (2.8%) that examined the
links between teacher efficacy and student outcomes. The three studies found in the initial
12-year period that linked teacher efficacy with student outcomes all examined teachers’
self-efficacy using the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson and Dembo 1984), with ambiguous
results. Anderson et al. (1988) found that teacher efficacy related to student performance on
standardized achievement tests for grade 3 students, but not for grade 6 students. Ross
(1992) found that personal teaching efficacy (but not general teaching efficacy)
significantly predicted students’ performance on standardized achievement measures. Ross
(1994) found that the students of teachers whose efficacy changed the most over an 8-
month period reported lower willingness to provide help to weaker students in a
cooperative learning situation.
Four of the six studies linking teacher efficacy and student outcomes in the 1998–2009
time period examined teachers’ collective efficacy, with results showing positive relation-
ships between school-level collective efficacy and school-level achievement, with beta
weights ranging from 0.09 to 0.51 (mean β=0.24). The relationships between teachers’ self-
efficacy and student outcomes were modest in Caprara et al.’s 2006 study, where the
authors reported a beta weight of 0.024 between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’
achievement on final examinations 1 year later. Ross et al. (2001) also used a longitudinal
design in their investigation of the influence of teachers’ self-efficacy for computer
instruction and computer use on students’ computer skills and self-efficacy. The results
supported the expectation that changes in teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs were associated
with students’ computer skills and computer self-efficacy, although bivariate correlations
between teacher and student efficacy were modest, ranging from 0.01 to 0.29 (mean r=
0.16). Overall, we found only modest empirical support for the theorized connections
between teacher efficacy and student outcomes.
Conclusions
Teacher efficacy research was characterized as approaching maturity by researchers in

