Psychology
2011. Vol.2, No.3, 235-240
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.23037
Preservice Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Its Sources
Sunjin Oh
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
Received November 18th, 2010; revised January 20th, 2011; accepted February 25th, 2011.
The purpose of this study was to examine several potential sources of preservice teachers’ perceptions of their
teaching efficacy during their reading and writing lessons. More specifically, the study explored the relationship
between the sources of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and teachers’ perception of efficacy in the areas of in-
structional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement. Forty-three preservice teachers in
pre-literacy methods courses and fourteen in post-literacy methods courses completed the survey, which con-
sisted of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) and Teaching Efficacy Sources Inventory. Paired t-test re-
sults showed that preservice teachers’ teaching efficacy increased in the three subscales of instructional strate-
gies, classroom management, and student engagement by the end of the literacy method courses. Efficacy for in-
structional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement were highly intercorrelated with each
other in the pre-test data. The results of multiple regression analysis indicated that personality characteristics,
capabilities, motivation, enactive mastery experiences with social/verbal persuasion, and physiological/affective
state were significant predictors when efficacy for classroom management was the dependent variable in the
post-test data. Findings of this study revealed that preservice teachers’ personality, motivation, and capabilities
were one of the important sources to improve their teaching efficacy, in congruence with previous research
(Poulou, 2007; Yeung & Watkins, 2000).
Keywords: Preservice Teachers’ Teaching Efficacy, Sources of Teaching Efficacy, Preservice Teachers’
Personality Characteristics, Capabilities, Motivation
Introduction
As teacher efficacy has emerged as an important construct in
teacher education over the past 25 years, issues involving
teacher efficacy have become increasingly important. There
have been renewed demands to improve children’s academic
achievement and to follow the intent of the No Child Left Be-
hind legislation. Increased demands have been noted especially
in the domain of reading because of a change in reading teacher
education that has been mandated by the Reading First initia-
tive (US Department of Education, 2002).
Teacher efficacy has been defined as a teacher’s “judgment
of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of
student engagement and learning, even among those students
who may be difficult or unmotivated” (Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001: p. 783). Teachers’ efficacy beliefs are
associated with teachers’ willingness to devote more time to
academic instruction and take greater responsibility for educa-
tion students who have learning difficulties (Dembo & Gibson,
1985). In addition, more efficacious preservice teachers were
less interventionist toward classroom management after exam-
ining the multivariate relationships between teacher efficacy
and task analysis variables as predictors of classroom beliefs
about control (Henson, 2001).
Given that teacher efficacy is related to teacher effectiveness
and appears to influence students’ achievement, attitude, and
affective growth, it is of great interest to explore the develop-
ment of efficacy beliefs among teachers. In addition, given the
importance of a strong sense of efficacy for optimal motivation
in teaching, exploring factors that contribute to the initial de-
velopment of preservice teachers’ efficacy will help them de-
velop strong efficacy beliefs early in their career.
Experienced teachers are generally provided with the source
of information, including an abundance of mastery experience,
to develop their teaching efficacy. However, prospective teach-
ers generally do not have this source of information, at least not
until they have their teaching practice in school in which they
receive emotional arousal and verbal persuasion, including
performance feedback from supervisors, classroom teachers,
and other peers (Chan, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2007). With the differential amount of information from
these sources, as well as different experience of teaching prac-
tice, preservice teachers might have different levels of belief in
their teaching self-efficacy. The overwhelming majority of
research in the area of teacher efficacy has been conducted on
inservice teachers, and relatively little is known about the
knowledge base in this area among preservice teachers.
In addition, according to previous research studies of preser-
vice teachers’ self-efficacy, the value and power of teachers’
sense of efficacy has been well established in the literature, but
the sources of teachers’ efficacy beliefs has not been estab-
lished (Anderson & Betz, 2001; Poulou, 2007; Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). For example, Anderson and
Betz (2001) have argued that little research has focused on the
sources of self-efficacy, in contrast to the amount of research
on correlates or outcomes of self-efficacy. Tschannen-Moran
and Woolfolk Hoy (2007: p. 953) state that “it is of both theo-
retical and practical importance to understand the sources
teachers tap when making judgments about their capability for
instruction”.

