1
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
Teacher Beliefs, Teacher Characteristics and School Contextual Factors: What are the
Relationships?
The beliefs that teachers hold influence their thoughts and their instructional decisions
(Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Davis, 2009). In turn, instructional decisions that teachers make
influence the learning experiences they plan for students and hence student opportunity to learn.
Further, some studies have shown that teachers may make differential instructional decisions
depending on their gender and their teaching experience (e.g., Ross, 1998). Finally, it has been
suggested that teachers alter their instructional practices depending on school contextual
variables such as the socioeconomic level of the school (Solomon, Battistich, & Hom, 1996).
Because teacher beliefs, characteristics and contextual factors have all been shown to potentially
influence the learning outcomes of students, it is important that relationships between these
variables are more fully explored. If some of these beliefs and characteristics are related to each
other then this may result in even greater effects on instructional practices and therefore student
learning opportunities. For example, if teachers have low teaching efficacy and they are more
structured in their approach to teaching students in low socioeconomic areas and they lack
experience, the combination of these teacher factors may have greater implications for student
learning than if, for example, the teacher simply lacks teaching experience. Hence, it is
important to study beliefs from a wider perspective, to look for relationships that could be
important in terms of student learning. While there is a substantial body of literature related to
particular teacher beliefs (e.g., teacher efficacy), there is less that has explored various teacher
beliefs and characteristics in combination (see Deemer, 2004, as an exception). The purpose of
the current study was three-fold: first, we explored relationships between teacher efficacy,
teachers’ class-level expectations and teacher goal orientation; second, we examined
2
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
relationships between the social psychological variables teacher efficacy, teachers’ class-level
expectations, teacher goal orientation) and teacher characteristics (gender and teaching
experience) and third, we investigated whether contextual factors (school socioeconomic level
and class level) could predict any of the teacher social-psychological variables being explored.
Bandura (1977) first proposed the concept of self-efficacy. Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk
Hoy and Hoy (1998) applied this concept to teachers and defined teacher efficacy as, “the
teacher’s belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action required to
successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (p.233), whereas
Wheatley (2002) linked teacher efficacy more directly to a teacher’s belief in his or her ability to
influence student outcomes. So, teacher-efficacy relates to a context-specific assessment of
one’s ability to instruct students in a particular curriculum area or in a particular manner. Hence,
teacher efficacy is a “future oriented, task-specific judgement” (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2009,
pp.628).
Teacher academic expectations are also future-oriented judgements, and may be
curriculum-specific. Teacher expectations may be defined as the judgements teachers make
about the amount of academic progress they believe students will make by the end of a specific
time frame (often by the end of a year in empirical studies). When researchers are investigating
teacher expectations these are often also related to a specific curriculum area such as reading
(Rubie-Davies, 2007) or mathematics (Schullo & Alperson, 1998). Teacher expectations can be
viewed as a dyadic relationship whereby teachers have differing expectations for each individual
child in the classroom (often related to characteristics of the child, e.g., ethnicity, social class,
gender, ability). This is the traditional view. However, expectations can also be viewed at the
whole class level. From this perspective, some teachers have high expectations for all their
3
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
students (high expectation teachers) while other teachers have low expectations for all students
(low expectation teachers). This is not to say, the expectations are equally high (or low) for all
students, but rather, controlling for student achievement at the beginning of the year, high
expectation teachers expect all students to make substantial academic gains by the end of the
year, while low expectation teachers do not anticipate that their students will make many gains
(again controlling for prior achievement). Brophy (1985) first suggested that whole class
expectations were likely to have more import for student outcomes than expectations at the
individual level and, indeed, Brophy and Good (1974) proposed types of teachers whose
expectations would be likely to result in students making greater or lesser gains depending on the
teacher characteristics, rather than on the student characteristics. Meta-analyses of naturalistic
teacher expectation studies whereby expectations for individual students are considered generally
yield low effect sizes (r < .20) (Jussim, Robustelli, & Cain, 2009). On the other hand, a study
that investigated whole class teacher expectation effects on student achievement in reading found
very large effects for high expectation teachers (d = 1.01) but low effects for low expectation
teachers (d = .05) (Rubie-Davies, 2010). Hence, it would appear to be of some consequence to
consider expectations at the class level, rather than the individual level, an approach taken in the
current paper.
Teacher goal orientation is a further variable that has been shown to influence the ways in
which teachers structure their classrooms, motivate and interact with students. Two main types
of goal orientation, namely mastery and performance, have been identified (Kaplan & Maehr,
2007). Teachers with a performance goal orientation are more focused on formally assessing
their students’ ability to achieve. Teachers who have a mastery goal orientation, on the other
hand, consider learning to be an active process in which students are totally involved in their
4
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
learning and focused on acquiring skills, understandings and insights (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan,
Edelin, & Midgley, 2001).
From a teacher perspective, then, teacher expectations relate to where the teacher believes
the students in her/his class will get to, teacher efficacy relates to what s/he needs to do to get the
students there and teacher goal orientation relates to how s/he will structure lessons and
assessments in order for students to reach their goals. Hence, these teacher beliefs (expectations,
efficacy and goal-orientation) could be thought of as being interrelated. A teacher who has high
expectations for all students, may have the confidence that s/he can make a large difference to
their learning (teacher-efficacy) and use a mastery approach to teaching since this approach
appears to result in larger student gains (Roeser, Marachi, & Gehlbach, 2002). The
interrelatedness of these teacher beliefs is one aspect examined in this paper.
While the instructional practices of teachers were not examined in the current study, it is
the ways in which particular teacher beliefs can influence teacher instruction that make the
beliefs important to consider since the resultant practices can lead to differential outcomes for
students. Hence, the next section of the paper will briefly summarise the research findings
related to the influence of teacher beliefs on teacher instructional practices in literacy (since this
is the curriculum focus of the current paper).
In a study by Graham, Harris, Fink and MacArthur (2001), it was found that there was a
direct link between variables in efficacy scores and teachers’ beliefs about how to teach writing.
