Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 1061–1066
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Teaching and Teacher Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
Dealing with school violence: The effect of school violence prevention training
on teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in dealing with violent events
Revital Sela-Shayovitz a, b, *
a
b
David Yellin Academic College, Jerusalem, Israel
Institute of Criminology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 23 March 2008
Received in revised form
25 March 2009
Accepted 21 April 2009
This study deals with the relationship between school violence prevention training and teachers’
perceived self-efficacy in handling violent events. Three indicators were used to examine teachers’ selfefficacy: personal teaching efficacy (PTE), teachers’ efficacy in the school as an organisation (TESO), and
teachers’ outcome efficacy (TOE). Data were obtained from an anonymous questionnaire administered to
147 teachers. The findings revealed a significant correlation between participation in school violence
training and TOE, whereas training did not correlate significantly with PTE and TESO. Teachers at
elementary and junior high schools reported higher levels of TOE in dealing with violence than high
school teachers. A significant relationship was found between teachers who reported receiving high
levels of support from the school and TOE in dealing with violence.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Violence prevention training
School violence
Teachers’ self-efficacy
1. Introduction
School is one of the main arenas of violence among children and
youth. Teachers and principals encounter on a daily basis violent
behaviour at various levels – among students, against property, and
between staff members and students. Yet, many teachers complain
about school violence and ask for guidance in acquiring skills for
intervention (Mallet & Paty, 1999; Price & Everett, 1997). Research has
shown that the successful implementation of school violence prevention programmes appears to hinge on the extensive training of teachers
and other school staff in selected violence prevention strategies
(Thornton, Craft, & Dahlberg, 2000). However, despite the abundance
of literature on school violence, only a few studies have dealt specifically with teachers’ self-efficacy in dealing with violence (Kandakai &
King, 2002). This paper aims to contribute to the existing literature by
expanding this focus and investigating the relationship between school
violence prevention training and teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in
coping with verbal and physical violence among students.
2. Literature review
2.1. Teachers’ self-efficacy
Self-efficacy definitions are mainly based on Bandura’s (1986)
perspective as the individual’s belief in the ability to organise and
* Corresponding author at: Revital Sela-Shayovitz, Mevo Tidhar 14, Mevasseret
Zion, 90805, Israel. Tel./fax: þ972 2 533 4538.
E-mail address: ron15r@netvision.net.il
0742-051X/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.04.010
execute courses of action required to attain future goals. Self-efficacy is a central mechanism affecting the self-image of individuals
and mediates between personal knowledge, skills, and beliefs on
the one hand, and the individual’s activities on the other. The
concept distinguishes between existing skills, belief in one’s abilities, and outcomes. Accordingly, people with similar competencies
can attain different outcomes owing to differences in their
perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 1993).
Teachers’ self-efficacy reflects their belief in advancing their
students’ achievements, self-evaluations of their ability to organise
knowledge and skills, and their ability to execute courses of action
required to attain certain goals (Lev & Rich, 1999). Scholars argue
that teachers’ perceived self-efficacy includes the components of
general self-efficacy and self-efficacy in teaching (Ross, 1995;
Soodak & Podell, 1996; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy,
1998). Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed a measure of teachers’
self-efficacy that includes two dimensions: personal efficacy and
general teaching efficacy. Personal efficacy refers to the teachers’
belief in their ability to promote their students’ achievement,
whereas general teaching efficacy relates to the teachers’ general
belief in the teaching profession as a means of promoting
achievement among students, regardless of the personal competencies of a given teacher. Cherniss (1993) proposed a broader
perspective based on three components of teachers’ self-efficacy:
task performance, interpersonal relations, and interpersonal relationships in the school organisation. Friedman and Wax (2000)
offered a similar definition for teachers’ self-efficacy, but expanded
the school organisation component to teachers’ perceptions of the
support they received from their administration.
1062
R. Sela-Shayovitz / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 1061–1066
Teachers’ self-efficacy has been examined primarily in the
context of students’ achievements. Studies have revealed that selfefficacy has a significant impact on students’ achievements
(Allinder, 1994; Da Costa & Riordan, 1996; Milner & Woolfolk, 2003;
Ross & Cousins, 1993). Scholars underscore the fact that teachers’
self-efficacy is primarily affected by relationships within the organisation and by the extent of support they receive from their
colleagues (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfok-Hoy, 2002). Schools that
provided a low level of support for their teaching staff were associated with low levels of teachers’ self-efficacy, and these teachers
were less willing to cope with their students’ problems (Goddard &
Goddard, 2001).
