Journal of Educational Psychology „ it 1984 by the

1984, Vol. 76, No. 4,669-682 American Pi . Association, Inc.

Teacher Efficacy: A Construct Validation

Sherri Gibson Myron H. Dembo
Clovis Unified School District University of Southern California
Clovis, California

Teacher efficacy has been identified as a variable accounting for individual

differences in teaching effectiveness. The purpose of the present study was
to develop an instrument to measure teacher efficacy, provide construct vali-
dation support for the variable, and examine the relationship between teacher
efficacy and observable teacher behaviors. Factor analysis of responses from
elementary school teachers to a 30-item Teacher Efficacy Scale yielded two
substantial factors that corresponded to Bandura's two-factor theoretical
model of self-efficacy. A multitrait-multimethod analysis that supported
both convergent and discriminant validity analyzed data from teachers on
three traits (teacher efficacy, verbal ability, and flexibility) across two meth-
ods of measurement. Finally, classroom observation data related to academic
focus and teacher feedback behaviors indicated differences between high- and
low-efficacy teachers in time spent in whole class versus small group instruc-
tion, teacher use of criticism, and teacher lack of persistence in failure situa-
tions.

There is evidence that teachers' beliefs
in their abilities to instruct students may
account for individual differences in effec-
tiveness (Armor et al., 1976; Herman &
McLaughlin, 1977; Brookover et al., 1978;
Brophy & Bvertson, 1977). Berman and
McLaughlin (1977), in their evaluation of
100 Title III projects of the 1965 Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, found that
the most important characteristic deter-
mining the effectiveness of change-agent
projects was teachers' sense of efficacy—a
belief that teachers can help even the most
difficult or unmotivated students. Armor
et al. (1976) reached a similar conclusion in
evaluating the effectiveness of the School
Preferred Reading Program in Los Angeles.
These researchers reported that the greater
the teachers' efficacy, the more their stu-
dents advanced in reading achievement.
The measure of teachers' sense of efficacy in
both of these studies was derived from two
questions based on Rotter's (1966) locus of
control construct.
Brookover et al. (1978), in their investi-
gation of school climate variables influencing
achievement, found that teachers in high-
Requests for reprints should be sent to Sherri Gibson,
Director, Auxiliary Education, Clovis, California
93612.
569
achieving schools spent longer proportions
of time in instruction and demonstrated
greater concern and commitment to their
students' achievement. In addition, al-
though the authors did not specifically refer
to teacher efficacy, Brophy and Evertson
(1977) reported that teachers who were
successful in producing student learning
gains in the Texas Teacher Effectiveness
Study tended to have higher expectations
and assumed personal responsibility for
making sure that students learned. If these
teachers encountered difficulties, they
viewed them as obstacles to be overcome by
discovering appropriate teaching methods,
not as indicators that the students could not
learn.
Although the importance of teachers'
sense of efficacy has been identified, re-
searchers are not certain how to conceptu-
alize and adequately measure the construct.
Denham and Michael (1981) and Ashton and
Webb (1982) developed multidimensional
models of teacher efficacy that were in-
fluenced by Bandura's (1977, 1978) con-
ceptualization of self-efficacy. Bandura
(1977) argued that although locus of control
is primarily concerned with causal beliefs
about action-outcome contingencies or a
person's estimate that a given behavior will
lead to certain outcomes, personal efficacy
570 SHERRI GIBSON AND MYRON H. DEMBO
is concerned with the conviction that one can
successfully execute the behavior required
to produce the outcomes. Outcome and ef-
ficacy expectations are differentiated be-
cause individuals can believe that certain
behaviors will produce certain outcomes, but
if they do not believe that they can perform
the necessary activities, they will not initiate
the relevant behaviors, or if they do, they will
not persist.
If we apply Bandura's theory to the con-
struct of teacher efficacy, outcome expec-
tancy would essentially reflect the degree to
which teachers believed the environment
could be controlled, that is, the extent to
which students can be taught given such
factors as family background, IQ, and school
conditions. Self-efficacy beliefs would in-
dicate teachers' evaluation of their abilities
to bring about positive student change.
Bandura's theoretical predictions of initia-
tion and persistence of coping behavior
suggest that persons high on both variables
will respond with active, assured respon-
siveness and persons low on both variables
will give up readily if they do not get results.
One would predict that teachers who believe
student learning can be influenced by ef-
fective teaching, and who also have confi-
dence in their own teaching abilities, should
persist longer, provide a greater academic
focus in the classroom, and exhibit different
types of feedback than teachers who have
lower expectations concerning their ability
to influence student learning.
Teacher interview and correlational data
provide support for at least two different
efficacy dimensions—teaching efficacy and
personal teaching efficacy (Ashton & Webb,
1982; Webb, 1982). However, attempts to
develop more useful measures of teacher
efficacy than the two items used in the
studies by Berman and McLaughlin (1977),
and Armor et al. (1976) have been unsuc-
cessful (Ashton, Olejnik, Crocker, &
MacAuliffe, 1982).
Another area that needs to be addressed
is the relationship between teacher efficacy
and classroom behavior. Research on
teacher use of time and direct instruction
may provide some possible linkage between
teacher efficacy and student learning
(Rosenshine, 1979). The description of ef-
ficacious teachers indicates that they may be
more likely to have a stronger academic focus
in their classrooms. There is evidence from
teacher effectiveness research that the
amount of time spent directly on instruction
is related to gains in student achievement,
whereas time spent in noninstructional ac-
tivities (e.g., games and art) is related to
negative gains (Stallings & Kaskowitz, 1974).
In addition, efficacious teachers may tend to
use elements of direct instruction that in-
clude a pattern of behavior used by effective
elementary teachers: structured academic
activities supervised by the teacher, exten-
sive content coverage, monitoring of student
performance, specific questioning of stu-
dents with immediate feedback, and use of
large group instruction. There may also be
differences in teacher feedback patterns
between high- and low-efficacy teachers.
For example, Good (personal communica-
tion, January 22, 1982) maintained that a
teacher's willingness to stay with a student
in a failure situation is indicative of a
teacher's confidence in his or her teaching
ability and/or the student's ability to
learn.
In attempting to validate the construct of
teacher efficacy, the construct should also be
distinguished from other individual attrib-
utes identified in more effective teachers.
Because verbal ability (Berman &
McLaughlin, 1977; Bowles & Levin, 1968;
Coleman et al., 1966; Ekstrom, 1975b; Han-
usek, 1970) and flexibility (Ekstrom, 1975b)
are related to teacher behavior and student
outcomes, it is important to investigate the
relationship between these variables and
teacher efficacy.
The present investigation was separated
into three distinct phases investigating the
following questions: Phase 1 (factor anal-
ysis): What are the dimensions of teacher
efficacy? How do these dimensions relate
to Bandura's theory of self-efficacy? What
is the internal consistency of the teacher ef-
ficacy measure? Phase 2 (multitrait-mul-
timethod analysis): Does evidence of
teacher efficacy gathered from different
sources in different ways converge? Can
teacher efficacy be differentiated from other
constructs? Phase 3 (classroom observa-
tion): Do high- and low-efficacy teachers
exhibit differential patterns of teacher be-
haviors in the classroom related to academic
 TEACHER EFFICACY 571

