Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us?
Abstract
The research on teachers ’ beliefs, to our knowledge, spans more than 57 years ( Oliver, 1953 ) and runs the gamut of research methodologies, theoretical perspectives, and identifi cation of specifi c beliefs about any number of topics. It seems that the initial goal of the research on teachers ’ beliefs was to establish a clear psychological construct, beliefs, that could serve as an explanatory and predictive mechanism for explaining differences in teachers ’ practices (e.g., Abrami, Poulsen, & Chambers, 2004 ), outcomes with students (e.g., Muijs & Reynolds, 2002 ), and experiences (e.g., McAlpine, Eriks-Brophy, & Crago, 1996 ). Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Although the published empirical research on teachers ’ beliefs includes more than 700 articles, the lack of cohesion and clear defi nitions has limited the explanatory and predictive potential of teachers ’ beliefs. Still, the pervasive conviction in the literature, schools, and teacher education programs is that teachers ’ beliefs matter. We also believe they do. However, the manifestation of beliefs in teachers ’ practice is complicated, and the understanding of what is meant by teachers ’ beliefs in the research literature remains murky.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The TBS four-factor structure remains theoretically grounded in the multidimensional frameworks established by Pajares (1992) and Fives and Buehl (2012).
“its four-factor structure remains theoretically grounded in the multidimensional frameworks established by Pajares (1992) and Fives and Buehl (2012)”
From Teaching beliefs and wellbeing among primary school teachers: a moderated mediation of work engagement and career adaptability (2026) · cites this paper as Fives and Buehl (2012)
Cites
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835 · see citing works
Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform
Shulman, L. (1987) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 · Cited by 16,787 · see citing works
Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00036-1 · Cited by 6,839 · see citing works
Complex dilemmas of identity and practice
Enyedy, N., Goldberg, J., & Welsh, K. M. (2006) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20096 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Decker, A.-T., Büttner, G., Hardy, I., Klieme, E., & Kunter, M. (2019) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.102882 · Cited by 484 · see citing works
Voss, T., & Kunter, M. (2020) · Journal of Teacher Education · doi:10.1177/0022487119839700 · Cited by 201 · see citing works
Civitillo, S., Juang, L. P., & Schachner, M. K. (2018) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2018.01.003 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Teachers’ Beliefs about Multilingualism in a Course on Translanguaging
Gorter, D., & Arocena, E. (2020) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102272 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use
Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s10212-015-0282-5 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Yough, M. (2019) · The Teacher Educator · doi:10.1080/08878730.2018.1534031 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Wellberg, S. (2025) · Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education · doi:10.1007/s10857-024-09640-8 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Mikeska, J. N., Francis, D. C., Lottero-Perdue, P. S., Park Rogers, M., Shekell, C., Bharaj, P. K., Howell, H., Maltese, A., Thompson, M., & Reich, J. (2025) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2024.104858 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Kurucz, C., Hachfeld, A., Groeneveld, I., Roßbach, H.-G., & Anders, Y. (2020) · Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft · doi:10.1007/s11618-020-00954-w · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Wang, J., & Xu, X. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1835767
- Authors
- Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M.
- Affiliations
- Montclair State University (US)
- George Mason University (US)
- Venue
- APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors.
- Publisher
- American Psychological Association
- Published
- 2012
- Pages
- 471-499
- OpenAlex
- W2484117723
- Cited by
- 991
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 69 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 178 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 89 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 33.92
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Psychological Association eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- teacher beliefs, construct definition, psychological constructs, teacher beliefs and practices, teacher professional development, evidence synthesis, conceptual clarity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