2.2. School violence
Since the 1980s, the issue of school violence has received
considerable research attention. Most studies have focused on
three main areas. The first relates to types of violence among
different age groups (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Goldstein, 1994;
Kingrery, Coggeshall, & Alford, 1998; Smith et al., 1999; Sullivan,
2000). The second aspect relates to the characteristics of violent
students and victims (Astor, Benbenishty, Zeira, & Vinokur, 2002;
Benbenishty & Astor, 2005), and the third deals with the evaluation
of school violence prevention programmes (Gottfredson, 1997;
Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2001; Olweus, 1993).
The majority of school violence prevention programmes have
focused on the individual level (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2001;
Howard, Flora, & Griffin, 1997) and only a few attempts have been
made to focus on the macro system level (Tolan & Guerra, 1994).
However, most researchers agree that effective prevention programmes that focus on multiple domains are more effective than
those that focus only on the individual level. Prevention programme success is enhanced by combining several emphases, i.e.,
targeting students, school staff training, and home-school cooperation (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Swearer, Song, Cary, Eagle, &
Mickelson, 2001). In addition, a single school-based strategy
implemented in isolation will not have a significant effect. Multiyear programmes are more likely to foster lasting benefits rather
than short-term interventions (Weissberg & Elias, 1993; Wilson,
Gottfredson, & Najaka, 2001). Therefore, prevention studies require
a better understanding of multiyear evaluations of coordinated
school-wide programming that combines comprehensive personcentred and environmental packages of effective strategies
(Weissberg & Elias, 1993). Researchers stress that there is a lack of
evidence in regard to the effectiveness of most prevention programmes and this makes it difficult for schools to make informed
decisions about which programmes are most likely to meet their
goals (Gottfredson, 1997; Swearer et al., 2006). Wilson et al. (2001)
suggest that future research should go beyond examining the
question ‘Which programme works?’ to more sophisticated,
ecologically-based questions such as, ‘How can schools effectively
design comprehensive packages of prevention strategies and
implement them in a high-quality fashion?’ (p. 269).
Yet, despite the development of school prevention programmes
for reducing violence, teachers and other school staff are overwhelmed by school-related violence and are unsure of how to deal
with it (Kandakai & King, 2002; Mallet & Paty, 1999; Poland, 1994;
Price & Everett, 1997; Thornton et al., 2000). This uncertainty can
have a tremendous impact on attempts to maintain safe school
environments. A study on the contribution of a bully prevention
programme to the enhancement of teachers’ self-efficacy found
that the programme effectively increased teachers’ knowledge of
bullying behaviours, and improved their self-efficacy in coping
with such behaviours (Newman-Carlson, 2004). However,
notwithstanding the importance of training teachers to acquire
skills for intervention in violence events, this theme is not an
integral part of the teacher training curriculum, and only a few
studies have examined the effect of training on teachers’ perceived
self-efficacy. Results of existing studies show that the majority of
pre-service teachers did not receive any form of violence prevention training in the general teacher training curriculum (Kandakai &
King, 2002). The findings indicate that most pre-service teachers
report they had less confidence about their ability to deal with
bullying and were in favour of teacher training courses regarding
ways of combating bullying. Similarly, they expressed more confidence in dealing with victims and their parents rather than
working with the bullies and their parents (Nicolaides, Toda, &
Smith, 2002). An examination of perceived self-efficacy among preservice teachers enrolled in violence prevention courses revealed
that as a result of the training, female pre-service teachers felt more
confident than males about teaching violence prevention. In addition, pre-service teachers in secondary education received consistently lower efficacy expectation scores than those in kindergartens
and elementary schools (Kandakai & King, 2002).