The researchers posited that teacher efficacy was linked to their beliefs about how to teach the
subject and was an important element in understanding effective instruction in writing.
Similarly, research by Chacon (2005) revealed a positive correlation between teachers’ sense of
efficacy and language proficiency. The way teachers perceived their capabilities to teach seemed
5
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
to directly influence their instructional practices. Teachers who felt confident about their
abilities and who enjoyed teaching seemed to willingly implement new and innovative practices.
Furthermore, the judgements teachers made about the tasks used to effect student learning, were
influenced by their perceived efficacy. Results from the study also showed that teachers’
efficacy for instructional strategies was higher than efficacy for management and engagement.
Within the teacher expectation literature, Rubie-Davies (2008a) found that the beliefs of
high and low expectation teachers were quite different. High expectation teachers believed that
students should work in mixed and flexible ability groupings for reading, be given choices about
the activities they completed, be exposed to challenging learning experiences and have clear
learning goals. On the other hand, low expectation teachers believed that students learnt best in
reading when they were grouped by ability and when the teacher planned quite distinct activities
for high and low ability students. The low expectation teachers believed they should make the
decisions about what students should learn, how, and with whom. These contrasting beliefs
resulted in very different instructional environments and for students (Rubie-Davies, 2007).
Within the goal orientation literature, as well, associations have been found between
teachers’ beliefs and the observed practices of teachers. In one study by Anderman and
colleagues (L. H. Anderman, Patrick, Hruda, & Linnenbrink, 2002), teachers with low mastery
beliefs were found to consider learning to be an individual process, best achieved by listening to
the teacher and following instructions. Student interaction was not considered helpful for
learning and students were not encouraged to collaborate or share answers. Students received
recognition if they followed procedures and obeyed the teacher rather than through achieving
success on tasks. In contrast, teachers high in mastery beliefs focused on understanding and
improvement because mistakes were considered informative for learning. Conversations with
6
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
students were supportive, constructive and focused on the next steps in learning. Students were
encouraged to actively participate in class and to work together. Students received feedback in
relation to the task rather than in relation to procedures. Thus it can be seen that teacher beliefs
appear to influence teacher practice.
The research cited above indicates that teachers alter their instructional practices in line
with their beliefs but particular characteristics of teachers also appear to be associated with
distinct beliefs. For example, gender and teaching experience have been associated with
differential teacher beliefs. In a study by Ross (1998), it was found that the more teaching
experience the teacher had, the greater his or her teacher efficacy tended to be. Similar studies in
other parts of the world, in Singapore, (Wilson & Tan, 2004); in Spain (de la Torre Cruz &
Arias, 2007); and in Hong Kong (Cheung, 2008) have all shown that higher levels of teacher
efficacy may well be attributed to teaching experience (Yeo, Ang, Chong, Huan, & Quek, 2008).
Similarly, one study suggested that high expectation teachers tended to have more teaching
experience than did teachers with lower expectations (Rubie-Davies, 2006). However, whether
goal orientation is related to teaching experience does not appear to have been examined in the
literature.
Ross (1998) also found that teacher efficacy was higher in females than in males although
more recent studies have reported no differences in teacher efficacy by gender (Tejeda-Delgado,
2009; Yeo et al., 2008). We were unable to locate any studies, however, that had examined
gender in relation to teacher expectations or goal orientation.
The school context has also been shown to influence teachers’ beliefs (e.g., Solomon, et
al., 1996). For example, the socioeconomic status of the school and the year level of the classes
teachers work in have been shown to relate to specific teacher beliefs and practices. Ross (1998)
7
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
found that teachers in the elementary sector consistently had higher teacher efficacy than their
high school counterparts. Further, Solomon et al., (1996) found that, controlling for
achievement, teachers working in low socioeconomic schools had lower expectations for their
students than teachers working in middle class schools. Another study showed that teachers in
the earlier years of primary school appeared to have higher expectations of their students than
did teachers of older primary school students (Rubie-Davies, 2006).
Finally, in a study conducted by Deemer (2004) in secondary classrooms, it was found
that the instructional practices of teachers were strongly determined by the culture of the school,
as were students’ mastery goals. A perceived supportive school culture allowed teachers to focus
their instructional practices, and for students to focus their goals, on mastery learning. In schools
with a perceived competitive culture, teachers’ instructional practices in the classroom were
focused on demonstrating ability and thus students’ goals were more performance oriented.
Further, it was found that teachers who were confident in their teaching abilities, and thus had
high levels of personal efficacy, created classroom environments focused on mastery practices
and student learning. However, the same link was not found between teachers’ personal efficacy
and performance practices.
The current study was conducted in New Zealand primary schools and hence it may be
useful for the reader to understand contextual variables that are of relevance to the paper since it
is likely that some of these could potentially confound the results. One which is of relevance to
the current paper is the socioeconomic level of the school. In some countries (e.g., the US), there
is status associated with teaching in middle class schools rather than in poorer communities
(McCaslin & Good, 2008). This is not the case in New Zealand. Teacher salaries are controlled
by a central government body and while it is true that it can be more difficult to recruit teachers
8
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
to low socioeconomic areas, the Ministry of Education have at times provided financial
incentives for teachers to work in low socioeconomic schools. Further, schools in low
socioeconomic areas are funded at a higher rate by the government than schools in high
socioeconomic areas meaning that all schools are well-resourced. This results in many
experienced and high quality teachers (particularly those with more teaching experience)
choosing to teach in low socioeconomic areas.
The gender balance and years of teaching experience of participants in the current study
also reflects the New Zealand primary school context. There is a gender imbalance in primary
schools in New Zealand with around 20 percent of teachers being male (Harker & Chapman,
2006). The age of teachers in primary schools is also increasing (age is used here as a proxy for
teaching experience) with only 51 percent being aged less than 45 (Harker & Chapman, 2006).
