Relationship Between Teacher Efficacy and Self-Reported Instructional Practices: An Examination of Five Asian Countries/Regions Using TIMSS 2011 Data

Abstract

Teacher efficacy in a particular content area is seen as an important factor shaping teaching practice and student learning in the Western literature. However, inadequate efforts have been made to examine this assumption empirically. Drawing on the Trends of International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2011 mathematics teachers' data at the eighth grade level, this study examines the relationship between teacher efficacy in teaching mathematics and teachers' mathematical instructional practices in five Asian countries/regions. Guided with Bandura's social cognitive theory, this study finds that overall teachers in the five countries/regions reported much lower teacher efficacy in teaching mathematics and lower levels of instructional practices than the international norms. The relationship between teacher efficacy and instructional practices varied within these countries/regions. Teacher efficacies in teaching mathematics are not always statistically and positively related to their instructional practices in engaging students. Together, these findings challenge the theoretical assumption about the positive relationship between teacher efficacy and instructional practices. Possible reasons of these findings and future directions are discussed.

Teacher Preparation, Motivation, and Self-Efficacy: A Comparative Study of New Teachers in Japan and the United States

“…We came to a conclusion that although cross-psychological theories claim the opposite association between teacher self-efficacy and individualism vs. collectivism (Heine & Hamamura, 2007;Kurman, 2003;Uskul et al, 2010), teachers may have different outcomes and do not necessarily follow the cultures in each country. In future cross-national research, it is imperative to evaluate East Asian countries together to identify the TSE differences among these countries (Shi, 2014). Also, several East Asian countries can be compared to see whether teachers possess different TSE among the similar cultures or compare them with other certain groups such as English-speaking countries and further investigate whether globalization has diminished the differences of teachers in different countries.…”

Measuring Teacher Sense of Efficacy: Insights and Recommendations Concerning Scale Design and Data Analysis from Research with Preservice and Inservice Teachers in China

“…We located only 19 empirical studies from our search. Most of these are limited in scope in that six (Feng & Wang, 2014;Lu, Hao, Chen, & Potměšilc, 2018;Malinen, 2013;Malinen, Savolainen, & Xu, 2012;Wang, Zan, Liu, Liu, & Sharma, 2012) are primarily concerned with teaching students who have special needs; four (Manzar-Abbas & Lu, 2015;Sang, Valcke, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2010;Shi, 2014Shi, , 2016 with teaching related to specific areas such as Chinese, mathematics, and information technology; another four (Dou, Devos, & Valcke, 2017;Tian, 2011;Yin, Lee, Jin, & Zhang, 2013;Yu, Wang, Zhai, Dai, & Yang, 2015) with topics that do not involve classroom activities; four (Hoi, Zhou, Teo, & Nie, 2017;Ruan et al, 2015;Zheng, Yin, & Li, 2019) with scale development; and one (Yuan & Zhang, 2017) with commitment to teaching as a profession. Only one study (Ruan et al, 2015), in which the primary focus is scale development, includes general aspects of face-to-face teaching.…”

“…Hatlevik (2017) used five and six options in two different scales within her research, and other researchers have used six options (see, e.g.,Gavora, 2010;Moore-Hayes, 2011). Still other researchers have based their research on scales with only four options when measuring TSE (see, e.g.,Overbaugh & Lu, 2008;Vieluf, Kunter, &van de Vijver, 2013), andShi (2014) based her research on a scale that had only three response options.…”

Influence of Response-Option Combinations when Measuring Sense of Efficacy for Teaching: Trivial, or Substantial and Substantive?

“…Use of nine response options and the above pattern of labeling is far from universal, however. At one extreme, SET has been assessed with only three response options, each of which was labeled (see Shi, 2014), and, at the other extreme, Bandura (2006) created subscales to assess SET with response options ranging from 0 to 100 and labels at only the extremes and midpoint.…”