2.3. School violence prevention training
The present programme focuses on training teachers to deal
with verbal and physical violence among students. The basic
assumption of the programme was that it is the teacher’s responsibility to respond to and deal directly with violence among
students. Accordingly, they need professional tools in order to cope
effectively with the problem. The programme has three main goals:
(a) to provide broad theoretical knowledge on the issue of violence,
as well as comprehensive information on existing programmes for
prevention of violence; (b) to examine various approaches for
dealing with violent students and evaluate the extent of how
appropriate they are for different types of violent students; (c) to
enhance the teachers’ skills in dealing with violent incidents. The
programme was offered at a college of education, and weekly
sessions were held for the teachers’ training. The plan was that
the learning experience would be a continuous process in which
the knowledge of the course would be applied and tested by the
teachers in their work. This objective was also based on the existing
literature which has shown that short-term interventions in
violence are not effective in the long range (Weissberg & Elias,
1993; Wilson et al., 2001). The first part of the prevention programme focused on topics such as: introduction to the theories that
deal with the causes of violence, distinctions between different
types of violence, gender differences, causes of school violence, and
an overview of existing prevention programmes and various therapeutic approaches. The second part of the programme focused on
teachers’ training in three main domains of handling violent incidents. This objective was based on previous research which indicated that multiple domains intervention is more effective than
focusing on the individual level (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Swearer
et al., 2001). On the micro level, the training programme focused on
dealing with the individual violent student. The teachers were
asked to evaluate cases of violent students in their classes, and
design an intervention plan for those cases. The learning process
also related to ways of dealing with parents of violent students, and
involving them in the treatment process. This goal was based on
a study which indicated that teachers have difficulty coping with
parents of violent students (Nicolaides et al., 2002). In addition,
studies have emphasised the importance of home-school cooperation in prevention programmes (Espelage & Swearer, 2003;
Wilson et al., 2001). During the programme, teachers reported on
an intervention with a violent student, and discussed the difficulties they encountered as well as the changes that took place as
a result of their intervention. On the classroom level, the
R. Sela-Shayovitz / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 1061–1066
programme aimed to improve the teachers’ skills and awareness of
their role in determining classroom rules against violence, in
developing strategies of the supervision of violence behaviours,
and in discourses conducted with students about violent behaviour.
In this part of the programme as well, teachers were required to
conduct an activity in their classroom, and report on the process
through reflection (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Wiseman & Hunt,
2001). The macro level aimed to develop the teachers’ skills for
involving other parties in dealing with cases of violence, such as,
the school administration, therapeutic agents in the community,
and sometimes even control agents such as the police or probation
officers (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Wilson et al., 2001).
2.4. The present study
A review of the research literature indicates that self-efficacy has
mainly been examined in terms of teachers’ contribution to
promoting their students’ achievements. Furthermore, only a small
number of studies have dealt with teachers’ self-efficacy in coping
with school violence. This study aims to contribute to the existing
research knowledge by examining the relationship between participation in a school violence prevention programme and teachers’ selfefficacy in dealing with verbal and physical violence among students.
The following research questions were examined:
a. Are there differences between teachers who participated in the
programme and those who did not regarding self-efficacy in
dealing with violence among students?
b. Is teachers’ self-efficacy in dealing with violence affected by
sociodemographic variables, such as, gender, teaching experience, and academic background?
3. Method
3.1. Sample
The sample consisted of 147 participants (77% women and 23%
men), aged 22–58 years (M ¼ 35.0, SD ¼ 8.2). The majority of
participants were teachers (82%), and the rest were pre-service
graduate students (18%) who were taught in a fulltime position as
part of their last year of teacher training. 41.4% of the sample had
participated in a school violence prevention training programme
(46 were teachers and 15 were pre-service graduate students).
The sample of participants was stratified according to the level
of the schools where they worked, as follows:
Elementary schools: 32.6% of the sample were teachers in three
elementary schools. 31.1% of participants in the school violence
prevention programme were teachers who worked at elementary schools.
Junior high schools: 25.8% of the sample were teachers in two
junior high schools. 36% of participants in the school violence
prevention programme were teachers who worked at junior
high schools.
High schools: 41.6% of the sample were teachers in three high
schools. 32.9% of participants in the school violence prevention
programme were teachers who worked at high schools.