In the current study the authors investigated relationships between teacher efficacy, class
level expectations and teacher goal orientation. Relationships between those social
psychological variables, teacher characteristics (e.g., gender, teaching experience) and school
contextual factors (socioeconomic level of the school and year level of class being taught) were
also explored. Based on the research evidence presented above and the New Zealand context, it
was predicted that a relationship would be found between:
1)
teacher efficacy, class-level expectation and a mastery goal orientation;
2)
gender and the three beliefs variables of interest in the study;
3)
teaching experience and the three teacher beliefs variables being investigated;
4)
class level being taught and the three teacher beliefs variables included in the
current study;
9
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
5)
the socioeconomic level of the school and the three teacher beliefs variables
(teacher efficacy, expectation and goal orientation) although this relationship was
expected to be in a negative direction.
Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 68 New Zealand teachers from 18 schools randomly
selected from across the country to be part of the study. Some schools initially invited to
participate were not eligible to be part of the study. Of the original 50 schools, 20 had 3 or fewer
teachers at Year 4-8. Because year level being taught was a variable of interest, only teachers
teaching no more than two consecutive year levels were eligible. (A large number of New
Zealand schools are small rural schools.) However, despite excluding these schools the
urban/rural proportions were still representative of the New Zealand proportions. In this study, 6
schools were rural and 12 were urban; in New Zealand one-third of schools are rural (Brooking,
2007). Only schools using asTTle were eligible to be part of the study (asTTle is a standardized
measure of achievement used in New Zealand and is described below) since asTTle was used in
the study as the student achievement measure; 5 schools were not using asTTle. Finally, of the
original group of schools, 7 decided not to participate.
Of the 68 teachers who agreed to be part of the study, 52 were in primary schools, teaching
Years 4-6 students (approximately 8-10 years of age) and 16 were in intermediate schools
(approximately 11-12 years of age). In New Zealand, schools are given a decile ranking ranging
from 1-10 which is an indicator of socioeconomic level, with ‘1’ being schools in the poorer
areas and ‘10’ being those in wealthier areas. In this particular sample, more teachers were from
high decile schools (6-10) (46) than from low decile schools (1-5) (22) so teachers in middle-
10
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
class schools were over-represented. The imbalance of female to male teachers in New Zealand
primary and intermediate schools was reflected in the participants: 57 were female while 11 were
male. Teaching experience ranged from 1 to 47 years with a mean of 12.59 years and a standard
deviation of 10.24 years showing a wide dispersion. However, most teachers had 10 years or
less experience (39 teachers) and hence there was an over-representation of less experienced
teachers in this sample compared to the general primary school teaching population in New
Zealand.
Procedure and Design
Teachers were invited to become part of the study in February (beginning of the
academic year in New Zealand) and those who agreed were sent questionnaires at the beginning
of March. Teachers were sent a questionnaire to complete and return to the researchers. This
questionnaire was comprised of items designed to measure personal teacher efficacy beliefs and
teachers’ mastery and performance goal orientation. Schools supplied standardized reading
achievement data for each student in the classes of participating teachers. Teachers also
completed a survey in which they indicated how much progress they predicted each student in
their classes would make in reading across the year. This survey was used to indicate teacher
expectations for their students. The curriculum focus for the questionnaires, the expectation
survey and the achievement data related to reading. All student data were anonymized by
teachers who provided a code for every student on the survey they completed along with a
matched code for the student reading achievement data. Data were available for 1739 students.
11
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
Measures
Three measures were used in this study: the teacher beliefs questionnaire (comprised of
teacher efficacy and teacher goal orientation items), the teacher expectation survey and the
measure of student achievement. These measures will be described below.
Teacher efficacy.
The teacher beliefs questionnaire used in the current study was comprised of the
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the
two subscales from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) (Midgley et al., 2000)
designed to measure mastery and performance approaches to instruction.
The TSES was used to measure teachers’ personal teaching efficacy in reading. It
includes items that describe tasks in which teachers commonly engage (Woolfolk Hoy et al.,
2009). The long 24-item form was used to measure teacher efficacy in engagement of students,
efficacy in instructional strategies and efficacy in classroom management. An example of items
from each of these three subscales respectively is: “How much can you do to get through to the
most difficult students?”, “How much can you do to adjust your lessons to the proper level for
individual students?” and “How much can you do to control disruptive behaviour in the
classroom?”. Some items were altered so that the stem for each item became “How much can
you do to…?”. For example, “To what extent can you make your expectations clear about
student behaviour?” became “How much can you do to make your expectations clear about
student behaviour?”. Teachers rated their perceived self-efficacy on a 9-point Likert scale from
1 = “Nothing” to 9 = “A Great Deal.” Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) reported an
overall alpha coefficient for the TSES of .94, of .87 for the student engagement subscale, of .91
for instructional strategies and .90 for classroom management. In the current study the overall
12
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
alpha coefficient for the TSES was .93, .85 for the student engagement subscale, .86 for the
instructional strategies subscale and .85 for the classroom management subscale.
Teacher goal orientation.
Teachers’ goal orientation was measured using the mastery approaches to instruction and
the performance approaches to instruction subscales of the PALS (Midgley et al., 2000). The
two subscales are designed to measure teachers’ goal-oriented approaches to teaching and have
been used successfully in the US with teachers at the primary, middle and secondary school
levels (Midgley et al., 2000). In the original scale teachers rate statements about their mastery
and performance goal orientation on a 5-point Likert scale but in the current administration a 9point Likert scale was used ranging from 1 = “Never” to 9 = “All the time” so that the PALS
subscales were on the same Likert scale as the TSES. An example of a mastery goal item is:
“To what extent do you provide several different activities so that students can choose among
them?” and of a performance goal orientation: “To what extent do you display the work of the
highest achieving students as an example?” Midgley et al., (2000) report an alpha coefficient of
.69 for each scale. However, in the current study, the alpha coefficient for the mastery goal
orientation was .57 and for the performance goal orientation .75. It should be pointed out that
alterations were made to wording for some items in the mastery goal orientation scale to meet
New Zealand conditions. For example, “I consider how much students have improved when I
give them report card grades” was changed to: “To what extent do you consider how much
students have improved when you are writing their reports?” Changes such as this were made
since it is very uncommon for schools in New Zealand to assign students achievement grades in
primary school since at present there is no required compulsory standardized testing in the
country. It may be that the combination of using a 1 to 9 Likert scale and small wording
13
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
changes resulted in the low alpha coefficient for the mastery performance orientation scale.