1998 (Tschannen-Moran et al.) and 2002 (Henson), but questions remain about the
continuing growth in the field and about how much attention researchers have paid to the
guidance given by experts in the field. There is no question that the pace of research has
increased: our search found more than three times as many studies focusing on teacher
efficacy published in 1998–2009 compared to the previous 12-year period, and our title-
only inclusion approach did not include research where teacher efficacy might have been
a secondary focus. Teacher efficacy researchers have been responsive to the proffered
advice, with significantly more qualitative and mixed methods, domain-specific,
international, and collective efficacy research conducted than in the preceding 12 years.
In addition to the overall growth in productivity levels, proportionately more researchers
are conducting collective efficacy research and research outside of North American
settings. In light of the impressive growth in research productivity in this area, it is
important to acknowledge the progress made, identify the problems remaining, and offer
suggestions for future studies.
It should be noted that several limitations influence the findings of this review. The
review is not exhaustive, and our sample of English language articles with the words
“teacher” and “efficacy” in the title did not capture the population of possible articles. In
our defense, an exhaustive review covering all teacher efficacy articles (i.e., including
theses and dissertations, non-English language publications, unpublished articles) would
have been beyond our resources, but we are confident that our sample of articles represents
the state of the field. Future reviewers may uncover new patterns in teacher efficacy
research by searching non-English journals and by examining the range of work completed
in graduate theses and dissertations. Our title-only search procedure uncovered articles
whose central focus was on teacher efficacy and the results from our search likely
represents the state of the art in the field even if isolated articles are not included.
Nevertheless, interpretation of our findings should be prefaced by an acknowledgment of
the limitations of our inclusion restrictions. In addition, a detailed exploration of the
strength of relationship between teacher efficacy and assorted outcomes was beyond the
scope of our review. A meta-analytic investigation of teacher efficacy research is past due
and would prove useful to advance the field.
Key research problems and future directions
Our review of recent research highlights the progress made in the field, but also uncovers
gaps in the literature and identifies problems that continue to affect the research and hamper
further growth. In order for teacher efficacy research to continue to develop and make a
lasting impact on practice, we propose four key research problems and avenues for future
directions that deserve particular attention in the next stage of teacher efficacy research.
First, insufficient attention has been paid to the sources of teachers’ self- and collective
efficacy, and our understanding of teacher efficacy has suffered as a result. Henson’s 2002
description of research investigating the sources of teacher efficacy as almost nonexistent
continues to apply to the field, with surprisingly scant examination of how the sources
form, develop, and change over time. The four sources of efficacy beliefs—enactive
mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and interpretation of
physiological and affective states—may vary across the career span and possibly across
cultures (e.g., Cheung 2008; Gabriele and Joram 2007), but reliable measures of the sources
of efficacy beliefs for teachers have not yet been created, so further research in the field has
been stymied.
Building an understanding of how efficacy beliefs are formed provides an essential
foundation for continuing research, but most researchers uncritically defer to Bandura’s
hypothesis that there are four sources that contribute to the formation of self- and
collective efficacy beliefs. Recent research conducted by Tschannen-Moran and
McMaster (2009) only weakly supported the effects of the hypothesized sources on
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, and further research in the area is clearly needed. Although
Bandura’s initial hypothesis about the four sources of efficacy beliefs has been useful
from a theoretical viewpoint, teacher efficacy researchers have been slow in testing the
hypothesis, and research investigating the sources of teachers’ collective efficacy (or
collective efficacy in general) is generally missing in the literature. The sources of
students’ self-efficacy research conducted by Usher and colleagues (e.g., Usher 2009;
Usher and Pajares 2009) moves the field ahead by investigating efficacy sources in a
systematic way, and the results will prove a springboard to better understanding how
students’ self-efficacy is formed. Unfortunately, similar studies investigating the sources
of teacher efficacy have not yet been conducted, and growth in the field will be restricted
until a more sophisticated understanding of the sources of teacher efficacy is developed.
Research on the sources of teacher efficacy will also lay the groundwork for the
application of theory to practice. For example, before theory-based applications to
enhance pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy can be developed, the theoretical foundation
needs to be more firmly established. Investigating the sources of teacher efficacy is a
priority for future teacher efficacy research.
The second problem, invalid measurement, is perhaps the most disheartening to
encounter in this review because clear warnings have been given about measurement
problems by key self-efficacy researchers in prominent journals (e.g., Henson 2002; Pajares
1996; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001). Operationalizing psychological
constructs is always challenging, but experts in the field have provided unambiguous
instructions for creating theoretically sound measures of self- and collective efficacy.
Detailed advice about creating efficacy measures is beyond the scope of this article, but
measures of self-efficacy should reflect judgments of forward-looking capability, not
current ability or external constraints, and should be phrased with can, rather than will, e.g.,
“How confident are you that you can complete your homework?” Researchers investigating
teachers’ self- and collective efficacy will do well to heed the clear guidance provided by
experts in the field and to study the excellent advice offered by Bandura in his Guide for
Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales (2006) or to spend time absorbing the lessons taught by
other self-efficacy researchers such as Bong (2006) and Pajares (1996) who provide
guidelines for constructing self- and collective efficacy measures. For researchers looking
to incorporate existing measures of domain-general teacher efficacy measures, we
recommend the teachers’ self- and collective efficacy measures created by Tschannen-
Moran and colleagues (e.g., Tschannen-Moran and Barr 2004; Tschannen-Moran and
Woolfolk Hoy 2001). These measures show considerably more congruence with self-
efficacy theory than many of the other measures in the studies we reviewed.
Third, the research foundation supporting the connection between teachers’ efficacy and
student outcomes is not as strong as is assumed by most researchers. Relatively few studies—
2.8% of total studies from 1998 to 2009—have been conducted that link teachers’ efficacy with
student outcomes, with only two studies (0.09% of total studies) examining the relationship
between teachers’ self-efficacy and student outcomes. Most studies found in this review
examined the validity of new or existing measures or explored the correlation of teacher
efficacy with other teacher or school variables, such as job stress and burnout, job satisfaction,
or school factors. When studies examined the links between teachers’ self-efficacy and student
outcomes, the results were modest. Perhaps surprisingly, more attention has been paid to the
links between teachers’ collective efficacy and student outcomes, with the work of Goddard
and colleagues showing links between teachers’ collective efficacy and school-level
achievement. Establishing a stronger research base that provides evidence for links between
teachers’ self-efficacy and student outcomes are needed, especially at the classroom level where
the influence of teacher characteristics plays a critical role in influencing student achievement
(e.g., Wright et al. 1997).
The final problem that became increasingly evident to us as we reviewed the large body of
research covered in this review is a problem faced by many education researchers: how can the
cumulative body of research be made more relevant to practice? With little information gleaned
about the sources of teacher efficacy, and only modest connections between teachers’ efficacy
and student outcomes, we wondered how teacher efficacy could be enhanced, and if it were
enhanced, how student learning would be affected. We empathized with teacher efficacy
researcher Wheatley (2005) who recounted his feelings of helplessness in the face of a request
from a school principal for research-based, yet practical, advice to help improve student
learning in his school. The challenge inherent in making research and theory relevant to
practice and practitioners is not a new one and was grappled with by William James, who
was able to offer only modest counsel to teachers regarding the application of psychology to
teaching (Pajares 2003). The gap between educational research and practice may be growing
because the diversity and needs within our education communities are increasing, yet many
researchers continue to neglect important facets of local contexts. For teacher efficacy
researchers, three foci may lead to greater relevance. First, researchers would do well to
renew their focus on understanding how teacher efficacy is fostered by teacher education
programs, the study of which requires a focus on the sources of teacher efficacy and a clearer
understanding of how efficacy beliefs change over time (i.e., through longitudinal research).
Second, research value would be enhanced through teacher–researcher collaborations in
which teachers and researchers would work together to identify critical issues and to develop
research questions, resulting in a more finely tuned understanding of how teacher efficacy
influences day-to-day classroom practice. Finally, additional research that carefully inves-
tigates how teacher efficacy affects student outcomes is clearly needed. Collaborative and
school-based research projects that address the relationship of teacher efficacy to student
learning may result in findings that are relevant and useful to teachers.
The future of teacher efficacy research
The title of the article poses an evaluative question about teacher efficacy research in the last
12 years: has the field made noticeable progress, or has the early promise of this “simple idea
with significant implications” (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001, p. 783) remained