3.2. Instrument
An anonymous self-report questionnaire comprising 35 items
was constructed for data collection. The instrument was designed
in the same format as the teachers’ self-efficacy questionnaire
(Friedman & Wax, 2000; Gibson & Dembo, 1984) and items were
based on preliminary interviews with teachers that examined the
1063
teachers’ perceptions on dealing with school violence. Initially,
a pilot study was conducted among 30 teachers. Following the pilot
study, and after inviting the respondents to voice their opinions on
the clarity of the questions, the questionnaire was modified.
The first part of the questionnaire collected data on the participants’ demographic characteristics: age, gender, years of teaching
experience, academic background (graduates of teachers’ colleges
versus university graduates) and education level (elementary,
junior high, high school). The second part examined whether the
participants had attended a school violence prevention training
programme. The third part examined the teachers’ perceived selfefficacy in dealing with verbal and physical violence. A Varimax
rotated matrix was used, and three factors were extracted, which
accounted for 68% of the variance. Each indicator consisted of five
items. Appendix A presents the three factors and a list of items in
each factor for measuring teachers’ self-efficacy in dealing with
violence as derived from the Varimax rotated matrix factor analysis.
The three indicators were as follows:
3.2.1 Personal teaching efficacy (PTE)
Teacher’s attitudes and beliefs with respect to dealing with
violence.
3.2.2 Teachers’ efficacy in the school as an organisation (TESO)
Teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which they received
support and cooperation from the school organisation in dealing
with violence.
3.2.3 Teachers’ outcome efficacy (TOE)
Teachers’ perceptions of their self-efficacy in dealing with actual
violent events.
Responses were based on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at
all) to 5 (to a very great extent). In the data analysis stage, the scale
of responses on items describing low self-efficacy was reverse
coded for consistency with the items describing high self-efficacy:
the higher the score, the higher the participants’ perceived selfefficacy. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability values for PTE, TESO, TOE
were .78, .93, and .92, respectively.
3.3. Data analysis
Data were analyzed on two levels, as follows:
3.3.1. First level of analysis
This was a comparative analysis, which aimed to determine
whether there were significant differences in perceived self-efficacy
in dealing with school violence between teachers who had participated in violence prevention training and those who did not. Additionally, among those who had participated in violence prevention
training, the analysis aimed to examine whether there were significant differences between teachers and pre-service graduate students
in perceived self-efficacy in dealing with violence. Data analysis was
conducted using T-tests for each of the three indicators of self-efficacy
examined in the study: PTE, TESO, and TOE.
3.3.2. Second level of analysis
This analysis was conducted by using the ordinary least square
(OLS) method and fitting a linear regression model. This model
estimates the relationship between teachers’ characteristics, PTE
and TESO (the independent variables), and the teachers’ outcome
efficacy in dealing with actual violent events (the dependent variable). The regression model is as follows:
Yi ¼ b0 þ b1 X1i þ b2 X2i þ b3 X3i þ b4 X4i þ b5 X5i þ b6 X6i þ 3i
Yi denotes the teachers’ outcome efficacy, where 1 (low) – 5 (high).
1064
R. Sela-Shayovitz / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 1061–1066
X1i denotes gender, where X1i ¼ 1 for male and X1i ¼ 0 for
female.
X2i denotes years of teaching experience.
X3i denotes academic background, where X3i ¼ 1 for university
graduates and X3i ¼ 0 for college graduates.
X4i denotes violence prevention training, where X4i ¼ 1 trained
and X4i ¼ 0 non-trained.
X5i denotes PTE – personal teaching efficacy, where 1 (low) – 5
(high).
X6i denotes TESO – teachers’ efficacy in the school as an organisation, where 1 (low) – 5 (high).
3i denotes an error term.
Table 2
T-test results for teachers’ and pre-service graduate students’ self-efficacy among
participants in the school violence prevention programme (N ¼ 61).
Self-efficacy
PTE
TESO
TOE
Teachers (N ¼ 46)
Students (N ¼ 15)
M
SD
M
SD
3.46
3.39
3.46
.51
.62
.59
3.54
3.11
3.04
.11
.77
.55
t (1,61)
.49
1.38
2.35*
Notes: PTE ¼ personal teaching efficacy.
TESO ¼ teachers’ efficacy in the school as an organisation.
TOE ¼ teachers’ outcome efficacy.
*p < .05 **p < .01.