Further, researchers in the field have begun to question the reliability of the PALS measure (L.
H. Anderman, personal communication, 3 May, 2010) but it is currently the only widely used
measure available designed to test teachers’ goal orientation.
The teacher beliefs questionnaire was piloted with a small group of teachers (seven) not
otherwise engaged in the study in order to determine readability and for teachers to provide
feedback on the measure. No difficulties were reported.
asTTle reading comprehension.
The Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning resource (asTTle) is an assessment tool
developed and used in New Zealand to assess students’ reading comprehension, mathematics and
writing. There is an English and te reo Māori (New Zealand indigenous language) version for
the three curriculum areas. It can be used with students from Year 4 to 12 to track the progress
and achievement of both individual students and groups of students against national norms.
Using asTTle, teachers can create 40-minute paper and pencil or on-line tests which they are able
to design for their particular students' learning needs. Once the tests have been scored, the
asTTle tool produces graphic reports that allow teachers to analyse student achievement against
curriculum levels, curriculum objectives, and population norms (Ministry of Education, 2010)
(For more information regarding asTTle go to www.asttle.com). For the purposes of the current
study, data for each student from a reading comprehension test were used. The asTTle scores
range from 100 to 1500 across the year levels so student progress can be tracked from Year 4 to
Year 12. The student reports give teachers a score for each student and also an equivalent
curriculum level. An average student in New Zealand will complete one curriculum level in any
curriculum area every two years and asTTle further divides each curriculum level into three
14
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
(basic, proficient, advanced) sub-levels as an indication of how much of each level a student has
completed.
Teacher expectation survey.
In order to gain a measure of teachers’ expectations, the teachers first made a class list of
students and estimated the asTTle level each student would reach by the end of the year. The
expectations for achievement were then compared with actual beginning of year asTTle levels to
determine expected progress over one year. Hence the scale provided a measure of each
teacher’s expectation for student progress. A difference measure was calculated to indicate
overall teachers’ expectations for students in their respective classes. First, the differences
between beginning of year reading levels and teacher expectations for end of year achievement
were calculated for each student. The total of these differences was calculated for each class and
a mean difference figure calculated for each teacher. The scores were collapsed in order to
provide a measure of the teachers’ overall expectations for the class. Clearly expectations for
individuals will vary but asking teachers to predict student progress (rather than achievement)
has been shown in previous studies (Rubie-Davies, 2007) to indicate teacher expectation beliefs,
that is, teachers who predict large gains for their students do so for all students in the class (high
expectation teachers) relative to beginning year achievement, while the opposite has been found
for low expectation teachers. The mean difference figure provided an indication of the teachers’
expectations for their whole class, that is, larger means indicated greater expectations of progress
for all students. The mean difference scores ranged from -.23 to 2.5, meaning the teacher whose
mean difference score was lowest was not expecting his/her students to make any overall gains
in achievement during the year (and arguably some decrease in achievement) while the one
whose mean difference score was greatest was expecting his/her students to increase on average
15
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
2.5 levels within asTTle across the year. This is a very high expectation as it indicates progress
of almost an entire curriculum level. The mean difference score for teachers was 1.22 levels of
progress for the year (SD = .49).
Results
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the measures as well as the
correlations between measures, teacher characteristics and school context variables. The means
for the subscales of the TSES in the current study are similar to those reported in the original
reliability and validity testing (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) for student
engagement (M = 7.3, SD = 1.1 in the original sample) and for instructional strategies (M = 7.3,
SD = 1.1 in the original sample). However, the mean for efficacy in classroom management
appears higher than that from the original sample (M = 6.7, SD = 1.1 in the original sample).
The means for the PALS scale are not directly comparable since the measure employs a 1-5 scale
usually and a 1-9 scale was used in the current study. However, while the mean for performance
goal orientation appears similar to that presented by the authors of PALS (Midgley et al., 2000)
in that both means are close to the mid-point (M = 2.21, SD = .85 in the original sample), the
mean indicating a mastery goal orientation appears to be greater in the current study (M = 3.44,
SD = .76 in the original sample).
Correlations between the two school context variables included in this study
(socioeconomic level and class level) and the teacher beliefs variables are also shown in Table 1.
As can be seen, the statistically significant correlations between teaching efficacy in instructional
strategies, classroom management and student engagement and socioeconomic level of the
school and between a mastery goal orientation and socioeconomic level of the school are
negative, indicating that teachers in low socioeconomic schools had higher teaching efficacy and
16
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
were more likely to have a mastery goal orientation than were teachers in high socioeconomic
areas (and the converse). The statistically significant correlations between class level taught and
the various teacher beliefs were also negative, indicating that teachers with younger students had
greater teacher efficacy for classroom management and student engagement than did teachers
with older students (and vice versa). No statistically significant relationships were found
between level of expectation for the class and either of the school context variables.
Gender of teacher was also significantly related to the three teacher efficacy subscales.
In all cases, the positive correlations indicate that female teachers had higher teaching efficacy
for each subscale than males. Goal orientation provides a different picture. The statistically
significant negative correlation for performance goals indicates that male teachers were more
performance orientated than females. In contrast, the statistically significant correlation for
mastery goal orientation indicates that female teachers were more mastery orientated than males.
No statistically significant correlations were found between teaching experience and any of the
teacher beliefs variables. Further, there were no statistically significant relationships between
class level teacher expectation and gender.