S. OH
236
Theoretical Framework
This study is based on the theoretical framework of self-ef-
ficacy developed by Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory
because most researchers in psychology and education attribute
the concept of teacher efficacy to this theoretical framework.
Bandura (1997: p. 3) defines perceived self-efficacy as “beliefs
in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of
action required to produce given attainments”. Self-efficacy has
to do with self-perception of competence rather than actual
level of competence. People regularly overestimate or underes-
timate their actual capabilities, and these estimations may have
consequences for the courses of action they choose to pursue or
the effort they exert in those pursuits.
Bandura (1997) suggests that self-knowledge about one’s ef-
ficacy is based on four sources of information: 1) performance
or mastery, 2) vicarious experiences, 3) verbal or social persua-
sion, and 4) physiological and/or emotional states. Performance
or mastery refers to a teacher’s experience in terms of success
and failure. The most influential source of efficacy information
is enactive mastery, which provides authentic evidence of the
teacher’s performance in the classroom and school setting, with
success leading to enhanced self-efficacy and failure to reduced
self-efficacy. Vicarious experiences occur through the observa-
tion of others succeeding or failing. Poulou (2007) said that
when there are no absolute measures of adequacy and individu-
als’ activities, people assess their ability through comparisons
with others in similar situations. Thus, modeling serves as an
effective tool for promoting a sense of personal efficacy. Verbal
persuasion stems from activities such as talks, course work,
professional development workshops, and feedback about
achievement, and these have a positive influence that give
teachers information about the task of teaching. Physiological
and/or emotional states impact how people interpret their
physical and emotional reactions. For example, tension and
stress are often interpreted by individuals as signs of a lack of
ability or of poor performance.
Purpose of This Study
The importance of teaching efficacy gives rise to the need to
investigate the factors that influence prospective teachers’ per-
ceptions of teaching efficacy. Given the recognized importance
of self-efficacy among prospective teachers, it is essential to
research the factors that serve as sources of prospective teacher
efficacy. Extending Bandura’s four sources of efficacy be-
liefs-performance or mastery, vicarious experiences, verbal or
social persuasion, and physiological and/or emotional states,
the author wondered what other sources impact preservice
teachers’ self-efficacy. The purpose of this study was to exam-
ine several potential sources of preservice teachers’ perceptions
of their teaching efficacy during their reading and writing les-
sons. More specifically, the study explored the relationship
between the sources of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and
teachers’ perception of efficacy in the areas of instructional
strategies, classroom management, and student engagement.
Methodology
Participants
Preservice teachers who were enrolled in literacy method
courses during Summer 2009 at a Midwestern research-exten-
sive university in the United States were invited to participate
in this study. Literacy method courses were paired with a liter-
acy block practicum, which provides an opportunity for preser-
vice teachers to gain practical classroom experience in local
elementary school settings. During the summer semester, pre-
service teachers who attended literacy methods courses for five
weeks, for four days a week, were assigned to a classroom five
days a week for three weeks for their literacy block practicum.
Survey Instruments
The survey consisted of three parts. The first part, the
Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), is a 24-item measure
developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001).
This scale consists of three dimensions: instructional strategies,
classroom management, and student engagement. The language
of the questions in the original TSES scale was adapted, as it
referred to preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about liter-
acy areas. As an example of the adaptation of such an item: “To
what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies?”
was changed to “To what extent can you use a variety of as-
sessment strategies in your reading and writing lessons?” The
9-point continuum in the original version of TSES were revised
as a 5-point Likert range in this study, from 1 = not at all to 5 =
a great deal. The second part, the Teaching Efficacy Sources
Inventory developed by Poulou (2007), comprised 30 items in
the seven categories of personality characteristics, capabilities,
motivation, enactive mastery with social/verbal persuasion,
vicarious experiences, university training, and physiologi-
cal/affective state. This Inventory was developed based on in-
terviews with 32 Greek 4th-year student teachers. For each
statement, respondents rated the sources of teaching efficacy on
Likert-type items, with values ranging from strongly agree (5)
to strongly disagree (1). Demographic variables, such as gender,
ethnicity, grade point average, and completed teaching practi-
cum hours, were included in the last section.