4. Results
Table 1 presents the results of the T-tests analyses for teachers’
self-efficacy in dealing with school violence between teachers who
had participated in violence prevention training and those who did
not.
The findings in Table 1 indicate that there were significant
differences between teachers who received violence prevention
training and those who did not with regard to perceived outcome
efficacy in dealing with violence t (1, 147) ¼ 4.48, p < .0001.
Outcome efficacy was significantly higher among teachers who
received training than among those who did not (M ¼ 3.5, SD ¼ .71,
versus M ¼ 2.89, SD ¼ .88, respectively). However, no significant
differences were found between teachers who received training
and those who did not with regard to the PTE and the TESO
indicators.
Table 2 presents the results of the T-tests analyses for self-efficacy in dealing with school violence of teachers and pre-service
graduate students who had participated in violence prevention
training.
The results in Table 2 indicate that among those who had
participated in violence prevention training, there were significant
differences in TEO between teachers and pre-service graduate
students t (1, 61) ¼ 2.35, p ¼ .02. Outcome efficacy was significantly higher among teachers than among students (M ¼ 3.46,
SD ¼ .59, versus M ¼ 3.04, SD ¼ .55, respectively). Conversely, no
significant differences were found between teachers and students
with regard to the PTE and TESO indicators.
Table 3 presents the results of the OLS regression analysis for
teachers’ outcome efficacy in dealing with actual violent events.
The results in Table 3 reveal a significant correlation between
teaching experience and self-efficacy in dealing with school
violence (b ¼ .36, p ¼ .04). Teachers with more experience reported
higher levels of TOE (teachers’ outcome efficacy in dealing with
actual violent events) than did their counterparts with less teaching
experience. In addition, school violence prevention training was
found to have a significant positive effect on TOE (b ¼ .52,
Table 3
OLS regression model of teachers’ outcome efficacy in dealing with actual violent
events (N ¼ 147).
b
SE
Gender
Age
Years of teaching experience
Academic background
Education A
Education B
Violence prevention training
PTE
TESO
.06
.18
.36*
.08
.25*
.18*
.52**
.06
.34*
(.51)
(.19)
(.19)
(.07)
(.14)
(.09)
(.12)
(.11)
(.06)
R2
.34
Variable
Notes: gender: 0 ¼ male, 1 ¼ female; academic background: 0 ¼ college graduates,
1 ¼ university graduates; education A: 0 ¼ high school, 1 ¼ junior high school;
education B: 0 ¼ non-junior high school, 1 ¼ high school; violence prevention
training: 0 ¼ non-trained, 1 ¼ trained; PTE ¼ personal teaching efficacy;
TESO ¼ teachers’ efficacy in the school as an organisation.
*p < .05 **p < .01.
p ¼ .0001). Teachers who participated in a prevention training
programme reported higher levels of TOE than those with no
training. No significant effect on TOE was found for the variables of
gender and teachers’ background. However, the findings indicate
that the level of the educational institution correlated significantly
with TOE (b ¼ .25, p ¼ .0001). Teachers at elementary and junior
high schools reported higher levels of teachers’ outcome self-efficacy in dealing with violence than high school teachers. Similarly,
TESO (teachers’ efficacy in the school as an organisation) was found
to have a significant positive effect on TOE (b ¼ .34, p ¼ .04).
Teachers working at schools that provided cooperation and support
reported higher levels of teachers’ outcome self-efficacy in dealing
with violent events than those who did not receive such
cooperation.
5. Discussion
Table 1
T-test results for participation in violence prevention training programmes, and
teachers’ perceived self-efficacy (N ¼ 147).
Self-efficacy
PTE
TESO
TOE
Did not participate
in violence prevention
training (N ¼ 86)
Participated in
violence prevention
training (N ¼ 61)
M
SD
M
SD
3.54
2.85
2.89
.54
1.08
.88
3.42
3.14
3.50
.60
1.03
.71
Notes: PTE ¼ personal teaching efficacy.
TESO ¼ teachers’ efficacy in the school as an organisation.
TOE ¼ teachers’ outcome efficacy.