_________________________________
Insert Table 1 about here
_________________________________
Relationships Between Types of Teacher Beliefs
To determine if there was any relationship between teacher expectations, teacher efficacy
and teacher goal orientation, a series of simultaneous linear regressions were calculated in which
the teacher beliefs were entered to predict teacher expectations, teacher efficacy (efficacy for
17
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
instructional strategies, classroom management and student engagement) and goal orientation
(performance and mastery), in turn. The first simultaneous regression included teacher efficacy
in reading for instructional strategies, classroom management and student engagement predicting
a mastery goal orientation. This resulted in an adjusted R2 of .29 (F(3, 64) = 10.21, p < .001)
which is a moderate effect size according to Cohen (1988) (r = .32). This indicates that 29% of
the variance in mastery goal orientation was explained by the model. Both efficacy for student
engagement (β = .71, p < .001) and classroom management (β = -.41, p < .01) were significant
predictors of a mastery goal orientation (see Table 2). However, the negative Beta weight for
classroom management suggests that the more efficacious teachers were about their classroom
management strategies, the less likely they were to be mastery oriented.
The second simultaneous regression included teacher efficacy in reading for instructional
strategies, classroom management and student engagement predicting a performance goal
orientation. This resulted in an adjusted R2 of .02 (F(3, 64) = 1.47, p > .05), a small effect size (r
= .06). This means that only 2% of the variance in performance goal orientation could be
explained by the model. Efficacy for instructional strategies marginally predicted a performance
orientation but in a negative direction (β = -.34, p = .07) meaning that there was trend for
teachers who were more performance oriented to be less efficacious about their instructional
strategies (and vice versa). Efficacy for classroom management and student engagement did not
predict a performance goal orientation (see Table 2).
The third in this series of simultaneous regressions included teacher efficacy in reading
for instructional strategies, classroom management and student engagement predicting class level
teacher expectations. No statistically significant relationships were found (see Table 2).
18
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
Similarly, having a mastery (β = .04, p = .75) or a performance goal orientation (β = .05, p =
.70) did not predict teacher expectation.
_________________________________
Insert Table 2 about here
_________________________________
School Context and Teacher Characteristics Variables Predicting Teacher Beliefs
Following the preliminary calculation of correlations presented in Table 1, a series of
simultaneous regressions were calculated to further explore whether school context variables
(school socioeconomic level and class level), and teacher characteristics (gender and teaching
experience) predicted teacher beliefs (teacher efficacy in reading for student engagement,
instructional strategies and classroom management and teacher mastery and performance goal
orientation) (see Table 3). Because there were no relationships between teacher expectation and
either the school context or teacher characteristics variables, a simultaneous regression was not
performed to predict teacher expectation.
The first simultaneous regression included school socioeconomic level (1-10), class level,
gender and teaching experience (in years) predicting efficacy in student engagement. This
resulted in an adjusted R2 of .25 (F(4, 63) = 5.19, p < .001), which was a large effect size (r =
.50). This means that 25% of the variance in efficacy for student engagement could be explained
by the model. Both school socioeconomic level (β = -.31, p < .009) and gender (β = .35, p <
.002) predicted efficacy in student engagement. The negative Beta weight for school
socioeconomic level indicates that the lower the socioeconomic level of the school the more
likely were teachers to feel efficacious about student engagement (and vice versa). Further,
19
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
being female predicted efficacy in student engagement (see Table 3) (Male: M = 6.44, SD = .60;
Female: M = 7.24, SD = .82).
The second simultaneous regression included school socioeconomic level, class level,
gender and teaching experience predicting efficacy in instructional strategies. This resulted in an
adjusted R2 of .29 (F(4, 63) = 7.67, p < .001), which was a large effect size (r = .57). This means
that 29% of the variance in efficacy for instructional strategies could be explained by the model.
Both school socioeconomic level (β = -.41, p < .001) and gender (β = .43, p < .001) predicted
efficacy in instructional strategies. The negative Beta weight for school socioeconomic level
indicates that the higher the socioeconomic level of the school the less likely were teachers to
feel efficacious about instructional strategies (and vice versa). Further, being female predicted
efficacy in instructional strategies more so than being male (see Table 3). (Male: M = 7.02, SD
= .54; Female: M = 7.34, SD = .66).
The third simultaneous regression included school socioeconomic level, class level,
gender and teaching experience predicting efficacy in classroom management. This resulted in
an adjusted R2 of .26 (F(4, 63) = 5.61, p < .001), which was a large effect size (r = .51). This
means that 26% of the variance in efficacy for classroom management could be explained by the
model. School socioeconomic level (β = -.41, p < .001) and gender (β = .43, p < .001) predicted
efficacy in classroom management. Further, years of teaching experience marginally predicted
efficacy in classroom management (β = .20, p < .08) The negative Beta weight for school
socioeconomic level indicates that the higher the socioeconomic level of the school the less
likely were teachers to feel efficacious about classroom management (and the converse).
Further, being female predicted efficacy in classroom management more so than being male
(Male: M = 7.34, SD = .66; Female: M = 7.89, SD = .67) and there was a trend for more
20
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
teaching experience to be associated with more efficacy towards classroom management (see
Table 3).
The fourth simultaneous regression in the series included school socioeconomic level,
class level, gender and teaching experience predicting a mastery goal orientation. This resulted
in an adjusted R2 of .13 (F(4, 63) = 3.57, p < .01), which was a medium effect size (r = .43).
This means that 13% of the variance in mastery goal orientation could be explained by the
model. School socioeconomic level (β = -.28, p = .02) and gender (β = .32, p = .008) predicted a
mastery goal orientation. Hence, being female predicted a mastery goal orientation more so than
being male (Male: M = 7.05, SD = .62; Female: M = 7.65, SD = .70) and again the negative
Beta weight for school socioeconomic level suggests that the higher the socioeconomic level of
the school the less likely were teachers to have a mastery goal orientation and vice versa (see
Table 3).