focus, feedback, and persistence in failure thogonal factor structure was utilized as the final solu-
situations? tion. A relatively rigorous level for significance of factor
loadings (> .45) was selected as a criterion for inclusion
of individual items in the factor structure.
Method
Phase 2: Multitrait-Multimethod
Preliminary Scale Development Analysis
The development of the Teacher Efficacy Scale began
in a pilot study where 53 sample items were adminis- Subjects and instrumentation. Fifty-five teachers
enrolled in graduate education courses at a state uni-
tered to 90 teachers. The initial item pool of 53 items
versity in California completed two teacher efficacy,
was based on teacher interviews and an analysis of the verbal ability, and flexibility measures. The measures
literature that reported characteristics of teachers of teacher efficacy consisted of the Teacher Efficacy
identified by previous researchers as having a sense of Scale (Phase 1) and a more open-ended measure of
efficacy. Preliminary data analysis of pilot items in-
teacher efficacy in which the teachers were asked to
volved principal factor analysis, elimination of items check 10 of 20 variables contributing most to a student's
with poor variability, and maintenance only of those
items that loaded clearly on one of the substantial fac- success or failure in school. Among the 20 items were
10 teacher-related variables such as teacher rapport,
tors (Gibson & Brown, 1982). These remaining items with students, teacher ability to individualize instruc-
were revised to clarify ambiguities and assure proper
item construction. The revised Teacher Efficacy Scale tion, and teacher management skills, as well as 10 ex-
consisted of 30 items in Likert format. ternally related variables such as student intelligence,
parental support, and student home environment. The
measures of verbal ability and flexibility were compo-
Phase 1: Factor Analysis nents of the Teacher Aptitude battery of the Beginning
Teacher Evaluation Study, Phase 2,1973-76 (BTES;
Subjects and instrumentation. Subjects in Phase Ekstrom, 1975a). The measures of verbal ability were
1 were 208 elementary school teachers selected from 13 the Verbal Facility Test (Coleman et al., 1966) and
elementary schools (kindergarten through sixth grade) Controlled Associations Teat (French, Ekstrom, &
within two neighboring unified school districts. Their Price, 1963). The measures of flexibility were the
teaching experience ranged from 1 to 39 years. Finding Useful Parts and the Planning Test The latter
Twenty-six percent had 1 to 5 years of experience, 25% three tests were adaptations of instruments from the
had 6 to 10 years of experience, 23.7% had 11 to 20 years Educational Testing Service, Kit of Reference Tests for
of experience, and the remaining 16.3% ranged from 21 Cognitive Factors (French et al., 1963).
to 39 years of experience. Approximately 75% of the The Verbal Facility Test consists of 30 items in which
sample was female. The teachers completed the pre- the subject is asked to select from five options the best
viously piloted Teacher Efficacy Scale (see the Ap- word to be used in a blank to complete a sentence.
pendix), consisting of 30 items presented in a Likert Ekstrom (1975b) suggested that this instrument was
scale format in which the teachers selected a number (1 more nearly a measure of verbal reasoning than a simple
= strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree) to indicate vocabulary test. The reliability in the BTES for the
their level of agreement with each individual state- Verbal Facility Test was found to be .72. The Con-
ment. trolled Association Test consisted of eight items. The
Procedure. All subjects were assured of anonymity subject was asked to write as many synonyms as possible
and were asked at respective faculty meetings to com- for each of these stimulus words. Communalities
plete the scale. Most subjects completed the scale (which represent lower boundary reliability estimates)
within 15 min. for this test for two groups of teachers in the BTES were
Data collection and analysis. We used a factor so- .67 and .54. Both the Verbal Facility Test and Con-
lution of the Statistical Package of the Social Sciences trolled Association Test had major loadings on the
(SPSS) of principal factoring to analyze the underlying verbal fluency factor and correlated .35 with each other
factor structure of teacher responses to the 30-item (Ekstrom, 1975a, 1975b).
Teacher Efficacy Scale. We used squared multiple The Finding Useful Parts Test consisted of 10 items.
correlations in the main diagonal of the correlation The subjects was asked to select from five options the
matrix as communality estimates and used an iteration one object that could be used as a makeshift substitute
procedure for improving estimates of communality. for a specified purpose when the object usually used is
Two factors were extracted based on Catell's screen unavailable. Commonalities established for this test
test as well as theoretical concurrence with Banduras were .70 and .63 (Ekstrom, 1975a).
two-factor model of self-efficacy. As suggested by The Planning Test was a test of sensitivity to prob-
Rummel (1970), both oblique and orthogonal rotations lems. The subject is asked to indicate what is wrong
were used to compare item loadings and degree of cor- with each of several plans presented for solving a variety
relations between factors. With delta value set at zero, of practical problems. Communalities established for
the oblique rotation revealed that the.two factors were this test were .84 and .64 (Ekstrom, 1975a). Both the
only moderately correlated (r = -.19), suggesting that Finding Useful Parts Test and the Planning Test loaded
the two factors represent related, but relatively inde- heavily on the flexibility factor in the BTES.
pendent, constructs. Because of this moderate corre- Procedure. Data were collected at the beginning of
lation as well as the fact that the same items yielded four consecutive class sessions. The Teacher Efficacy
significant item loadings for both solutions, the or- Scale was administered during the first session with
572 SHERRI GIBSON AND MYRON H. DBMBO
subjects given the same general instructions as in Phase
1. The second, more open-ended efficacy measure and
the Verbal Facility Test were administered in the sec-
ond session. The Controlled Associations Test and
Finding Useful Parts Test were administered in the
third session, and the Planning Test was administered
in the fourth class session. The verbal ability and
flexibility measures were administered according to
given standardized procedures.
Data collection and analysis. Data from the three
traits (teacher efficacy, verbal ability, and flexibility)
were analyzed across two methods of measurement
(closed-ended and open-ended), using multitrait-
multimethod matrix method of analysis delineated by
Campbell and Fiske (1959). Correlations of variables
within and between methods were computed for pre-
sentation to examine convergence of the construct
across methods and to determine discriminability of
teacher efficacy from the other constructs.
Phase 3: Classroom Observation
Subjects and instrumentation. A subsample of 8
teachers (4 high efficacy and 4 low efficacy) were se-
lected from the 208 teachers who participated in Phase
1 of the study to serve as subjects in a pilot investigation
of the relationship between teacher efficacy and teacher
classroom behaviors. All teachers were from 2 of the
13 schools to minimize the influence of organizational
variables on teacher efficacy (Fuller, Wood, Rapaport,
& Bornbusch, 1982).
The observation instruments used to code classroom
behavior were a teacher-use-of-time measure and a
question-answer-feedback sequence measure adapted
from Good and Brophy (1973). The teacher-use-of-
time instrument codes a teacher's behavior whenever
activities are introduced or changed by the teacher. It
enables one to measure the proportion of time a teacher
spends on activities related to teaching and academic
learning. The question-answer-feedback sequence
instrument codes teacher and student dyadic behavior
during question and answer interchanges. The quality
of a student's response and the nature of the teacher's
feedback to the student are coded.
Procedure. Factor scores were computed for all
teachers who participated in Phase 1. A high score on
Factor 1 (Personal Teaching Efficacy) indicated high
personal efficacy (or self-efficacy), whereas a low score
on Factor 2 (Teaching Efficacy) indicated high teaching
efficacy (or outcome expectancy). Bandura (1978)
stated that observable behavior is predicted by con-
sidering both a person's self-efficacy and his or her
outcome expectancies. In an attempt to address both
factors simultaneously, 16 teachers from the two se-
lected schools were selected whose Factor 1 and Factor
2 scores fell in opposite ends of the frequency distri-
bution. Eight high-efficacy teachers were selected
whose Factor 1 scores fell within the top 6% of the fre-
quency distribution (high personal teaching efficacy)
and whose Factor 2 scores fell within the bottom 22%
of the distribution (high teaching efficacy). Eight
low-efficacy teachers were selected whose Factor 2
scores fell within the top 27% of the frequency distri-
bution (low teaching efficacy) and whose Factor 1 scores
fell in the bottom 45% of frequency distribution (low
personal teaching efficacy). These 16 teachers were
asked to identify themselves by their social security
number and to grant permission for classroom obser-
vations. Twelve of the 16 teachers granted permission
for observation, and the 8 teachers with the most dis-
crepant and equally distributed scores were selected
from among these 12. In order to examine the combined
effects of both factors, a composite teacher efficacy score
was calculated for each teacher by subtracting their
Factor 2 score from their Factor 1 score. Although we
recognize the problem of lowered reliability for differ-
ence scores, the reliability coefficients established in
Phase 1 for both factors and total scale (.78, .75, and .79,
respectively) as well as theoretical concerns support the
use of composite scores in this initial study.
Seven observers were trained to collect data utilizing
videotaped lessons. Interrater reliability ranged from
.73 to .91. Each of the 8 teachers was observed for ap-
proximately 7.5 hr during morning "academic" class-
room time and was observed by three different ob-
servers.
Data collection and analysis. Two types of mea-
sures were derived from the raw coding sheets. Total
minutes allocated by the teachers to each of the obser-
vation categories were used to analyze the data from the
teacher-use-of-time instrument. The second set of
measures was percentage figures derived from the
question-answer-feedback sequence instrument in
which absolute frequency differences across teachers
were statistically controlled in order to .allow a com-
parison of relative differences between groups (Brophy
& Good, 1970; Cooper & Baron, 1977).
The teacher-use-of-time instrument yielded time
allocation measures of high- and low-efficacy teachers
for the following categories: (a) daily rituals, (b) tran-
sitions, (c) whole class, (d) small group academic, (e)
checking seatwork, (f) preparation or paperwork, (g)
intellectual games, (h) unfocused small talk, and (i)
recess. Total academic time was also computed by
summing the total minutes of categories c, d, and e for
each group. The remaining categories observed were
summed to yield a total nonacademic time variable.
Measures of teacher praise and criticism were con-
trolled for absolute frequency differences in students'
correct and incorrect responses. The measure of
teacher praise was derived by dividing the number of
teacher praises by the number of correct student re-
sponses. This praise-per-successful interaction mea-
sure indicates the frequency of rewarding behavior with
the number of correct answers held constant. Similarly,
the number of teacher criticisms was divided by the
number of incorrect student responses.
Data were also analyzed to determine teacher per-
sistence in a failure situation (when student answered
unsuccessfully). Teacher persistence was defined as
the ratio of feedback interactions in which a teacher
either repeated the queston, provided a clue, or asked
a new question following a student's incorrect response.
The number of teacher persistent behaviors was divided
by the total number of student incorrect responses.
Conversely, lack of persistence in failure situations was
defined as the ratio of feedback interactions in which
a teacher either gave the answer, asked another student,
or allowed another student to call out the answers when
a student failed to respond or responded unsuccessfully.
The number of teacher nonpersistent behaviors was
 TEACHER EFFICACY 573