*p < .05 **p < .01.
t (1,147)
1.27
1.63
4.48**
This paper presents the findings of an exploratory study on the
relationship between participation in school violence prevention
training and teachers’ self-efficacy in dealing with violence. To date,
despite the high incidence of school violence, most teachers do not
participate in violence prevention training programmes. Furthermore, there is almost no research on the context of teachers’ selfefficacy in dealing with violence. Hence, the present study provides
new insights in regard to these dimensions.
The findings demonstrated that violence prevention training
had a significant positive effect on TOE (teachers’ outcome efficacy
in dealing with actual violent events). Teachers who participated in
a violence prevention programme reported higher levels of
self-efficacy than those who did not receive training. However,
R. Sela-Shayovitz / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 1061–1066
significant differences were not found between participants and
non-participants in training programmes with regard to the other
two indicators – PTE and TESO. It can thus be assumed that the
prevention programmes placed emphasis on practical aspects of
dealing with violent behaviour rather than on changing the
teachers’ general attitudes towards the problem (PTE). Therefore,
the training programme did not bring about significant changes in
the PTE indicator. Another possible explanation is that there might
be a gap between the teachers’ individual attitudes regarding
school violence and their ability to intervene in actual violent
events. As such, the PTE indicator would reflect the general
perspectives they had formulated in the course of their work, and
might not necessarily be related to their practical training in that
area.
The absence of significant differences between participants and
non-participants in training programmes with regard to TESO
(teachers’ efficacy in the school as an organisation) might be
attributed to the fact that school violence programmes had also
been provided as specialisation courses outside of the school. Thus,
the teachers who participated in these programmes might have felt
that even though they had received tools and knowledge to help
them deal with violence, the school system did not provide enough
support or cooperation in coping with violent events. Moreover, it
is possible that teachers who received training experienced frustration or were more critical about the way the school organisation
handled problems of violence when they arose. Hence, these
teachers might have reported relatively low levels of TESO which
did not differ substantially from teachers who had not received
training in that area.
The results show that among participants in the school
violence prevention programme, teachers’ outcome efficacy was
significantly higher among teachers than among pre-service
graduate students. This finding suggests that teachers can derive
more benefit from the violence prevention programme than
students because of their teaching experience. Indeed, OLS
results confirmed this hypothesis and demonstrated a significant relationship between teaching experience and teachers’
self-efficacy in dealing with violence. Teachers with more
teaching experience reported higher levels of TOE than those
with less experience. It can be assumed that teachers with less
experience might have felt more threatened and less confident
in dealing with violent events. Moreover, it is possible that
teachers with less experience refrained from reporting violent
events because they were afraid that their status in the school
system might be affected, or that they might be less appreciated
if they reported the event. During the interviews that preceded
the development of the research instrument, teachers with few
years of teaching experience indicated that they were afraid to
report or ask for assistance in dealing with violent events. The
main reason cited was their fear that reporting violence would
detract from their professional image at school, and that they
would be viewed as incapable of dealing with problems of
violence on their own.
The results indicate that the educational level of school is
correlated significantly with TOE: teachers at elementary and
junior high schools reported higher levels of self-efficacy in dealing
with violence than high school teachers. It can be assumed that
high school teachers might be more apprehensive due to the
students’ general tendency to be critical of their teachers. Similarly,
some of the teachers are more likely to fear students because of the
students’ reputation for violent behaviour. Another reason for
the teachers’ concern might be that high schools are a source of the
most publicised school violence. Therefore, these apprehensions
might have an effect on teachers’ self-efficacy in dealing with
violence.
1065
In view of the relatively low levels of TEO among high school
teachers, it can be assumed that these teachers need more support
from the school organisation in dealing with violence. Therefore,
violence prevention programmes that are conducted inside the
school might contribute to teacher support and the development of
cooperation between teachers and administration in dealing with
violence.
The results regarding the low level of TOE among high school
teachers clearly indicate that additional research is needed on this
subject. Performing further analyses on the explanations presented
above would add to the existing knowledge on this subject.
The findings show that there is no significant gender difference
with regard to self-efficacy in dealing with violence. However, due
to the relatively small number of male participants in the current
study, this theme deserves further scrutiny.
