Towards a re-conceptualization of teachers' self-efficacy beliefs: tackling enduring problems with the quantitative research and moving on
Abstract
Various commentators have argued for years that the study of teachers' self-efficacy (TSE) beliefs, largely dominated by quantitative research methodologies, has been confused. Contentious issues include the very conceptualization of these beliefs, how they are defined and accessed through research and how the research is used. One of the biggest anomalies is that, despite claiming that these beliefs are task-specific, many quantitative researchers have both assessed them globally and portrayed them as hard to impact. In contrast, some qualitative researchers have emphasized the task-specific nature of these beliefs and their potential for transformation through self-doubt, reflection and learning. This literature review examines these and other contentious issues, focusing on studies published in international peer-reviewed journals in the last few years, looking, through the use of search terms and the surveying of abstracts followed by detailed reading, for evidence of developing understandings and changing research practices. This review highlights continuing misalignment between theory and method in much of the literature, but also identifies promising research directions. Mixed methods and qualitative research designs seem to have the potential to produce insightful findings that can make the study of TSE beliefs of greater use to teacher educators than has previously been the case.
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?
Some of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy's (2001) survey items, together with their definition of TSE beliefs, veer towards the agent-ends, therefore being insufficiently specific about what teachers do to affect outcomes.
“Some of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy's (2001) survey items, in contrast, together with their definition of TSE beliefs, veer towards the agent-ends, therefore being insufficiently specific about what teachers do to affect outcomes (Wheatley, 2005;Dellinger et al., 2008;Wyatt, 2014).”
From Language Teachers’ Self-efficacy Beliefs: A Review of the Literature (2005-2016) (2018) · cites this paper as Wyatt, 2014
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 112 · Cited by 147
- Authors
- Wyatt, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Portsmouth (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wyatt, Mark
- ORCID
- Wyatt, Mark
- Venue
- International Journal of Research & Method in Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-11-12
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 166-189
- ISSN
- 1743-727X (ISSN-L)
- 1743-7288
- OpenAlex
- W2139907038
- Cited by
- 147
- References
- 112
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 18.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Research & Method in Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Keywords
- teacher self-efficacy, qualitative and quantitative methods, mixed methods, teacher educators, research-practice gap
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