divided by the total number of student incorrect re-
sponses. One-tailedj tests with the teacher as the unit
of analysis were used to analyze differences between
high- and low-efficacy teachers in teacher behaviors
related to academic focus, teacher feedback, and teacher
persistence.
Phase 1: Factor Analysis
Results • that one has the skills and abilities to bring
Three questions were the focus of Phase
1: What are the dimensions of Teacher Ef-
ficacy? How do these dimensions relate to
Bandura's theory of self-efficacy? What is
the internal consistency of the teacher eff i-
cacy measure?
Two substantial factors emerged from the
factor analysis, with Factor 1 accounting for
18.2% of the total variance and Factor 2 ac-
counting for 10.6% of the total variance,
Each of the remaining factors accounted for
, e9Sthan
,, „„, ,.,,hetota
6% of
, , , . m 1.1 i
} * * variance. Table 1
includes these items that loaded on each
factor.
Factor 1 appears to represent a teacher's
gense of personaiteaching efficacy, or belief
about student learning. This dimension
corresponds to the specific item used in
previous research (Herman & McLaughlin,
1977; Armor et al., 1976), "If I really try hard,
I can get through to even the most difficult
or unmotivated students." All of the items
included in Factor 1 reflect the teacher's
sense of personal responsibility in student
learning and/or behavior and correspond to
Bandura's self-efficacy dimension.