The findings also revealed that TESO had a significant positive
effect on teachers’ self-efficacy: teachers who received support and
cooperation from the school administration reported higher levels
of self-efficacy. This finding is consistent with the results of
previous research on the impact of relationships in school as an
organisation on the teachers’ self-efficacy in general (Goddard &
Goddard, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfok-Hoy, 2002). These
results indicate the importance of developing cooperation and
teamwork-related skills as an integral part of the pre-service and
in-service training of teachers in dealing with violence.
6. Conclusions
The results provide several theoretical implications in light of
the literature review. First, due to the fact that there is almost no
research on teachers dealing with violence, the study contributes to
the existing corpus of knowledge by extending the focus to the
relationship between participation in school violence prevention
training and teachers’ self-efficacy in dealing with violence.
In addition, the study provides better insight in regard to the
importance of training teachers in a school violence prevention
programme. The findings indicate that participation in the violence
prevention training programme had a significant positive effect on
teachers’ outcome efficacy in dealing with actual violent events.
This result suggests that teacher preparation programmes must
also be actively included in efforts to reduce events of school
violence.
This conclusion also has important practical implications for the
process of training teachers. By including courses in school violence
prevention as an integral part of the teacher training curriculum, it
will be possible to better prepare teachers for dealing with violent
events. These courses would be most effective towards the end of
the teacher training programme, when students are undertaking
their practicum in schools.
Although the findings of this study expand our knowledge by
providing important insights regarding the impact of school
violence training programmes on teachers’ self-efficacy in dealing
with violence, the relatively small sample size makes it difficult to
arrive at generalisations. In addition, the present study did not
examine the contribution of variables such as the teacher’s position
at the school, the relationship among interventions in different
types of violence, and teachers’ perceived self-efficacy. It can be
assumed that teachers’ self-efficacy in coping with physical
violence is different than when confronting other types of violence
such as vandalism or indirect aggression. These limitations highlight the need for further research on this topic in order to increase
our understanding of the effect of participation in school violence
prevention training programmes on teachers’ self-efficacy in
dealing with violent events.
1066
R. Sela-Shayovitz / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 1061–1066
Appendix A. Factors on the scale for measuring perceived
self-efficacy of teachers dealing with violence as derived from
Varimax matrix rotated factor analysis.
Item personal teaching efficacy
Teachers are limited in their ability to prevent
violence because home education is the main
factor that affects the student’s violence.
I think I have the ability to understand the causes
of violent events.
I often feel that I lack professional knowledge in
coping with violence problems.
Even teachers who have extensive experience in
dealing with violence are not always able to
cope successfully with violence problems.
I think teachers play an important role in dealing
with school violence.
Teachers’ Efficacy in the School as an Organisation
In my school, there is close cooperation between
the teachers’ staff and administration in
dealing with violence.
I am afraid that if I will be a victim of students’
violence, the school will not support me.
I am involved in the school’s efforts to deal with
violence problems.
The school supports me in dealing with violence
problems.
I feel that I don’t have the ability to influence the
school’s decisions in regard to violence
problems.
Teachers’ Outcome Efficacy
Sometimes I ignore violent reactions because I
feel that I lack the confidence and knowledge
to handle those situations.
I deal effectively with violence problems in my
class.
Sometimes I avoid punishing violent students so
that they will not harm me or damage my
property.
I feel that I act assertively in dealing with violent
behaviour problems.
I have difficulty in dealing and communicating
with the parents of violent students.
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
.55
.16
01
.41
.08
19
.33
.15
28
.32
.18
14
.36
.11
17
.05
34
21
.08
31
27
.12
35
29
.02
37
22
.10
50
.14
.13
19
34
.25
19
34
.07
18
32
.25
19
32
.20
03
35
References
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and instructional practices
of special education teachers and consultants. Teachers Education and Special
Education, 17, 86–95.
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Zeira, A., & Vinokur, A. (2002). High school students’
assessment of fear and violence as a problem: a structural equation model.
Health Education and Behavior, 29, 716–736.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood, family, school and gender. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cherniss, C. (1993). The role of professional self-efficacy in the etiology of burnout. In
W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 135–149). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Da Costa, J. L., & Riordan, G. (1996). Teacher efficacy and field placements. In Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association. Missouri: Biloxi.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and
victimization: what have we learned and where do we go from here? School
Psychology Review, 32, 365–384.