Data Collection Procedures
The survey questionnaire was distributed to preservice
teachers when the author visited the literacy method class at the
beginning of semester for the pre-test. Preservice teachers were
informed of the purpose of this study and procedures as well as
timelines for participation in this study at the beginning of the
literacy method courses for pre-test measures of teacher self-
efficacy. The author sent the survey questionnaire to preservice
teachers at the end of the literacy block practicum for post-test
measures of teacher self-efficacy, using Qualtrics, which was
the online survey method provided by university, and this par-
ticipation was voluntary. All participants who enroll in the lit-
eracy method class during Summer 2009 were invited to com-
plete anonymous surveys that include the Teachers’ Sense of
Efficacy Scale (TSES) and Teaching Efficacy Sources Inven-
tory.
Results
The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) originally had
two forms, a long form with 24 items, with 8 items for each of
three subscales, and a short from with 12 items, with 4 items

S. OH 237
for each of three subscales but the 24-item long form of TSES
was used in this study. The reliability for the 24-item scale was
0.94 and for the 12-item scale was 0.90 in the original TSES.
The reliability of adapted TSES used in this study, as it referred
to preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about literacy areas,
was α = 0.97 for the pre-test and was α = 0.86 for the post-test.
The results of Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients of this study
demonstrated an adequate level of reliability and indicated a
high level of internal consistency among the items of TSES.
Forty-three preservice teachers completed the pre-test survey
and 14 completed the post-test survey; 9 preservice teachers
responded to both the pre- and post-test measures. In the pre-
test data, the participants were primarily white females: 35
females (81%) and 8 males (19%); 41 white (96%), 1 Afri-
can-American or Black (2%), and 1 Hispanic (2%). Mean
TSES scores for both pre- and post-literacy methods courses
are presented in Table 1. It is not appropriate to conduct t-tests
comparing pre-course and post-course scores because 43 pre-
service teachers responded to the pre-test while only 14 preser-
vice teachers responded to the post-test , but descriptively pre-
service teachers’ self-efficacy in the three subscales of instruc-
tional strategies (from M = 3.59 to M = 4.09), classroom man-
agement (from M = 3.65 to M = 4.12), and student engagement
(from M = 3.57 to M = 3.84) increased by the end of the liter-
acy method courses (Table 1).
Table 1.
Mean scores on pre-test (N = 43) and post-test (N = 14) preservice teachers’ ratings on TSES.
Item Pre Mean Post Mean
Efficacy for instructional strategies 3.59 4.09
1. To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies in your reading and writing lessons? 3.77 4.14
2. To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused about your reading
and writing lessons? 3.67 4.14
3. To what extent can you craft good questions about teaching reading and writing for your students? 3.72 4.21
4. How well can you implement alternative strategies for your reading and writing lessons? 3.65 4.07
5. How well can you respond to difficult questions about your reading and writing lessons from your students? 3.42 4.00
6. How much can you do to adjust your reading and writing lessons to the proper level for individual students? 3.42 4.14
7. To what extent can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught about reading and writing? 3.60 3.86
8. How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students in reading and writing lessons? 3.44 4.14
Efficacy for classroom management 3.65 4.12
9. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom during your reading and writing lessons? 3.67 4.21
10. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules during your reading and writing lessons? 3.74 4.14
11. How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy during your reading and writing lessons? 3.56 4.00
12. How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students for your reading and writing
lessons? 3.67 4.14
13. How well can you keep a few problem students from ruining an entire reading and writing lesson? 3.42 4.00
14. How well can you respond to defiant students in reading and writing lessons? 3.26 4.00
15. To what extent can you make your expectation clear about student behavior during your reading and writing lessons? 3.98 4.29
16. How well can you establish routines to keep activities running smoothly in your reading and writing lessons? 3.88 4.14
Efficacy for student engagement 3.57 3.84
17. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in their reading and writing schoolwork? 3.91 4.36
18. How much can you do to help your students value learning about reading and writing? 3.77 3.86
19. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in their reading and writing schoolwork? 3.60 3.79
20. How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in reading and writing? 3.43 3.36
21. How much can you do to improve the understanding of reading and writing of a student who is failing? 3.51 3.71
22. How much can you do to help your students think critically about reading and writing? 3.44 3.93
23. How much can you do to foster student creativity in reading and writing? 3.77 4.07
24. How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students in your reading and writing lessons? 3.23 3.64

S. OH
238
Mean scores for the 9 preservice teachers who answered both
pre- and post-test items were significantly higher on the post-
test than on the pre-test for each of the three subscales. Paired
t-tests showed that there were significant differences on the
three subscales (Table 2).