Table 1
Factor Item Loading

Factor
Item no. loading Item

Item loadings on Factor 1 (Personal Teaching Efficacy)

21 .61 If a student masters a new math concept quickly, this might be because I
knew the necessary steps in teaching that concept.
19 .55 When the grades of my students improve it is usually because I found more
effective teaching approaches.
15 .53 When I really try, I can get through to most difficult students.
24 .51 If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I
would know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson.
1 .49 When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exerted a
little extra effort.
25 .49 If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I
know some techniques to redirect him quickly.
29 .48 If one of my students could not do a class assignment, I would be able to
accurately assess whether the assignment was at the correct level of
difficulty.
12 .46 When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, I am usually able to
adjust it to his/her level
14 .46 When a student gets a better grade than he usually gets, it is usually because
I found better ways of teaching that student.

Item loadings on Factor 2 (Teaching Efficacy)

16 .65 A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a student's
home environment is a large influence on his/her achievement.
6 .60 If students are not disciplined at home, they aren't likely to accept any
discipline.
2 .54 The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the
influence of their home environment.
4 .54 The amount that a student can learn is primarily related to family
background.
27 -.52 The influences of a student's home experiences can be overcome by good
teaching.
23 .52 If parents would do more with their children, I could do more.
30 .45 Even a teacher with good teaching abilities may not reach many students.
574 SHERRI GIBSON AND MYRON H. DEMBO
The second dimension that is reflected in
Factor 2 represents a teacher's sense of
teaching efficacy, or belief that any teacher's
ability to bring about change is significantly
limited by factors external to the teacher,
such as the home environment, family
background, and parental influences. This
dimension reflects the teacher's belief about
the general relationship between teaching
and learning and is represented by the sec-
ond item used in previous research (Herman
& McLaughlin, 1977; Armor et al., 1976),
"When it comes right down to it, a teacher
really can't do much because most of a stu-
dent's motivation and performance depends
on his or her home environment." This
second factor clearly corresponds to Ban-
dura's outcome expectancy dimension.
Analysis of internal consistency reliabili-
ties yielded Cronbach's alpha coefficients of
.78 for the Personal Teaching Efficacy factor,
.75 for the Teaching Efficacy factor, and .79
for the total 16 items.
Because acceptable reliability coefficients
resulted from only 16 of the original 30 items,
further research is suggested with a revised
scale of 16-20 items. Analyses in all three
phases of the present study were based on
responses to the 16 of the original 30 items
that yielded significant loadings on one of
the two factors.
Discussion
The two resulting dimensions clearly
conform to Bandura's conceptualization of
self-efficacy and support Ashton and Webb's
(1982) model of teacher efficacy. As men-
tioned previously, Bandura proposed that
one's behavior is determined by both a gen-
eral outcome expectancy (belief that be-
havior will lead to desirable outcomes) as
well as a sense of self-efficacy (belief that one
has the requisite skills to bring about the
outcome). When applied to the construct
of teacher efficacy, outcome expectancy
would essentially reflect the degree to which
students can be taught given their family
background, socioeconomic status (SES),
and school conditions. This dimension is
clearly represented by the second factor,
Teaching Efficacy. Bandura's self-efficacy
dimension would indicate a teacher's rating
of his or her own abilities to perform the
necessary tasks to bring about positive stu-
dent change and is clearly represented by the
first factor, Personal Teaching Efficacy.
Internal consistency reliability of the
Teacher Efficacy Scale is evident in the
current study and is essential to the suc-
cessful development of a scale of teacher
efficacy. Not only is reliability of the scale
important in and of itself but it is crucial to
the establishment of construct validity.
Results indicate that teacher efficacy, as
measured by the Teacher Efficacy Scale, is
multidimensional and comprises at least two
clearly distinguishable factors. These fac-
tors are only moderately correlated, which
further emphasizes the need to investigate
teacher efficacy from a multidimensional
approach. The two scales that resulted from
the current study appear to measure reliably
these constructs in terms of internal consis-
tency and lend support to the applicability
of Bandura's conceptualization of self-effi-
cacy in research on teacher efficacy.
Phase 2: Multitrait-Multimethod
Analysis
Results
The following questions directed Phase 2
of the research study: Does evidence of
teacher efficacy gathered from different
sources in different ways converge? Can
teacher efficacy be differentiated from other
constructs?
Intercorrelations between three traits
(verbal ability, flexibility, and teacher effi-
cacy) across two methods (closed-ended and
open-ended format) are presented in a
multitrait-multimethod matrix in Table 2.
This matrix can help one identify categories
that pass specified tests of convergent and
discriminant validity.
Evidence of teacher efficacy gathered
through both a closed-ended additive scale
format as well as a more open-ended format
converge, as indicated by a positive correla-
tion of .42 (p < .001). All three traits-(i.e.,
verbal ability, flexibility, and teacher effi-
cacy) pass the criteria for convergent validity
because the validity diagonal values of all
three traits were found to be significant be-
yond the .05 level (.30, .39, and .42, respec-
tively). Because all three traits pass the test
 TEACHER EFFICACY 575