Friedman, Y., & Wax, A. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy: The concept and
its measurement. Jerusalem: Henrietta Szold Institute (Hebrew).
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582.
Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. (2001). A multilevel of analysis of the relationship
between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teachers
Education, 17, 807–818.
Goldstein, A. (1994). The ecology of aggression. New York: Plenum Press.
Gottfredson, D. (1997). School-based crime prevention. In L. Sherman,
D. D.GottfredsonMackenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing
crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising – A report to the United States
Congress. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). What schools do to prevent problem
behavior and promote safe environments. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 313–344.
Howard, K. A., Flora, J., & Griffin, M. (1997). School-prevention programs in schools:
state of the science and implications for future research. Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 8, 197–215.
Kandakai, T. L., & King, K. A. (2002). Preservice teachers’ perceived confidence in teaching
school violence prevention. American Journal of Health Education, 26, 342–353.
Kingrery, P. M., Coggeshall, M. B., & Alford, A. A. (1998). Violence at schools: Recent
evidence from four national surveys. Rockville: Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation.
Lev, S., & Rich, Y. (1999). Teachers’ self-efficacy: its meaning and measurement, and
the contribution of counsellors to its enhancement. Iyunim Behinukh, 4(new
series), 87–117, (Hebrew).
Mallet, P., & Paty, B. (1999). How French counselors treat school violence: an adultcentered approach. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 21,
279–300.
Milner, H. R., & Woolfolk, H. A. (2003). A case study of an African American teacher’s
self-efficacy, stereotype threat, and persistence. Teaching and Teacher Education,
19, 263–273.
Newman-Carlson, D. (2004). Bully busters: a psychoeducational intervention for
reducing bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 82, 259–267.
Nicolaides, S., Toda, Y., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Knowledge and attitudes about school
bullying in trainee teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,
105–118.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Poland, S. (1994). The role of school crisis intervention teams to prevent and reduce
school violence and trauma. School Psychology Review, 23, 175–189.
Price, C. M., & Everett, S. A. (1997). Teachers’ perceptions of violence in the
public schools: the MetLife survey. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21,
178–186.
Ross, J. A. (1995). Strategies for enhancing teachers’ belief in their effectiveness:
research on a school improvement hypothesis. Teacher College Record, 97, 227–251.
Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1993). Enhancing secondary school students’ acquisition
of correlation reasoning skills. Research in Science and Technological Education,
11, 191–206.
Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R. F., & Slee, P. (1999). The
nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. New York: Routledge.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficiency: toward the understanding of
a multi-faceted construct. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52,
951–960.
Sullivan, K. (2000). The anti-bullying handbook. New York: Oxford University Press.
Swearer, S. M., Peugh, J., Espelage, D. L., Siebecker, A. B., Kingsbury, W. L., &
Bevins, K. S. (2006). A social-ecological model for bullying prevention and
intervention in early adolescents. In M. Furlong, & S. Jimerson (Eds.), Handbook
of school violence and school safety (pp. 257–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swearer, S., Song, S., Cary, P. T., Eagle, J. W., & Mickelson, W. T. (2001). Psychosocial
correlates in bullying and victimization: the relationship between depression,
anxiety, and bully/victim status. In R. A. Geffner, & M. Loring (Eds.), Bullying
behavior: Current issues, research, and interventions. Binghamton, NY: Haworth
Maltreatment and Trauma Press/The Haworth Press.
Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., & Dahlberg, L. L. (2000). Best practice of youth
violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action. Atlanta, GA: Center
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control.
Tolan, P. H., & Guerra, N. G. (1994). What works in reducing adolescent violence: An
empirical review of the field. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.
University of Colorado: Institute for Behavioral Science.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2002). The influence of resources and
support on teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research, April 2, 2002, New Orleans, LA.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Weissberg, R. P., & Elias, M. J. (1993). Enhancing young people’s social competence
and health behavior: an important challenge for educators, scientists, policy
makers, and funders. Applied and Preventive Psychology: Current Scientific
Perspectives, 3, 179–190.
Wilson, D. B., Gottfredson, D. C., & Najaka, S. S. (2001). School-based prevention of
problem behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17,
247–272.
Wiseman, D. G., & Hunt, G. H. (2001). Best practice in motivation and management in
the classroom. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Ltd.