unfulfilled? The results of this review inevitably point to both outcomes. Much progress has
been made in the last 12 years, with a steadily increasing rate of publication and with
impressive increases in methodological diversity, domain specificity, internationalization, and
focus on collective efficacy. At the same time, there is evidence of a failure to keep the
momentum observed at the bright beginnings of this research field, especially with
insufficient attention paid to the sources of teacher efficacy, a dearth of research showing
links between teacher efficacy and student outcomes, and a lack of conceptual clarity in
measuring the construct. We believe that the current review has provided readers with a better
understanding of the growth and continuing difficulties in teacher efficacy research conducted
over the last 12 years and has offered some ideas for improvement for the next several
decades of research.
References
Adams, C. M., & Forsyth, P. B. (2006). Proximate sources of collective teacher efficacy. Journal of
Educational Administration, 44, 625–642.
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.
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. The
American Psychologist, 63, 602–614.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84,
191–215.
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: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy
beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among secondary school
teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology, 26, 519–539.
Bong, M. (2006). Asking the right question: How confident are you that you could successfully perform
these tasks? In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 287–305).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in
classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 239–253.
Bruce, C. D., & Ross, J. A. (2008). A model for increasing reform implementation and teacher efficacy:
Teacher peer coaching in grades 3 and 6 mathematics. Canadian Journal of Education, 31, 346–370.
Cantrell, S. C., & Callaway, P. (2008). High and low implementers of content literacy instruction: Portraits of
teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies,
24, 1739–1750.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., Petitta, L., & Rubinacci, A. (2003a). Teachers’, school staff’s
and parents’ efficacy beliefs as determinants of attitudes toward school. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 18, 15–31.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003b). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of
teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 821–832.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as
determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level.
Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473–490.
Chan, D. W. (2008a). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong
Kong. Educational Psychology, 28, 181–194.
Chan, D. W. (2008b). Emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and coping among Chinese prospective and in-
service teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 28, 397–408.
Chan, D. W. (2008c). General, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy among Chinese
prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International
Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 1057–1069.
Chan, D. W. (2008d). Teacher self-efficacy and successful intelligence among Chinese secondary school
teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 28, 735–746.
Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Teacher efficacy: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghai primary in-
service teachers. Australian Educational Researcher, 35, 103–123.
Evers, W., Tomic, W., & Brouwers, A. (2005). Does equity sensitivity moderate the relationship between
self-efficacy beliefs and teacher burnout? Representative Research in Social Psychology, 28, 35–46.
Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization conceptualization.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 675–686.
Gabriele, A. J., & Joram, E. (2007). Teachers’ reflections on their reform-based teaching in mathematics:
Implications for the development of teacher self-efficacy. Action in Teacher Education, 29, 60–74.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: Construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology,
76, 569–582.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 467–476.
Goddard, R. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective efficacy: The
development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 97–110.
Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and
collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807–818.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure,
and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479–507.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004a). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical
developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–13.
Goddard, R. D., & LoGerfo, L. F. (2007). Measuring emergent organizational properties: A structural
equation modeling test of self- versus group-referent perceptions. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 67, 845–858.
Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2004b). High school accountability: The role of perceived
collective efficacy. Educational Policy, 18, 403–425.
Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17, 819–836.
Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement
dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 137–150.
Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the
teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61,
404–420.
Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: Similarities and differences in personal
instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants. Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 20, 313–323.
Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high
schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 77–93.
Klassen, R. M. (2002). Writing in early adolescence: A review of the role of self-efficacy beliefs.
Educational Psychology Review, 14, 173–203.
Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (2010). Teachers’ collective efficacy, job satisfaction, and job
stress in cross-cultural context. Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 464–486.
Milner, H. R. (2002). A case study of an experienced English teacher’s self-efficacy and persistence through
“crisis” situations: Theoretical and practical considerations. High School Journal, 86, 28–35.
Milner, H. R., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2003). A case study of an African American teacher’s self-efficacy,
stereotype threat, and persistence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 263–276.
Onafowora, L. L. (2005). Teacher efficacy issues in the practice of novice teachers. Educational Research
Quarterly, 28, 34–43.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
Pajares, F. (2003). William James: Our father who begat us. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.),
Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 41–64). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Pajares, F. (2007). Culturalizing educational psychology. In F. Salili & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Culture,
motivation, and learning (pp. 19–42). Charlotte: Information Age.
Paneque, O. M., & Barbetta, P. M. (2006). A study of teacher efficacy of special education teachers of
English language learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 171–193.
Puchner, L. D., & Taylor, A. R. (2006). Lesson study, collaboration and teacher efficacy: Stories from two
school-based math lesson study groups. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of
Research and Studies, 22, 922–934.
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.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes
toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the responsive classroom
approach. Elementary School Journal, 104, 321.
Rivard, J. J., Follo, E. J., & Walsh, C. M. (2004). Teacher empowerment through the development of
individual and collective teacher efficacy. ERS Spectrum, 22, 34–39.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect 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 and Teacher Education, 10, 381–394.
Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of randomized
field trial. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 50–60.
Ross, J. A., Hogaboom-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on computer skills and
computer cognitions of Canadian students in grades k-3. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 141–156.
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 152–171.
Schwerdtfeger, A., Konermann, L., & Schönhofen, K. (2008). Self-efficacy as a health-protective resource in
teachers? A biopsychological approach. Health Psychology, 27, 358–368.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors,
perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611–625.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The relationships
between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 16, 649–659.
Tobin, T. J., Muller, R. O., & Turner, L. M. (2006). Organizational learning and climate as predictors of self-
efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 301–319.
Tournaki, N., & Podell, D. M. (2005). The impact of student characteristics and teacher efficacy on teachers’
predictions of student success. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 299–314.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher
efficacy and student achievement. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 3, 189–209.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional development
formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. Elementary
School Journal, 110, 228–245.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure.
Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Usher, E. L. (2009). Sources of middle school students’ self-efficacy in mathematics: A qualitative
investigation of student, teacher, and parent perspectives. American Educational Research Journal, 46,
275–314.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 34, 89–101.
Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, 747–766.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching:
A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343–356.
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement:
Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.
Yeom, M., & Ginsburg, M. (2007). Professionalism and the reform of teachers and teacher education in the
Republic of Korea and the United States of America. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8, 298–310.
Copyright of Educational Psychology Review is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Teacher Efficacy Research 1998 - 2009: Signs of Progress or Unfulfilled Promise?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teacher Efficacy Research 1998 - 2009: Signs of Progress or Unfulfilled Promise?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:21–43