Table 2
Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix
Method 1 Method 2
(closed-ended) (open-ended)

Verbal Verbal
Method ability Flexibility Efficacy ability Flexibility Efficacy

1 (closed-ended) (.72)
Verbal ability
Flexibility
Efficacy .25

.27 ,22

2 (open-ended) .30 .12 .08 (.67, .54)

Verbal ability
Flexibility
Efficacy \ \%
.26 "X .39 N N .21
X— -^
N
.09 -.06 -N .42
L
Note. The validity diagonal values are the three underlined values. Each heterotrait-monomethod triangle
is enclosed by a solid line. Each heterotrait-heteromethod triangle is enclosed by a broken line. Reliability
coefficients and/or communality estimates are enclosed in parentheses and are derived from previous research
with these instruments.

for convergent validity, the next step is to
examine for discriminant validity.
Discriminant validity must be assessed in
two steps. First, each validity value must be
compared with all values in its row and col-
umn in the heterotrait-heteromethod
(broken line) block to determine whether the
correlations between different methods
(heteromethod) of measuring the same trait
exceed correlations between that trait and
other traits (heterotrait) not having method
in common.
The validity value for teacher efficacy
meets this first criterion, lending support to
discriminant validity. The correlation of
teacher efficacy when measured by two
methods (r = .42) exceeds both the correla-
tions between teacher efficacy and verbal
ability not having method in common (r =
.08, r = .09) and between teacher efficacy
and flexibility not having method in com-
mon (r = ,21, r = -.06).
The validity values for verbal ability and
flexibility also meet this first criterion for
discriminant validity. The correlation of
verbal ability when measured by two meth-
ods (r = .30) exceeds both the correlation
between verbal ability and teacher efficacy
not having method in common (r = .08, r =
.09) and between verbal ability and flexi-
bility not having method in common (r = .12,
r = .26). The correlation of flexibility when
measured by two methods (r = .39) exceeds
both the correlation between flexibility and
teacher efficacy not having method in com-
mon (r = .21, r = -.06) and between flexi-
bility and verbal ability not having method
in common (r = .12, r = .26).
The second step in determining discrim-
inant validity is completed by comparing
each trait's validity value with values in the
heterotrait-monomethod (solid line) trian-
gles in which that trait is involved. This
step determines whether the correlation
between different methods (heteromethod)
of measuring the same trait (monotrait) ex-
ceeds correlations between that trait and
other traits that have method in common.
Teacher efficacy as well as verbal ability
and flexibility meet this criteria, although
the validity coefficient for verbal ability (r
= .30) only slightly exceeds some of the other
comparative values (r = .27, r = .25). The
values in the monomethod (closed-ended),
576 SHERRI GIBSON AND MYRON H. DEMBO

