Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224955965

Teacherbeliefs,teachercharacteristics,andschoolcontextualfactors:Whataretherelationships?

ARTICLEinBRITISHJOURNALOFEDUCATIONALPSYCHOLOGY·JUNE2012

ImpactFactor:2·DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02025.x·Source:PubMed

CITATIONS

12

DOWNLOADS

561

VIEWS

543

3AUTHORS,INCLUDING:

ChristineMRubie-Davies

UniversityofAuckland

64PUBLICATIONS214CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

LynMcdonald

UniversityofAuckland

6PUBLICATIONS14CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:ChristineMRubie-Davies

Retrievedon:22September2015

1

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2011)C© 2011 The British Psychological Society

TheBritishPsychologicalSociety

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics,and school contextual factors: Whatare the relationships?

Christine M. Rubie-Davies∗, Annaline Flint and Lyn G. McDonaldSchool of Teaching Learning and Development, Faculty of Education, The Universityof Auckland, New Zealand

Background. There is a plethora of research around student beliefs and theircontribution to student outcomes. However, there is less research in relation to teacherbeliefs. Teacher factors are important to consider since beliefs mould thoughts andresultant instructional behaviours that, in turn, can contribute to student outcomes.

Aims. The purpose of this research was to explore relationships between the teachercharacteristics of gender and teaching experience, school contextual variables (socio-economic level of school and class level), and three teacher socio-psychological variables:class level teacher expectations, teacher efficacy, and teacher goal orientation.

Sample. The participants were 68 male and female teachers with varying experience,from schools in a variety of socio-economic areas and from rural and urban locationswithin New Zealand.

Method. Teachers completed a questionnaire containing items related to teacherefficacy and goal orientation in reading. They also completed a teacher expectationsurvey. Reading achievement data were collected on students. Interrelationships wereexplored between teacher socio-psychological beliefs and the teacher and school factorsincluded in the study.

Results. Mastery-oriented beliefs predicted teacher efficacy for student engagementand classroom management. The socio-economic level of the school and teachergender predicted teacher efficacy for engagement, classroom management, instructionalstrategies, and a mastery goal orientation. Being male predicted a performance goalorientation.

Conclusions. Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and school contextual variablescan result in differences in teacher instructional practices and differing classroomclimates. Further investigation of these variables is important since differences inteachers contribute to differences in student outcomes.

The beliefs that teachers hold influence their thoughts and their instructional decisions(Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Davis, 2009). In turn, instructional decisions that teachers make

∗Correspondence should be addressed to Christine Rubie-Davies, School of Teaching Learning and Development, Faculty ofEducation, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601, Auckland 1150, New Zealand (e-mail: c.rubie@auckland.ac.nz).

DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02025.x

2 Christine M. Rubie-Davies et al.

influence the learning experiences they plan for students and hence student opportunityto learn. Furthermore, some studies have shown that teachers may make differentialinstructional decisions depending on their gender and their teaching experience (e.g.,Ross, 1998). Finally, it has been suggested that teachers alter their instructional practicesdepending on school contextual variables such as the socio-economic level of theschool (Solomon, Battistich, & Hom, 1996). Because teacher beliefs, characteristics, andcontextual factors have all been shown to potentially influence the learning outcomesof students, it is important that relationships between these variables are more fullyexplored. If some of these beliefs and characteristics are related to each other thenthis may result in even greater effects on instructional practices and therefore studentlearning opportunities. For example, if teachers have low teaching efficacy and theyare more structured in their approach to teaching students in low socio-economic areasand they lack experience, the combination of these teacher factors may have greaterimplications for student learning than if, for example, the teacher simply lacks teachingexperience. Hence, it is important to study beliefs from a wider perspective, to lookfor relationships that could be important in terms of student learning. While there is asubstantial body of literature related to particular teacher beliefs (e.g., teacher efficacy),these tend to have been studied in isolation. There are fewer studies that have exploredvarious teacher beliefs and characteristics in combination (see Deemer, 2004, as anexception). This study proposes that teacher beliefs are not likely to exist in isolationbut that there are particular kinds of beliefs teachers hold that are likely to be related andthat these may be moderated by contextual school and personal characteristics. Hence,the purpose of the current study was threefold: first, we explored relationships betweenteacher efficacy, teachers’ class level expectations, and teacher goal orientation; second,we examined 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 socio-economic level and class level) could predict any of the teacher socialpsychological 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 teacherefficacy as, ‘the teacher’s belief in his or her capability to organize and execute coursesof action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particularcontext’ (p. 233), whereas Wheatley (2002) linked teacher efficacy more directly to ateacher’s belief in his or her ability to influence student outcomes. So, teacher efficacyrelates to a context-specific assessment of one’s ability to instruct students in a particularcurriculum area or in a particular manner. Hence, teacher efficacy is a ‘future oriented,task-specific judgement’ (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2009, p. 628).

