or teaching strategies will influence efficacy beliefs, particularly for those beginning to teach, as these influence the skills that individuals can utilise and draw on. In fact, some researchers (e.g. Raudenbush et al., 1992) have interpreted self-efficacy as ‘a cognition that mediates between knowledge and action’, thus the key point is not whether instruction influences efficacy, but whether efforts to grow teacher knowledge are likely to have a stronger effect when such activities also attend to efficacy development (i.e. by providing opportunities for enactive mastery).
Furthermore, as Morris et al. (2016) have explained, knowledge itself is derived from experience. They argued that knowledge should not be considered a primary source of efficacy beliefs, but rather that it is developed via experience and is therefore a mediating factor appraised when individuals assess their efficacy beliefs towards a given task. Some examples, which align with the theorised sources of efficacy, are from strategies (i.e. knowledge) developed via personal teaching (i.e. an enactive mastery experience) or from learning teaching skills (i.e. strategies) by observing others or self-modelling (i.e. via vicarious experiences).
In a key study illuminating this discussion, Palmer (2006) investigated the teacher efficacy beliefs of 190 pre-service elementary school teachers at a university in Australia. The author brought together results from three surveys to identify two additional sources of teacher efficacy differentiated from enactive mastery and modelling (i.e. vicarious experiences). Palmer (2006: 349) argued that ‘cognitive content mastery’ (an understanding of science knowledge that developed from a learning experience) and ‘cognitive pedagogical mastery’ (a learning experience that influenced understanding of science teaching) were two ‘distinctive mastery experiences in their own right’ and requirements of enactive mastery. Students in the study directly referred to ‘the procedures’ or ‘great strategies’ (Palmer, 2006: 346) that they had learned from the lessons or activities in the course, leading the author to suggest that these should be considered separate, distinct sources of efficacy. However, this returns us to the discussion from the previous paragraph, where such experiences could also be interpreted as vicarious experiences that provided models later integrated into teaching practice. Findings presented in this book (see Chapters 7 and 8) indicate that past learning experiences may act as sources of efficacy-forming information; however, these appear to contribute towards knowledge that can be used in a task (i.e. language skills) or may indirectly influence efficacy via attitudes (i.e. affective states) towards different instructional approaches.
Finally, as Morris et al. (2016) also noted, not all sources of knowledge conveniently fall into the theorised sources of efficacy beliefs. They provided the example of independent reading as a source of pedagogic knowledge (identified by Buehl & Fives, 2009), which is not, in itself, clearly a modelling or (cognitive) mastery experience. Thus, it seems that there may be additional sources of information that can influence efficacy development, perhaps indirectly, by adding to the skills that individuals perceive to have available to them. In summary, it seems that a key area for teacher efficacy researchers is identifying other sources of teacher efficacy, and specifically gaining better understanding of the experiences that lead to the formation of content and teacher knowledge.
2.6 Assessment of Efficacy Beliefs
Efficacy beliefs can be considered with respect to level, generality and strength (Bandura, 1977, 1997, 2006) based on perceptions of personal skill towards specific teaching activities within different contexts. For example, teacher efficacy expectations may vary by level (e.g. carrying out teaching to help students achieve different degrees of examination success), generality (e.g. towards teaching a specific subject versus teaching overall) and strength (e.g. efficacy towards one task or dimension versus another). Accordingly, it seems apparent that different sources of information will be drawn on in the assessment of efficacy beliefs. This section brings the different factors together within a conceptual framework of teacher efficacy assessment based on SCT (Bandura, 1997), and by drawing together frameworks of other researchers (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Morris et al., 2016; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Wyatt, 2015).
Efficacy beliefs are considered against the level of task demand required, and the contextual situation (Bandura, 1997). Gist and Mitchell (1992) suggested that there are three processes that individuals draw on in the assessment of their efficacy beliefs. First, there is an analysis of the task, including consideration of what a successful performance entails and what is required for such a performance. Task familiarity is the second key attribute assessed, where individuals consider attributions of their experiences, drawing on the four sources of efficacy beliefs, before finally assessing personal (e.g. skill, knowledge, available effort) and situational factors (e.g. distractions) that may influence the skills they have available or the difficulty of the task. Studies have provided some support for the Gist and Mitchell (1992) model, showing the mediating influence of time pressure (Salanova et al., 2003) and task complexity (Bolt et al., 2001; Mangos & Steele-Johnson, 2001) alongside efficacy on performance. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2007) extended this model to the context of teaching, explaining that,
in assessing beliefs about their teaching capability in a particular context, teachers make two related judgments: the requirements of an anticipated teaching task and an assessment of their personal teaching competence in light of those requirements. (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007: 5)
In other words, teachers assess the personal skills and strategies they can utilise (including any perceived weaknesses, such as a lack of content knowledge) against any constraints within the teaching context (e.g. level of students, level of support) in assessing their efficacy expectations towards teaching tasks in the pursuit of student learning. These factors are presented in Figure 2.1.
The integration of these various sources is a personal process as it relies on each individual’s weighting of the different pieces of information (Bandura, 1997), where the ‘differential impact of each of these sources depends on cognitive processing what is attended to, what is remembered, and how the teacher thinks about each of the experiences’ (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998: 18). Due to triadic reciprocal causation, the process is theorised to include attributions from behaviour (i.e. enactive mastery experience, vicarious experiences, attention to feedback from others and of one’s affective states); attention to contextual factors that influence perceptions of task difficulty and/or influence individuals’ knowledge of and capability to cope with the situation; plus perceptions of personal knowledge and skills that individuals can bring to the task.
Research has consistently shown that personal and contextual factors are related to efficacy beliefs. For example, significant relationships have been identified between efficacy beliefs and perceptions of support (Capa Aydin & Woolfolk Hoy, 2005), resources available (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007) and school setting (Chong et al., 2010; Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008; Siwatu, 2011b). Beyond content knowledge, other personal variables such as experience (Cheung, 2006; Fives & Buehl, 2009; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007) and gender (Cheung, 2006; Ross et al., 1996) have been found to be associated with efficacy beliefs.
Discussion continues about how teacher self-efficacy beliefs grow and change. Wyatt (2014) argues that reflection is a crucial aspect neglected in models of efficacy change (such as the model of Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). However, as Bandura (1997: 51) has noted, ‘efficacy beliefs are structured by experience and reflective thought’, where reflection is a key aspect related to the cognitive processing that individuals engage in when they consider their efficacy beliefs. Bandura (1997: 79) stated that information from efficacy sources ‘is not inherently enlightening. It becomes instructive only through cognitive processing of efficacy information and through reflective thought’. Much of this debate stems from another criticism of the Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) model by Wheatley (2002), who has emphasised the role of ‘efficacy doubt’ as an influence on teacher beliefs and behaviour. Simply put, unsuccessful experiences can also inform future efficacy via reflection (Cheung, 2006; Wyatt, 2014, 2015). This is a valuable point for consideration, as the role of self-doubt appears to be valuable in driving reflective thought.
Particularly during the ‘skill development phase’ (e.g. for teachers developing new