solid-lined triangle are somewhat elevated, Table 3

indicating shared method variance when the Means and Standard Deviations of Time
three traits are measured by the closed- Allocation (Min) for Teacher-Use-of-Time
ended method as compared to the open- Variables
ended method. However, the efficacy va- High efficacy Low efficacy
lidity diagonal value of .42 indicated that
trait variance for teacher efficacy exceeded Variable M SD M SD
method variance, or is independent of
method, a strong support for discriminant Total academic time 234.0 61.9 271.5 24.9
validity. Whole class 65.5 41.8 30.0 32.7
Small group 124.8* 12.7 214.5* 79.4
A third criterion for discriminant validity Checking seatwork 43.8 37.5 27.0 27.0
is that the same pattern of trait interrela- Total nonacademic time 210.3 64.4 172.0 12.5
tionship be shown in all of the heterotrait Daily rituals 22.8 11.6 21.5 11.7
triangles of both the monomethod and het- Transition 42.0 9.1 47.8 15.1
eromethod blocks. The pattern of coeffi- Preparation/paperwork 39.5 34.7 16.3 19.7
Intellectual games 0.0* 0.0 10.5* 10.1
cients in Table 2 indicates that although Unfocused small talk 5.0 3.7 3.0 2.6
there is a similar pattern between one of the Recess 74.0 15.6 71.8 7.0
heteromethod triangles (broken line, .26, .09,
and -.06) and the open-ended monomethod * p < .05, one-tailed.
triangle (solid line, .27, -.06, and .09), the
other two triangles deviate from this pattern. to academic focus, feedback, and persistence
However, note that the differences between in failure situations?
some of the coefficients are quite small; and The limited sample size (n = 8) and the
without considering measurement error, it pilot nature of this phase of the investiga-
is difficult to ascertain one definitive pattern tion were recognized and thus raw data were
of trait interrelationship. Magnusson (1967) reported and interpreted descriptively, as
pointed out that because of the difficulty of recommended by Cooper and Good (1983).
judging the effect of unreliability in a matrix, Means and standard deviations of time
this last requirement appears unrealistic and allocation variables are presented in
impossible to maintain rigorously. Table 3.
When teacher-use-of-time variables were
Discussion collapsed into academic and nonacademic
totals, a significant difference between high-
Phase 2 of the study lends considerable and low-efficacy teachers did not result.
support to both the convergence of teacher However, within the academic subcategories
efficacy when measured by two different interesting differences in pattern of in-
approaches and discriminability from other struction between these two groups of
constructs already in use. Current results teachers emerged. A significant difference
verify the distinction between teacher effi- was noted in the amount of time spent in
cacy and two other constructs (verbal ability small group instruction, £(6) = 2.23, p < .05.
and flexibility) already identified in the re- Low-efficacy teachers spent almost one half
search as present in effective teachers and of their observed time (M = 214.5 min) in
lend validation support for the use of the small group instruction, whereas high-effi-
Teacher Efficacy Scale to measure the con- cacy teachers spent 28% of their time (M =
struct of teacher efficacy. 124.8 min) in small groups. In addition, al-
though not statistically significant, high-
Phase 3: Classroom Observation efficacy teachers in this sample spent an
average of 65.5 min in whole group instruc-
Results tion as compared to 41.8 min for low-efficacy
teachers. High-efficacy teachers also spent
The following question was investigated more time monitoring and checking seat-
in Phase 3 of the study: Do high- and low- work.
efficacy teachers exhibit differential patterns Within the nonacademic subcategories,
of teacher behaviors in the classroom related high- and low-efficacy teachers tended to
 TEACHER EFFICACY
allocate similar proportions of time, with the
exception of the use of intellectual games
and preparation or paperwork. It is inter-
esting to note that although low-efficacy
teachers spent a relatively small portion (2%)
of their time (M = 10.5 min) in intellectual
games, no observations of this type of ac-
tivity occurred in rooms of high-efficacy
teachers, t(6) = 2.01, p < .05. High-efficacy
teachers also tended to spend more time (M
= 39.5 min) in preparation or paperwork
than low-efficacy teachers (M = 16.3 min).
Table 4 presents the means for praise per
correct student answer and criticism, per-
sistence, and lack of persistence per incorrect
student answer. Analysis of these teacher
feedback patterns yielded a significant dif-
ference between groups on teacher criticism
following a student's incorrect response, t(6)
= 5.17, p < .01. When students gave an in-
correct response to low-efficacy teacher
questions, 4% of these interactions resulted
in teacher feedback in the form of criticism.
However, no observations of criticism oc-
curred in any of the high-efficacy teachers'
rooms. Although the difference in praise
per correct answer is small, the mean dif-
ference is in favor of high-efficacy
teachers.
Analysis of teacher persistence and lack of
persistence indicates that although there was
not a significant difference in persistence
(defined as the ratio of feedback interactions
to student failures in which a teacher either
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations of Praise per
Correct Answer and Criticism, Persistence,
and Lack of Persistence per Incorrect Answer
High efficacy Low efficacy
Variable M SD M SD
Praise per correct
answer 0,03 0.03 0.01 0.02
Criticism per
incorrect answer 0.00* 0.00 0.04* 0.02
Persistence per
incorrect answer 0.75 0.37 0.66 0.34
Lack of persistence
per incorrect
answer 0.38* 0.11 0.67* 0.12
Note. Means and standard deviations are presented
as ratio figures.
* p < .01, one4ailed.
577
repeated the question, provided a clue, or
asked a new question), the mean difference
was again in favor of the high-efficacy
teachers. A significant difference did result
in lack of persistence, i(6) - 3.29, p < .01.
Low-efficacy teachers were more likely to go
on by giving the answer, asking another
student, or allowing another student to call
out before a student gave the correct re-
sponse. It appears that although both high-
and low-efficacy teachers did provide stu-
dents further opportunities to correct their
responses (persistence), high-efficacy
teachers were more effective in leading stu-
dents to correct responses through their
questioning, whereas low-efficacy teachers
would go on to other students or another
question (lack of persistence) before the
student arrived at the correct response.
Discussion
Academic focus. A number of studies
have revealed that successful teachers
maintain a strong academic focus and spend
less time in nonacademic activities. At-
tempts to look at global academic time by
collapsing academic and nonacademic
categories of the teacher-use-of-time mea-
sure failed to yield significant results. As
noted by other researchers, the amount of
time a teacher allocates for academic in-
struction, the time a teacher is actually en-
gaged in that instruction, and the time a
student is engaged may all be quite different
amounts of time. Rosenshine (1979) re-
ported that in studies considering only al-
located time most of the results tend to be
nonsignificant. It appeared that academic
time coding in the present study was more a
reflection of allocated time and organization
than of academically engaged time or aca-
demic focus. Although the teacher-use-
of-time measure coded the activity that the
teacher had allocated time for and was en-
gaged in, it did not reflect in any way the
students' engagement rates, and anecdotal
observation data as well as observed group-
ing differences suggested that differences in
student engagement rates may have existed
between high- and low-efficacy teachers.
In the present study, low-efficacy teachers
spent an average of 2.4% of their time (M =
10.5 min) in intellectual games. Although
578 SHERRI GIBSON AND MYRON H. DEMBO
; this percentage is small, it is particularly
interesting when compared to the fact that
none of the high-efficacy teachers allocated
any time during observations to intellectual
games. Stallings and Hentzell (1979) found
that the use of games and other nonacademic
materials was more frequently observed in
less effective teachers' classrooms.
Student grouping. The differences be-
tween groups on the teacher-use-of-time
variables presented an interesting picture of
very different kinds of classroom organiza-
tions and use of whole class and small group
instruction. High-efficacy teachers allo-
cated an average of 124.8 mjn (28%) to small
group instruction, whereas low-efficacy
teachers were involved in small groups an
average of 214.5 min (48%). In addition, it
is interesting that although both groups
utilized some small group instruction, par-
ticularly for reading instruction, there was
a distinct impression that this format was
more rigidly adhered to by the low-efficacy
teachers. Low-efficacy teachers were ob-
served to appear flustered if there was any
interruption of their routine while they were
engaged with small groups, whereas the
high-efficacy teachers seemed to utilize this
format with more ease and flexibility. Al-
though no empirical data was collected, an-
ecdotal comments indicated that the low-
efficacy teachers were less likely to exhibit
a sense of "withitness" (Kounin, 1970) while
in small groups. As a result, many of the
students in the remainder of the class spent
much time off task without redirection from
the teacher. In contrast, high-efficacy
teachers were observed to redirect students
who were working independently, answer
questions of students who came up to the
small group, and in general achieved more
student on-task behavior in the entire class
while they were instructing small groups.
High-efficacy teachers also allocated twice
the amount of time to whole class instruction
than did low-efficacy teachers. During these
times, every student was expected to be en-
gaged in the activity the teacher was di-
recting. Because student on-task behavior
variables were not included in the present
study, these impressions were not statisti-
cally verified.
The findings of differences in student
grouping have consistently been found in the
teacher effectiveness literature. More ef-
fective teachers conducted more large group
and/or whole class instruction while less ef-
fective teachers worked with individual
students, small groups, or had students
working independently (Crawford & Stall-
ings, 1978; Medley, 1978; Stallings & Hent-
zell, 1979). Rosenshine (1979) stated that
such studies indicate that students spend
more time off task and in transition when
they are working alone, whereas the use of
large group settings allows for more adult
supervision. It is likely that when teachers
are only working with individual or small
groups of children they are unable to provide
supervision for the rest of the students, who
as a result attain less academically engaged
time. The present data suggest that high-
efficacy teachers may achieve higher student
engagement rates by utilizing whole class
instruction and may be better able than
low-efficacy teachers to keep other students
engaged while instructing small groups.
Further research is needed to substantiate
the relationship between high- and low-ef-
ficacy teachers and student engagement
rates and whole group instruction.
Feedback patterns. In the literature re-
lated to teacher expectations, differential
teacher feedback behaviors have been found
to be demonstrated by many teachers toward
high- and low-expectation students. Good
(1981) reported that not staying with low-
expectation students in failure situations,
criticizing low-expectation more frequently
than high-expectation students for incorrect
responses, and praising low-expectation less
frequently than high-expectation students
after correct answers, are among the behav-
iors consistently found in teacher expecta-
tion research.
There has been recognition that expecta-
tion effects do not occur invariantly across
teachers. Cooper, Hinkel, and Good (1980)
noted behavior differences among teachers
at both the intraclass and interclass levels of
analysis. Brophy and Good (1974) pointed
out that style differences among teachers
influence expectation effects. These noted
style differences may in fact be a result of the
degree of teacher efficacy a teacher pos-
sesses.
Trends revealed in, the present study
suggest that more general expectations such
 TEACHER EFFICACY 579