Teacher academic expectations are also future-oriented judgements and may becurriculum specific. Teacher expectations may be defined as the judgements teachersmake about the amount of academic progress they believe students will make by theend of a specific time frame (often by the end of a year in empirical studies). Whenresearchers are investigating teacher expectations, these are often also related to aspecific curriculum area such as reading (Rubie-Davies, 2007) or mathematics (Schullo& Alperson, 1998). Teacher expectations can be viewed as a dyadic relationship wherebyteachers have differing expectations for each individual child in the classroom (oftenrelated to characteristics of the child, e.g., ethnicity, social class, gender, ability). Thisis the traditional view. However, expectations can also be viewed at the whole classlevel. From this perspective, some teachers have high expectations for all their students

Teacher efficacy, expectations, and goal orientation 3

(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 (orlow) for all students, but rather, controlling for student achievement at the beginningof the year, high expectation teachers expect all students to make substantial academicgains by the end of the year, while low expectation teachers do not anticipate thattheir students will make many gains (again controlling for prior achievement). Brophy(1985) first suggested that whole class expectations were likely to have more importfor student outcomes than expectations at the individual level and, indeed, Brophy andGood (1974) proposed types of teachers whose expectations would be likely to result instudents making greater or lesser gains depending on the teacher characteristics, ratherthan on the student characteristics. Meta-analyses of naturalistic teacher expectationstudies whereby expectations for individual students are considered generally yield loweffect sizes (r < .20) (Jussim, Robustelli, & Cain, 2009). On the other hand, a study thatinvestigated whole class teacher expectation effects on student achievement in readingfound very large effects for high expectation teachers (d = 1.01) but low effects for lowexpectation teachers (d = .05) (Rubie-Davies, 2010). Hence, it would appear to be ofsome consequence to consider expectations at the class level, rather than the individuallevel, an approach taken in the current paper.

Teacher goal orientation is a further variable that has been shown to influencethe ways in which teachers structure their classrooms, motivate, and interact withstudents. Two main types of goal orientation, namely mastery and performance, havebeen identified (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). Teachers with a performance goal orientationare more focused on formally assessing their students’ ability to achieve. Teachers whohave a mastery goal orientation, on the other hand, consider learning to be an activeprocess in which students are totally involved in their learning and focused on acquiringskills, understandings, and insights (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001).

From a teacher perspective, then, teacher expectations relate to where the teacherbelieves the students in her/his class will get to, teacher efficacy relates to what s/hebelieves s/he can do to get the students there, and teacher goal orientation relates to how

s/he believes lessons and assessments should be structured in order for students to reachtheir goals. Hence, these teacher beliefs (expectations, efficacy, and goal orientation)could be thought of as being interrelated. A teacher, who has high expectations for allstudents, 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 toresult in larger student gains (Roeser, Marachi, & Gehlbach, 2002). The interrelatednessof 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 instructionthat make the beliefs important to consider since the resultant practices can lead todifferential outcomes for students. Hence, the next section of the paper will brieflysummarize the research findings related to the influence of teacher beliefs on teacherinstructional 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 therewas a direct link between variables in efficacy scores and teachers’ beliefs about howto teach writing. The researchers posited that teacher efficacy was linked to theirbeliefs about how to teach the subject and was an important element in understand-ing effective instruction in writing. Similarly, research by Chacon (2005) revealed apositive correlation between teachers’ sense of efficacy and language proficiency. Theway teachers perceived their capabilities to teach seemed to directly influence their

4 Christine M. Rubie-Davies et al.

instructional practices. Teachers who felt confident about their abilities and who enjoyedteaching seemed to willingly implement new and innovative practices. Furthermore,the judgements teachers made about the tasks used to effect student learning wereinfluenced by their perceived efficacy. Results from the study also showed that teachers’efficacy for instructional strategies was higher than efficacy for management andengagement.