The final simultaneous regression included school socioeconomic level, class level,
gender and teaching experience predicting a performance goal orientation. This resulted in an
adjusted R2 of .07 (F(4, 63) = 1.18, p = .33). Only gender marginally predicted a performance
goal orientation (β = -.24, p = .05), the negative Beta indicating a trend for being male to predict
a performance goal orientation (see Table 3) (Male: M = 5.78, SD = .71; Female: M = 4.93, SD
= 1.40).
Discussion
There is a paucity of research that explores the interrelatedness of teacher beliefs’
variables. It is important to explore the relationships between various types of teacher beliefs
since beliefs can impact on the instructional decisions that teachers make and therefore on
student opportunity to learn. Further, it seems possible that the combination of particular beliefs
21
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
could lead to greater or lesser effects on the ways in which teachers structure their classrooms
and teach lessons. There are already several studies showing that specific beliefs can lead to
greater of lesser effects on student outcomes (e.g., Chacon, 2005; McKown & Weinstein, 2008)
Since teacher expectations may be considered to relate to where teachers believe their students
will get to, teacher efficacy to what teachers will need to do to get students there and goal
orientation to how lessons will be structured, it was predicted that a relationship would be found
between these types of teacher beliefs.
Indeed a relationship was found between teacher efficacy and teacher goal orientation (as
in the study by Deemer, 2004) and the effect size was moderate. Higher teacher efficacy for
engagement of students predicted a mastery goal orientation. Conversely however, there was a
negative relationship between efficacy for class management and a mastery goal orientation.
This means that teachers high on efficacy for class management were less likely to have mastery
goal beliefs and those low on class management efficacy were more likely to have mastery goal
beliefs. It may be that teachers who have strong beliefs in their ability to manage students’
disruptive behaviour have a more structured approach to management which on the other hand
allows teachers to feel able to engage students and provide a range of instructional strategies
with them. However, Woolfolk, Rosoff, and Hoy (1990) suggest that less experienced teachers
take a more structured approach to management and the sample in this study was less
experienced than the general teaching population in New Zealand. So, this may be another
explanation for the inverse relationship found between efficacy in class management and a
mastery goal orientation. Interestingly though, the means in the current study for efficacy in
class management were higher than those in the sample on which reliability figures were based,
22
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
meaning that overall teachers in this study were confident in their ability to manage disruptive
students.
Although the effect size was small, teacher efficacy for instructional strategies negatively
predicted a performance goal orientation, so teachers who were confident in their abilities to
cater for student needs were less likely to adhere to performance goals. Conversely, teachers
who were less confident that they could cater for student needs were more likely to be
performance oriented. This may be expected since teachers who are high in efficacy for meeting
the instructional needs of their students report using a variety of pedagogical approaches such as
experimenting with instructional methods to better cater for student needs and using inquiry
learning and small group approaches to teaching (Chacon, 2005; Cousins & Walker, 2000).
These approaches do not align well with the practices of high performance oriented teachers who
have been found to adopt a strong focus on individual test performance and formal assessments
and to use more class-based approaches to teaching (L. H. Anderman, et al., 2002).
No relationship was found between teacher class level expectation and teacher efficacy
factors or goal orientation. This was an unexpected finding since the beliefs and practices of
high expectation teachers (e.g., using flexible grouping, providing students with choice and
autonomy in their learning, managing student behaviour positively and using effective teaching
practices) (Rubie-Davies, 2007, 2008a) seem to align with high teacher confidence in teachers’
ability to engage students, manage their behaviour and use a variety of instructional strategies
(teacher efficacy) (Woolfolk Hoy, et al., 2009) and with a mastery approach to teaching (L. H.
Anderman, et al., 2002). However, to our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the
interrelatedness of these social psychological variables and hence is an area that warrants further
investigation.
23
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
Relationships between teacher characteristics (gender and teaching experience) and
school context variables (class level taught and socioeconomic level of the school) and teacher
beliefs (teacher efficacy, goal orientation and class-level expectations) were also explored in this
study. Gender (being female) predicted teacher efficacy in all three areas (instructional
strategies, student engagement and classroom management) and the effect size was large. Other
studies of teacher efficacy have reported a similar finding (Lee, Buck, & Midgley, 1992; Ross,
1998). One suggestion could be that teaching (particularly in the primary school levels) is
considered by some to be a predominantly female occupation and that as a result of this female
teachers may reflect more closely the dominant ideology of the school they teach in (Kalaian &
Freeman, 1994) and hence may be more comfortable and efficacious in a female environment.
There was a trend for teachers with more teaching experience to have higher efficacy for
classroom management. A finding of a relationship between overall teaching efficacy and
teaching experience has been reported in other studies (de la Torre Cruz & Arias, 2007; Ross,
1998). However, some studies have found no relationship (Plourde, 2002). When efficacy for
class management is examined rather than overall efficacy it may be expected that a relationship
would be found since it is would seem reasonable that teachers with more teaching experience
would have more confidence in their ability to manage their students. Those who were unable to
manage students would possibly leave the profession. Indeed, the ability to manage student
behaviour is often reported by teachers early in their careers as their greatest concern (Veenman,
1984).
The socio-economic level of the school in which teachers were located negatively
predicted efficacy in all three areas (student engagement, instructional strategies and class
management) and the effect size was large. This is contrary to existing research which suggests
24
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
that teachers in low socioeconomic areas have lower efficacy than those in middle class schools
(Bandura, 1993). The result in the current study is thought to relate to the New Zealand context
where, as explained above, many highly experienced teachers choose to teach in low
socioeconomic areas. Schools in such areas are well-resourced and there is no status (or lack of
it) attached to teaching in poorer communities; instead the reverse may be found were it to be
investigated. Conversely, teachers in high socioeconomic areas are often under considerable
pressure from parents to ensure successful outcomes for their children and this may affect
teachers’ beliefs about their efficacy. Evidence has also been found of more high expectation
teachers being found in low socioeconomic schools and the opposite (Rubie-Davies, 2006).