as those inherent within the construct of factors of the scale to the two items previ-
teacher efficacy may influence feedback ously discussed (Berman & McLaughlin,
behaviors and teacher persistence. Those 1977; Armor et al, 1976). Also, construct
teache'rs who in general expect students to validation should continue to be investigated
learn and who have confidence in their across different populations and settings.
ability to teach may communicate higher Further factor analytic studies, including use
expectations by providing less criticism to of LISREL procedures, should be used to
students and persisting with students until confirm further the trait and factor struc-
they respond correctly rather than going on ture.
to another student or another question. We Third, investigation of the relationships
must emphasize that caution must be taken between teacher characteristics (i.e., sex,
in reaching any conclusion regarding the years of teaching experience, grade levels,
classroom behaviors of high- and low-effi- and personal attributes) and sense of efficacy
cacy teachers until larger samples of teachers is needed. Relationships with situational
are studied. The present data do suggest and organizational variables should also be
several important hypotheses for future re- investigated because teacher efficacy is likely
search. to be situation specific and may not gener-
alize from one setting to another (e.g., high
General Discussion SES school to low SES school).
Fourth, the relationship between teacher
General conclusions can be made within efficacy and teacher task persistence should
the limitations of the present study. be expanded beyond analysis of teacher
Teacher efficacy is multidimensional, con- feedback responses. Other task persistence
sisting of at least two dimensions that cor- measures, such as use of mastery teaching
respond to Bandura's two-component model techniques, criteria for advancement in
of self-efficacy. The measures of teacher curricular materials, and requests that stu-
efficacy identified through different meth- dents make corrections, should be ex-
ods converge, while at the same time they plored.
can be differentiated from verbal ability and Fifth, any subsequent investigations of the
flexibility. Finally, preliminary classroom relationship between teacher efficacy and
observation data suggest that teacher effi- observable classroom process variables
cacy may influence certain patterns of should include measures of student en-
classroom behavior known to yield achieve- gagement rates or on-task behaviors.
ment gains. Teacher behavior variables that can increase
A number of research issues should be student engagement rates should be ex-
addressed in future investigations: First, plored such as how feedback is provided to
further elements of Bandura's theory of students who are working independently and
self-efficacy should be explored as they re- physical proximity of teacher to students.
late to teacher efficacy. For example, Ban- Sixth, the relationship between teacher
dura speaks of dimensions of generality, efficacy (and each of its components) and
magnitude, and strength of self-efficacy. student achievement should be examined.
When applied to teachers, it may be that It must be determined whether measures of
generality relates to the extent to which a teacher efficacy predict student achievement
teacher feels efficacious in a variety of in different settings and type of courses.
teaching situations rather than a narrowly Finally, study of the relationship between
defined range of situations. Magnitude may teacher efficacy and teacher decision mak-
be reflected in the degree of difficulty of the ing, particularly in the area of classroom
task for which a teacher feels efficacious, and organization and management, is needed.
strength may be manifest in the relative ease Perhaps decisions such as student grouping
or difficulty with which it may be modi- decisions are based on the sense of confi-
fied. dence a teacher feels in achieving instruc-
Second, further research on the validation tional goals, being able to manage the be-
and refinement of the Teacher Efficacy Scale havior of students, or being in control of the
is needed, especially comparing the two instructional setting. Intervention and/or
580 SHERRI GIBSON AND MYRON H. DEMBO
modification of teacher decision making in
these areas would be more effective with a
clearer understanding of a teacher's under-
lying motivational structure.
References
Armor, D., Conroy-Osequera, P., Cox, M., King, N.,
McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G.
(1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading
programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools
(Report No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA:
Rand Corporation.
Ashton, P., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L.,& McAuliffe, M.
(1982, March). Measurement problems in the study
of teachers 'sense of efficacy. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Re-
search Association, New York.
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.
Bandura,A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying
theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84,191-215.
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy.
Advances in Behavioral Research and Therapy, 1,
237-269.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1977). Federal pro-
grams supporting educational change, Vol. II:
Factors affecting implementation and continuation
(Report No R-1589/7-HEW). Santa Monica, CA:
Rand Corporation.
Bowles, S. S., & Levin, H. M. (1968). The determi-
nants of scholastic achievement: An appraisal of
some recent findings. Journal of Human Resources,
3, 3-24.
Brookover, W., Schweitzer, J., Schneider, J., Beady, C.,
Flood, P., & Wisenbaker, J. (1978). Elementary
school social climate and school achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 15,
301-318.
Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. (1977). Teacher be-
haviors and student learning in second and third
grades. In G. D. Borich (Ed.), The appraisal of
teaching: Concepts and process (pp. 79-95).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L., (1970). Teacher com-
munication of differential expectations. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69,365-374.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student
relationships: Causes and consequences. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and
discriminant validation by the multitrait-multi-
method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56,
81-105.
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, D., McPartlend, J.,
Mood, A., Weinfield, F., & York, R. (1966). Equa-
lity of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:
U.S. Office of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Cooper, H. M., & Baron, R. M. (1977). Expectations
and responsibility. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 69,399-408.
Cooper, H. M., & Good, T. L. (1983). Pygmalion
grows up: Studies in the expectation communica-
tion process. New York: Longman.
Cooper, H. M., Hinkel, B. M., & Good, T. L. (1980).
Teachers' beliefs about interaction control and their
observed behavioral correlates. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 72, 345-354.
Crawford, J., & Stallings, J. (1978). Experimental
effects of inservice teacher training derived from
process-product correlations in the primary grades.
Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University,
Center for Educational Research, Stanford, CA.
Denham, C., & Michael, J. (1981). Teacher sense of
efficacy: A definition of the construct and a model
for further research. Educational Research Quar-
terly, 5,39-61.
Ekstrom, R. (1975a). Pupil and teacher tests: Be-
ginning teacher evaluation study: Phase II. Final
report: Volume IV. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Ekstrom, R. (1975b). The relationship of teacher
aptitudes to teacher behavior: Beginning teacher
evaluation study: Phase II. Final report: Volume
VI. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
French, J. S., Ekstrom, R. B., & Price, L. A. (1963).
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Fuller, B., Wood, K., Rapaport, T., & Bornbusch, M.
(1982). The organizational context of individual
efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 52,
7-30.
Gibson, S., & Brown, R. (1982, March). The devel-
opmental of a teacher's personal responsibility/
self-efficacy scale. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research As-
sociation, New York.
Good, T. L. (1981). Teacher expectations and student
perceptions: A decade of research. Educational
Leadership, 38, 415-422.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1973). Looking in
classrooms. New York: Harper & Row.
Hanusek, E. A. (1970, February). The production of
education, teacher quality, and efficacy. Paper
presented at the Bureau of Educational Personnel
Development Conference, Washington, DC.
Kounin, J. (1970). Discipline and group management
in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Win-
ston.
Magnusson, D. (1967). Test theory. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Medley, D. (1978). Research in teacher effective-
ness—where it is and how it got here. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Virginia.
Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time and direct in-
struction. In P. L. Peterson & A. J. Walberg (Eds.),
Research on teaching: Concepts, findings and im-
plications (pp. 28-56). Berkeley, CA: McCut-
chan.
Rotter, J. B: (1966). Generalized expectancies for
internal vs. external control of reinforcement. Psy-
chological Monographs, 80,1-28.
Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University press.
Stallings, J., & Hentzell, S. (1979). Effective teaching
and learning in urban schools. What do we know
about teaching and learning in urban schools? (Vol.
 TEACHER EFFICACY 581