Within the teacher expectation literature, Rubie-Davies (2008a) found that the beliefsof high and low expectation teachers were quite different. High expectation teachersbelieved that students should work in mixed and flexible ability groupings for reading,be given choices about the activities they completed, be exposed to challenging learningexperiences, and have clear learning goals. On the other hand, low expectation teachersbelieved that students learnt best in reading when they were grouped by ability andwhen the teacher planned quite distinct activities for high and low ability students. Thelow expectation teachers believed they should make the decisions about what studentsshould learn, how, and with whom. These contrasting beliefs resulted in very differentinstructional environments for students (Rubie-Davies, 2007).

Within the goal orientation literature, as well, associations have been found betweenteachers’ beliefs and the observed practices of teachers. In one study by Anderman andcolleagues (Anderman, Patrick, Hruda, & Linnenbrink, 2002), teachers with low masterybeliefs were found to consider learning to be an individual process, best achievedby listening to the teacher, and following instructions. Student interaction was notconsidered helpful for learning and students were not encouraged to collaborate orshare answers. Students received recognition if they followed procedures and obeyedthe teacher rather than through achieving success on tasks. In contrast, teachers high inmastery beliefs focused on understanding and improvement because mistakes wereconsidered informative for learning. Conversations with students were supportive,constructive, and focused on the next steps in learning. Students were encouraged toactively participate in class and to work together. Students received feedback in relationto the task rather than in relation to procedures. Thus, it can be seen that teacher beliefsappear to influence teacher practice.

The research cited above indicates that teachers alter their instructional practicesin line with their beliefs but particular characteristics of teachers also appear to beassociated with distinct beliefs. For example, gender and teaching experience havebeen associated with differential teacher beliefs. In a study by Ross (1998), it was foundthat the more teaching experience the teacher had, the greater his or her teacher efficacytended 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 teachingexperience (Yeo, Ang, Chong, Huan, & Quek, 2008). Similarly, one study suggested thathigh expectation teachers tended to have more teaching experience than did teacherswith lower expectations (Rubie-Davies, 2006). However, whether goal orientation isrelated 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 bygender (Tejeda-Delgado, 2009; Yeo et al., 2008). We were unable to locate anystudies, however, that had examined gender in relation to teacher expectations or goalorientation.

The school context has also been shown to influence teachers’ beliefs (e.g., Solomonet al., 1996). For example, the socio-economic status of the school and the year level

Teacher efficacy, expectations, and goal orientation 5

of the classes teachers work in have been shown to relate to specific teacher beliefsand practices. Ross (1998) found that teachers in the elementary sector consistentlyhad higher teacher efficacy than their high school counterparts. Furthermore, Solomonet al. (1996) found that, controlling for achievement, teachers working in low socio-economic schools had lower expectations for their students than teachers working inmiddle-class schools. Another study showed that teachers in the earlier years of primaryschool appeared to have higher expectations of their students than did teachers of olderprimary school students (Rubie-Davies, 2006).

Finally, in a study conducted by Deemer (2004) in secondary classrooms, it was foundthat the instructional practices of teachers were strongly determined by the culture of theschool, as were students’ mastery goals. A perceived supportive school culture allowedteachers to focus their instructional practices, and for students to focus their goals, onmastery learning. In schools with a perceived competitive culture, teachers’ instructionalpractices in the classroom were focused on demonstrating ability and thus students’ goalswere more performance oriented. Furthermore, it was found that teachers who wereconfident in their teaching abilities, and thus had high levels of personal efficacy, createdclassroom environments focused on mastery practices and student learning. However,the same link was not found between teachers’ personal efficacy and performancepractices.

The current study was conducted in New Zealand primary schools and hence, it maybe useful for the reader to understand contextual variables that are of relevance to thepaper, since it is likely that some of these could potentially confound the results. One thatis of relevance to the current paper is the socio-economic level of the school. In somecountries (e.g., the United States), there is status associated with teaching in middle-classschools rather than in poorer communities (McCaslin & Good, 2008). This is not the casein New Zealand. Teacher salaries are controlled by a central government body, and whileit is true that it can be more difficult to recruit teachers to low socio-economic areas, theMinistry of Education have at times provided financial incentives for teachers to workin low socio-economic schools. Furthermore, schools in low socio-economic areas arefunded at a higher rate by the government than schools in high socio-economic areasmeaning that all schools are well resourced. This results in many experienced and high-quality teachers (particularly those with more teaching experience) choosing to teachin low socio-economic areas where they believe they can make a difference for theirstudents. Rubie-Davies (2006) has shown that more teachers with high expectationsfor all students can be found in low socio-economic than in middle-class schools inNew Zealand (and the converse) and the students of such teachers make large academicgains over 1 year.