Relationships between school contextual variables and teacher factors were also
examined in relation to goal orientation. A similar trend to that reported above was found in
that, again, being female predicted a mastery goal orientation and there was a negative
relationship between the socioeconomic level of the school and a mastery goal orientation. The
effect size in this case was moderate. On the other hand, being male predicted having a
performance goal orientation although the effect size was small. No studies were located that
had examined gender or socioeconomic levels in relation to goal orientation and hence this study
provides a basis on which the evidence into such relationships can be extended in future studies.
Based on the literature related to teacher efficacy, it would be predicted that the finding of
females having mastery and males having performance goal orientation would be confirmed.
Male students have been shown to be more performance oriented and females more mastery (E.
Anderman & Midgley, 1997).
The finding of no relationship between level of teacher expectation and either the school
context variables or the teacher factors is interesting in itself. Previous research has suggested
25
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
that teachers in junior classes perhaps have higher expectations for their students than those in
higher levels of schooling (Rubie-Davies, 2006) but this was not found in the current study.
However, the study of Rubie Davies had a much smaller sample size and so that may have
influenced the results. But in other work by Rubie-Davies (2007, 2008b) no relationship was
shown between school socioeconomic level and teachers’ expectations, a finding confirmed in
the current study. Again, this is contradictory to the US evidence which suggests teachers have
lower expectations for students in low socioeconomic areas (see for example Gill & Reynolds,
1999; McCarty, Abbott-Shim, & Lambert, 2001; Solomon, et al., 1996; Talbert, 1990).
Some limitations to the current study need noting. Firstly, the sample of teachers involved
in the study was quite small. Secondly, the sample was not truly representative in that more
teachers from high socioeconomic areas participated and the proportion of teachers with less
experience was greater than the national average. Thirdly, the criteria set by the authors for
schools to be included in the study, meant that quite a large proportion then became ineligible to
participate. These various limitations may have influenced the results. Nevertheless, several
interesting findings pave the way for future research to further explore teacher psycho-social
variables and their relationships with other school and teacher factors. Such studies could also be
extended to include relationships between these factors and student outcomes.
Overall, this preliminary study has uncovered some important and interesting
relationships between various teacher and school variables and between some teacher
psychosocial variables. Constructs such as teacher efficacy, teacher class level expectations and
teacher goal orientation all recognize the individuality of teachers and point to a need to consider
teacher difference when exploring student learning outcomes and social development. It may be
argued that at times student outcomes vary because teachers vary in their instructional practices,
26
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
in their beliefs, in their expectations, in their efficacy for teaching, in their goal orientation and in
the ways in which they construct the socioemotional climate of the classroom, rather than that
student outcomes always vary because students differ. While the authors are not proclaiming
that all students are the same, they are arguing that not all teachers are the same. Hattie (2009)
has shown over a number of years the significance of the teacher for student learning. All
education systems have at their core the desire for all students to achieve to their potential and to
become well-rounded, socially competent citizens of society. If such ambitions are to be realized
there is a need for research to consider more closely teacher variables that potentially influence
student learning. We know much about the instructional practices that enhance student learning
but the core of teaching relates not just to the instructional environment of the classroom but also
to the socioemotional climate that teachers create (Babad, 2009; Ennis, 1998). These social
relationships depend on teacher attributes and hence there is a need for research to explore more
closely the inherent qualities of teachers that facilitate student learning and social outcomes. “It
is the differences in the teachers that make the difference in student learning” (Hattie, 2009, p.
236).
27
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
References
Anderman, E., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic
competence, and grades across the transition to middle level schools. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 32, 131-147. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1996.0926
Anderman, L. H., Patrick, H., Hruda, L. Z., & Linnenbrink, E. A. (2002). Observing classroom goal
structures to clarify and expand goal theory. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and
patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 243-294). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Babad, E. (2009). The social psychology of the classroom. New York: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28, 117-148. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Brooking, K. (2007). Summary of the New Zealand literature prepared for a report on the international
literature for the National College of School Leadership (UK). Wellington: New Zealand Council
for Educational Research.
Brophy, J. E. (1985). Teacher-student interaction. In J. B. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 303 328). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chacon, C. T. (2005). Teachers' perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in
middle schools in Venezuela Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 257-252. doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.001
Cheung, H.-Y. (2008). The measurement of teacher efficacy: Hong Kong primary in-service teachers.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 32, 435-451. doi: 10.1080/02607470600982134
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cousins, J. B., & Walker, C. A. (2000). Predictors' of educators' valuing of systemic inquiry in schools
[Special issue]. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 25-53.
de la Torre Cruz, M. J., & Arias, P. F. C. (2007). Comparative analysis of expectancies of efficacy in
inservice and prospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 641-652. doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.005
Deemer, S. A. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: revealing links between
teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research, 46, 73-90. doi: DOI:
10.1080/0013188042000178836
Ennis, C. D. (1998). Shared expectations: Creating a joint vision for urban schools. In J. Brophy (Ed.),
Advances in Research on Teaching. Expectations in the Classroom (Vol. 7, pp. 151-182).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gill, S., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Educational expectations and school achievement of urban African
American children. Journal of School Psychology, 37(4), 403-424. doi: 10.1016/S00224405(99)00027-8
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (2001). Teacher efficacy in writing: A construction
validation with primary grade teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 177-202. doi:
10.1207/S1532799Xssr0502_3
Harker, K., & Chapman, J. (2006). Teacher numbers in New Zealnd: Attrition and replacement. New
Zealand Journal of Teachers' work, 3(1), 42-55.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
London, England: Routledge.
28
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
Jussim, L., Robustelli, S. L., & Cain, T. R. (2009). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies. In K.
R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 349-380). New York:
Routledge.