Multiple regression analysis was conducted to investigate the
sources of teaching efficacy that could influence preservice
teachers’ perception of self-efficacy in both pre- and post-test.
None of the sources of teaching efficacy were significant pre-
dictors of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy in the pre-test data,
largely due to the limited number of observations and conse-
quently larger standard deviations, as well as possible multicol-
linearity. However, personality characteristics, capabilities,
motivation, enactive mastery experiences with social/verbal
persuasion, and physiological/affective state were significant
predictors when efficacy for classroom management was the
dependent variable in the post-test data (see Table 3). When
efficacy for instructional strategies was the dependent variable,
capabilities turned out to be a significant predictor (β = –1.50, p
< 0.05). The negative values for Beta may be a function of col-
linearity, which would be expected with the small sample size
in the post-test (N = 14).
Accordingly, Pearson product-moment correlations were
calculated to determine whether any statistically significant
relationships exist between sources of teaching efficacy and
perceived efficacy for instructional strategies, classroom man-
agement, and student engagement (Table 4). The three self-
efficacy subscales were highly intercorrelated with each other
in the pre-test data. This implies that the three self-efficacy
dimensions together measure a single underlying latent con-
struct of self-efficacy. Efficacy for instructional strategies was
related to efficacy for classroom management in the post-test.
In the pre-test, enactive mastery experiences with social and
verbal persuasion were significantly (p < 0.05) related to both
efficacy for instructional strategies (r = 0.40) and efficacy for
student engagement (r = 0.38). Sources of university training
were significantly related to both efficacy for instructional
strategies (r = 0.36) and efficacy for student engagement (r =
0.32). None of the sources was significantly related to efficacy
for classroom management. There was no relation in the post-
test between any of the sources of teaching efficacy and preser-
vice teachers’ self-efficacy, largely due to the limited number
of observations.
Table 2.
Paired t-test outcome of pre- and post-test scores of nine preservice teachers on TSES.
Mean Standard Standard
Mean N Difference Deviation Error Mean t p-value
Posttest 3.96 9 0.9 0.36 0.12 7.46 0.001**
Instructional strategies
Pretest 3.06 9
Posttest 4.06 9 0.71 0.71 0.24 3.01 0.017*
Classroom management
Pretest 3.35 9
Posttest 3.76 9 0.61 0.5 0.17 3.68 0.006**
Student engagement
Pretest 3.15 9
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Table 3.
Beta regression coefficients for sources of teaching efficacy as predictors of efficacy IS, CM, and SE.
Instructional strategies Outcome measures
Classroom management Student engagement
Sources
Standardized
Coefficients BetaSig. Standardized Coefficients Beta Sig. Standardized Coefficients Beta Sig.
Personality characteristics −0.76 0.37 −2.75 0.01* −0.21 0.89
Capabilities/skills −1.50 0.03* −1.08 0.05* −0.38 0.70
Motivation 1.73 0.19 4.08 0.01* 0.44 0.85
Enactive mastery with social/verbal persuasion −0.28 0.67 −1.58 0.04* −0.98 0.45
Vicarious experience −0.21 0.71 1.08 0.07 1.01 0.37
Physiological/affective state −1.66 0.09 −3.27 0.01* −1.40 0.39
University training 0.87 0.08 0.37 0.31 0.90 0.29
*p < 0.05

S. OH 239
Table 4.
Correlation analysis of preservice teachers’ sense of efficacy and sources in both pre- (N = 43) and post-test (N = 14).