Teacher Efficacy Research 1998–2009: Signs of Progress

Robert M. Klassen & Virginia M. C. Tze & Shea M. Betts &

Published online: 24 August 2010

Keywords Teachers . Self-efficacy . Collective efficacy

R. M. Klassen (*) : V. M. C. Tze : S. M. Betts : K. A. Gordon

According to Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory, self-efficacy beliefs refer to

Teachers’ Collective Efficacy

Proposed Directions for Teacher Efficacy Research

Proposed Directions from Reviews of Teacher Efficacy

More diverse methodologies

Investigation of the sources of teacher efficacy

In addition to increased diversity of methods, teacher efficacy commentators called for an

Attention to domain specificity

Self-efficacy researchers have differed on how to achieve an optimal level of specificity

Internationalization of teacher efficacy research

Increased attention on collective efficacy research

Resolution of conceptual/measurement problems

Purpose of Current Study

Search strategy and analysis

Findings and Implications

Fig. 1 Characteristics of teacher efficacy research conducted from 1986 to 2009

research, international publications (defined as data collected in non-North American

Table 1 Comparison of characteristics of studies conducted from 1986–1997 and 1998–2009

1986–1997 (n=68) 1998–2009 (n=218) p d

We also examined changes in proportions of qualitative and mixed methods research,

Table 2 examines the methodologies used in 1998–2009 and provides an overview of

Design/methodology Frequency % of studies Mean sample size Range

Quantitative 167 76.7 620 29–26,257

Sources of teacher efficacy

measurements of the sources of teacher efficacy—the very foundation of the construct—are

Study domain of focus Frequency % of all studies

Teachers’ self-efficacy 202 93

Teacher characteristics: internationalization and teaching levels

Table 4 describes the sample characteristics—teaching level and geographical location—of

Table 4 Sample characteristics of participants (N=218)

Frequency % of all studies

Teachers’ collective efficacy research

Measurement and conceptual problems

Teacher efficacy research was characterized as approaching maturity by researchers in

Key research problems and future directions

The future of teacher efficacy research

You might also like