Kalaian, H. A., & Freeman, D. J. (1994). Gender differences in self-confidence and educational beliefs
among secondary teacher candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 647-658. doi:
10.1016/0742-051X(94)90032-9
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory.
Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141-184. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5
Lee, M., Buck, R., & Midgley, C. (1992). The organizational context of personal teaching efficacy. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA.
McCarty, F., Abbott-Shim, M., & Lambert, R. (2001). The relationship between teacher beliefs and
practices and Head Start classroom quality. Early Education and Development, 12(2), 225-238.
doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1202_4
McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L. (2008). A Study of Comprehensive School Reform Programs in Arizona.
Teachers College Record, 110, 2319-2340.
McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context and the achievement
gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 235-261. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.05.001
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L. H., Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000).
Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.
Ministry of Education. (2010). What is asTTle? . Retrieved from http://www.tki.org.nz/r/asttle/
Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers' communication of
goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 102, 35-58.
Plourde, L. A. (2002). The influence of student teaching on preservice elementary teachers' science selfefficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(4), 245-253.
Roeser, R. W., Marachi, R., & Gehlbach, H. (2002). A goal theory perspective on teachers' professional
identities and the contexts of teaching. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns
of adaptive learning (pp. 205-242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in
Research on Teaching. Expectations in the Classroom (Vol. 7, pp. 49-74). Greenwich,
Connecticut: JAI Press.
Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2006). Teacher expectations and student self-perceptions: Exploring relationships.
Psychology in the Schools, 43, 537-552. doi: 10..1002/pits.20169
Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high and low expectation
teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 289-306. doi:
10.1348/000709906X101601
Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2008a). Teacher beliefs and expectations: Relationships with student learning. In C.
M. Rubie-Davies & C. Rawlinson (Eds.), Challenging thinking about teaching and learning (pp. 2539). Haupaugge, NY: Nova.
Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2008b). Teacher expectations. In T. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference
handbook (pp. 254-262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2010). Teacher expectations and perceptions of student attributes: Is there a
relationship? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 121-135. doi:
10.1348/000709909X466334
Schullo, S. A., & Alperson, B. L. (1998). Low SES algebra I students and their teachers: Individual and a bidirectional investigation of their relationship and implicit beliefs of ability with final grades.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Diego, CA.
29
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., & Hom, A. (1996). Teacher beliefs and practices in schools serving
communities that differ in socioeconomic level. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association annual meeting, New York.
Talbert, J. E. (1990). Teacher Tracking: Exacerbating Inequalities in the High School. Stanford, CA: Center
for Research on the Context of Secondary Teaching, Stanford University.
Tejeda-Delgado, M. C. (2009). Teacher efficacy, tolerance, gender, and years of experience and special
education referrals. International Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 112-119.
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., & Hoy, A. W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: It's meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248. doi: 10.3102/00346543068002202
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54,
143-178. doi: 10.3102/00346543054002143
Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 5-22. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00047-6
Wilson, P., & Tan, G. C. (2004). Singapore teachers' personal and general efficacy for teaching primary
social studies. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 13, 209222. doi: 10.1080/10382040408668516
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers' sense of efficacy and their beliefs about
managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137-148.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Davis, H. A. (2009). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. In K. R. Wentzel & A.
Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation in School (pp. 627-653). New York: Routledge.
Yeo, L. S., Ang, R. P., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., & Quek, C. L. (2008). Teacher efficacy in the context of
teaching low achieving students. Current Psychology, 27, 192-204. doi: 10.1007/s12144-0089034-x
30
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
Table 1
Means and standard deviations for teacher beliefs variables and correlations between teacher
belief and school context and teacher characteristics variables.
Variable
M
SD
Socioeconomic Class level Gender
Teaching
level
experience
Teacher expectation
1.22
.49
-.11
-.17
-.01
.06
Instructional strategies
7.67
.69
-.37***
-.06
.42***
.02
Classroom management
7.80
.69
-.35**
-.23*
.30**
.11
Student engagement
7.11
.84
-.33**
-.21*
.36**
-.006
Performance goals
5.07
1.35
-.01
-.10
-.23*
.04
Mastery goals
7.56
.72
-.28**
-.13
.31**
.04
31
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
Table 2
Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis Summary for Teacher Efficacy in Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies and
Classroom Management Predicting Teacher Goal-Orientation and Class Expectation
Predicting Mastery Goal Orientation Predicting Performance Goal
Orientation
β
Teacher Efficacy
B
SEB
Engagement
.61
.14
.71***
Predicting Teacher Class-Level
Expectation
B
SEB
β
B
SEB
β
.23
.31
.14
-.01
.11
-.02
Instruction
.13
.16
.13
-.66
.36
-.34†
.08
.13
.11
Management
-.43
.16
-.41**
.02
.36
.01
.13
.13
.19
8.38
2.03
-.33
.74
Constant
†
5.58
.92
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p<.001
32
Running head: Teacher efficacy, expectations and goal orientation
Table 3
Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis Summary for School Context and Teacher Characteristics Predicting Teacher Beliefs
Predicting Teacher Efficacy
Student Engagement Instructional Strategies
Variable
B
SEB
β
Socioeconomic Level
-.10
.04 -.31**
Class level
-.03
Gender
Teaching
B
β
SEB
Predicting Goal Orientation
Classroom management
B
SEB
β
-.10
.03
-.41***
.09
.03
-.34**
.03 -.10
.02
.02
.09
-.03
.02
-.13
.80
.25
.80
.19
.43***
.56
.20
.30**
.006
.009
.11
.01
.007
7.27
.37
8.00
.31
.35**
.08
.007 .007
.20†
Mastery
Performance
β
SEB
-.08
.03
-.28*
.009
--.007
.03
-.03
-.05 .05
-.13
.61
.22
.32**
-.88 .45
-.24†
v.11
.004
.02
.03
5.94
.67
.008 .008
B
SEB
.06
experience
Constant
7.65 .29
β
B
7.59
.33
.02