Pre-test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1.00
2 0.71** 1.00
3 0.83** 0.77** 1.00
4 0.23 0.18 0.26 1.00
5 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.76** 1.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.35* 0.02 1.00
7 0.40** 0.27 0.38* 0.48** 0.35* 0.14 1.00
8 0.18 0.10 0.02 −0.05 −0.14 −0.19 0.16 1.00
9 −0.07 −0.16 −0.05 −0.16 0.01 0.10 −0.39 −0.13 1.00
10 0.36* 0.15 0.32* 0.31* 0.13 0.22 0.49** 0.05 −0.04 1.00
Post-test
1 1.00
2 0.54* 1.00
3 0.41 0.22 1.00
4 −0.18 0.01 −0.37 1.00
5 −0.19 0.26 −0.16 0.72** 1.00
6 −0.23 −0.08 −0.36 0.84** 0.70** 1.00
7 0.29 −0.06 0.33 0.00 0.11 0.18 1.00
8 −0.15 −0.34 0.17 −0.29 −0.34 −0.02 0.67* 1.00
9 −0.17 −0.47 −0.01 −0.32 −0.35 0.14 0.02 0.47 1.00
10 0.22 −0.18 0.05 0.12 0.21 0.41 0.69* 0.42 0.19 1.00
Note: 1 = Efficacy for instructional strategies, 2 = Efficacy for classroom management, 3 = Efficacy student engagement, 4 = Personality, 5 = Capabilities, 6 = Motivation,
7 = Enactive mastery with social/verbal persuasion, 8 = Vicarious experiences, 9 = Physiological/affective state, 10 = University training; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the variables that
impact preservice teachers’ perceptions of their teaching effi-
cacy during their reading and writing lessons. Extending Ban-
dura’s four sources of efficacy beliefs—performance or mas-
tery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal or social persua-
sion, and physiological and/or emotional states—this study
explored what other sources may impact preservice teachers’
sense of efficacy.
The results of multiple regression analysis showed that per-
sonality characteristics, capabilities, motivation, enactive mas-
tery experiences with social/verbal persuasion, and physiologi-
cal/affective state were significant predictors of efficacy for
classroom management for TSES post-scores. Additionally,
when efficacy for instructional strategies was the dependent
variable, capabilities turned out to be a significant predictor.
The findings from this study are consistent with earlier research
conducted by Poulou (2007) that highlighted the importance of
student teachers’ personality characteristics, capabilities, and
motivation as potential sources of teaching efficacy. Bandura
(1997) did not identify those as important sources of informa-
tion that teachers consider when making self-efficacy judg-
ments. Although little research has examined the relationship
between teacher efficacy and personality types of teachers,
Erdle, Murray and Rushton (1985) found that the teacher per-
sonality traits and classroom teaching behaviors were signifi-
cant correlates of students’ ratings of their college teachers’
effectiveness. They found that the effective university instruc-
tors exhibited two types of personality traits: (1) Achievement
Orientation, such as dominance, intelligence, leadership, and (2)
Interpersonal Orientation, such as supportiveness, non-au-
thoritarianism, and non-defensiveness. Poulou (2007: p. 212)
mentioned that “the more student teachers perceived them-
selves as possessing specific personality characteristics and
teaching capabilities, the more they felt efficacious in imple-
menting instructional and discipline strategies and involving
pupils in the learning process”.
Overall, findings of this study also revealed that preservice
teachers’ motivation and capabilities were one of the important
sources to improve their teaching efficacy, in congruence with
previous research (Poulou, 2007; Yeung & Watkins, 2000).
Yeung and Watkins (2000) found that the development of
teaching efficacy should partly be attributed to the student
teachers’ capability, which was acquired mainly through their
teaching and observations of pupils’ learning as well as confi-
dence in dealing with daily matters.
Several limitations should be acknowledged in interpreting
results from this study. First, among the limitations of this re-
search are the different numbers of participants in the pre-test
and post-test, and that the small sample size came from in one
institution; 43 preservice teachers responded to the pre-test
while only 14 preservice teachers responded to the post-test.
Only 9 preservice teachers who provided identification an-
swered both pre- and post-test items. Thus, caution must be
exercised in generalizing from the results based on this small
sample of preservice teachers from only one teacher preparation
program who were enrolled in literacy method courses at a

S. OH
240
Midwestern research-extensive university in the United States.
However, this study should be interpreted as a preliminary
phase of a broader stream of research to explore the sources of
preservice teachers’ efficacy and changing levels of their
self-efficacy beliefs.