10). St. Louis, MO: Central Midwestern Regional
Educational Lab. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 185 165)
Stallings, J., & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow through
classroom observation evaluation, 1972-73. Menlo
Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.
Webb, R. (1982, March). Teaching and the domains
of efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association,
New York.

Appendix

TEACHER EFFICACY SCALE

© 1983 SHERRI GIBSON, PH.D.

Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each
statement below by circling the appropriate numeral to the right of each
statement.

1. When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I

exerted a little extra effort. 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the
influence o f their home environment. 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. If parents comment to me that their child behaves much better at school
than he/she does at home, it would probably be because I have some
specific techniques of managing his/her behavior which they may lack. 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. The amount that a student can learn is primarily related to family
background. 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. If a teacher has adequate skills and motivation, she/he can get through
t o t h e most difficult students. 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. If students aren't disciplined at home, they aren't likely to accept any
discipline. 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 . I have enough training t o deal with almost a n y learning problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6

8. My teacher training program and/or experience has given me the
necessary skills t o b e a n effective teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. Many teachers are stymied in their attempts to help students by lack of
support from t h e community. 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Some students need to be placed in slower groups so they are not
subjected t o unrealistic expectations. 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. Individual differences among teachers account for the wide variations
i n student achievement. 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, I am usually
able t o adjust i t t o his'/her level. 1 2 3 4 5 6
13. If one of my new students cannot remain on task for a particular
assignment, there is little that I could do to increase his/her attention until
he/she i s ready. 1 2 3 4 5 6
14. When a student gets a better grade than he usually gets, it is usually
because I found better ways o f teaching that student; 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. When I really try, I c a n g e t through t o most difficult students. 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a
student's home environment i s a large influence o n his/her achievement. 1 2 3 4 5 6
582 SHERRI GIBSON AND MYRON H. DEMBO
10

Teacher Efficacy Scale, continued

17. Teachers are not a very powerful influence on student achievement

when a l l factors a r e considered. 1 2 3 4 5 6

18. If students are particularly disruptive one day, I ask myself what I have
been doing differently. 1 2 3 4 5 6

19. When the grades of my students improve it is usually because I found

more effective teaching approaches. 1 2 3 4 5 6

20. If my principal suggested that I change some of my class curriculum, I

would feel confident that I have the necessary skills to implement the
unfamiliar curriculum. 1 2 3 4 5 6

21. If a student masters a new math concept quickly, this might be because
I knew t h e necessary steps i n teaching that concept. 1 2 3 4 5 6

22. Parent conferences can help a teacher judge how much to expect from a
student by giving the teacher an idea of the parents' values toward
education, discipline, etc. - 1 2 3 4 5 6

2 3 . I f parents would d o more with their children, I could d o more. 1 2 3 4 5 6

24. If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I

would know h o w t o increase his/her retention i n t h e next lesson. 1 2 3 4 5 6

25. If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured

that I know some techniques t o redirect h i m quickly. 1 2 3 4 5 6

26. School rules a n d policies hinder m y doing t h e j o b I w a s hired t o d o . 1 2 3 4 5 6

27. The influences of a student's home experiences can be overcome by

good teaching. 1 2 3 4 5 6

28. When a child progresses after being placed in a slower group, it is

usually because the teacher has had a chance to give him/her extra
attention. 1 2 3 4 5 6

29. If one of my students couldn't do a class assignment, I would be able to

accurately assess whether the assignment was at the correct level of
difficulty. 1 2 3 4 5 6

30. Even a teacher with good teaching abilities may not reach many
students. 1 " 2 3 4 5 6

Received March 25,1983

Revision received October 3,1983