The findings reported here should be interpreted as the re-
sults of a pilot study conducted to verify the TSES instrument
and Teaching Efficacy Sources Inventory. The Teaching Effi-
cacy Sources Inventory used in this study was developed based
on 4th-year student teachers’ data from two pedagogical de-
partments in Greece. Extending these previous measures to a
substantially different context, the participants in this study
were preservice teachers who were enrolled in their first or
second literacy methods courses at a midwestern state univer-
sity in the United States and who have not yet conducted their
student teaching. Thus, caution is needed in generalizing the
results of this study to preservice teachers who were trained as
teacher candidates in teacher preparation program in the United
States. Contextual variables contributing to analysis of the
teaching task consequently would play a stronger role in stu-
dent teachers’ sense of efficacy than for more experienced
teachers. So, future research could examine what aspects of the
teaching environment and context affect novice teachers’ sense
of efficacy. There is a need for greater understanding about
how the various kinds of context variables, such as school level
and setting, the quality of the school facilities, the availability
of teaching resources, and interpersonal support from parents
and the community, are linked to higher teaching efficacy.
Conclusion
In sum, the findings of this study revealed potential sources
of preservice teachers’ sense of efficacy that were not included
in previous measurement inventories, such as personality char-
acteristics, capabilities/skills, and motivation to improve pre-
service teachers’ teaching efficacy. Notwithstanding the fact
that it is necessary to understand more and less important
sources that teachers consider when making efficacy judgments
about their capability for instruction and classroom manage-
ment, little research has examined the various potential vari-
ables that influence teachers’ sense of efficacy. The results of
this study have extended the results of Bandura’s (1997) previ-
ous research, in which the four experiential sources of personal
performance accomplishments, vicarious learning or modeling,
emotional arousal (anxiety), and social persuasion and encour-
agement were important to the initial development of self-effi-
cacy expectations. The findings of this study highlight the im-
portance of preservice teachers’ personality characteristics,
capabilities, and motivation as potential sources of teaching
efficacy.
Also, the results of Pearson product-moment correlations in
this study indicated that efficacy for efficacy for instructional
strategies, classroom management, and student engagement
were significantly related to each other in the pre-test data for
this sample of preservice teachers in the United States. This
implies that the three self-efficacy dimensions together measure
a single underlying latent construct of self-efficacy.
Teacher self-efficacy is a crucial factor in improving teacher
education and promoting education reform because high
teacher self-efficacy consistently has been found to relate to
positive student and teacher behaviors. Thus, teacher educators
need to consider all sources of information that influence pro-
spective teachers’ efficacy beliefs if prospective teachers’ effi-
cacy is to be enhanced during teacher education programs. For
high levels of prospective teachers’ efficacy, university teacher
education programs should provide positive information from
vicarious experience, social persuasion, and a form of mastery
experience offered by student colleagues, cooperating teachers,
and university supervisors. In addition, the fact that the three
dimensions of self-efficacy were highly intercorrelated suggests
that future research in this area could be undertaken using
structural equation modeling approaches in which self-efficacy
is treated as a latent trait with three underlying constructs.
References
Anderson, S., & Betz, N. (2001). Sources of social self-efficacy expec-
tations: Their measurement and relation to career development.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 98-117.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1753
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behav-
ioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
W. H. Freeman.
Chan, D. W. (2008). General, collective, and domain-specific teacher
self-efficacy among Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in
Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1057-1069.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.11.010
Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An
important factor in school improvement. The Elementary School
Journal, 86, 173-184. doi:10.1086/461441
Erdle, S., Murray, H. G., & Rushton, J. P. (1985). Personality, class-
room behavior, and student ratings of college teaching effectiveness:
A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 394-407.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.77.4.394
Henson, R. K. (2001, February). Relationships between preservice
teachers’ self-efficacy, task analysis, and classroom management be-
liefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educa-
tional Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Poulou, M. (2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: student
teachers’ perceptions. Educational Psychology, 27, 191-218.
doi:10.1080/01443410601066693
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy:
Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,
783-805. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential
antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teach-
ers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944-956.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
US Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind: A desktop reference.
Washington, DC.
Yeung, K. W, & Watkins, D. (2000). Hong Kong student teachers’
personal construction of teaching efficacy. Educational Psychology,
20, 213-235. doi:10.1080/713663713