The gender balance and years of teaching experience of participants in the currentstudy also reflects the New Zealand primary school context. There is a gender imbalancein primary schools in New Zealand with around 20% of teachers being male (Harker &Chapman, 2006). The age of teachers in primary schools is also increasing (age is usedhere as a proxy for teaching experience) with only 51% 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 socialpsychological variables, teacher characteristics (e.g., gender, teaching experience), andschool contextual factors (socio-economic level of the school and year level of classbeing taught) were also explored. Based on the research evidence presented above andthe New Zealand context, it was predicted that a relationship would be found between:

6 Christine M. Rubie-Davies et al.

(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;(5) the socio-economic level of the school and the three teacher beliefs variables

(although this relationship was expected to be in a negative direction).

MethodParticipantsThe participants in this study were 68 New Zealand teachers from 18 schools randomlyselected from across the country to be part of the study. Some schools initially invitedto participate were not eligible to be part of the study. Of the original 50 schools, 20had three or fewer teachers at Year 4–8. Because year level being taught was a variableof interest, only teachers teaching no more than two consecutive year levels wereeligible. (A large number of New Zealand schools are small rural schools.) However,despite excluding these schools, the urban/rural proportions were still representativeof the New Zealand proportions. In this study, six schools were rural and 12 wereurban; in New Zealand, one third of schools are rural (Brooking, 2007). Only schoolsusing Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning (asTTle) were eligible to be part ofthe study (asTTle is a standardized measure of achievement used in New Zealand andis described below), since asTTle was used in the study as the student achievementmeasure; five schools were not using asTTle. Finally, of the original group of schools,seven decided not to participate.

Of the 68 teachers who agreed to be part of the study, 52 were in primaryschools, teaching Years 4–6 students (approximately 8–10 years of age) and 16 werein intermediate schools (approximately 11–12 years of age). In New Zealand, schoolsare given a decile ranking ranging from 1 to 10 that is an indicator of socio-economiclevel, 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) (n = 46)than from low-decile schools (1–5) (n = 22), so teachers in middle-class schools wereover-represented. The imbalance of female to male teachers in New Zealand primaryand intermediate schools was reflected in the participants: 57 were female while 11were male. Teaching experience ranged from 1 to 47 years with a mean of 12.59 yearsand a standard deviation (SD) of 10.24 years showing a wide dispersion. However, mostteachers 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 generalprimary school teaching population in New Zealand.

Procedure and designTeachers were invited to become part of the study in February (beginning of theacademic year in New Zealand) and those who agreed were sent questionnaires atthe beginning of March. Teachers were sent a questionnaire to complete and returnto the researchers. This questionnaire was comprised of items designed to measurepersonal teacher efficacy beliefs and teachers’ mastery and performance goal orientation.Schools supplied standardized reading achievement data for each student in the classesof participating teachers. Teachers also completed a survey in which they indicated how

Teacher efficacy, expectations, and goal orientation 7

much progress they predicted each student in their classes would make in reading acrossthe year. This survey was used to indicate teacher expectations for their students. Thecurriculum focus for the questionnaires, the expectation survey, and the achievementdata related to reading. All student data were anonymized by teachers who provided acode for every student on the survey they completed along with a matched code for thestudent reading achievement data. Data were available for 1,739 students.

MeasuresThree measures were used in this study: the teacher beliefs questionnaire (comprisedof teacher efficacy and teacher goal orientation items), the teacher expectation survey,and the measure of student achievement. These measures will be described below.

Teacher efficacyThe teacher beliefs questionnaire used in the current study was the Teachers’ Sense ofEfficacy Scale (TSES) (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the two subscalesfrom the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) (Midgley et al., 2000) designed tomeasure mastery and performance approaches to instruction.

The TSES was used to measure teachers’ personal teaching efficacy in reading. Itincludes items that describe tasks in which teachers commonly engage (Woolfolk Hoyet al., 2009). The long 24-item form was used to measure teacher efficacy in engagementof students, efficacy in instructional strategies, and efficacy in classroom management.An example of items from each of these three subscales, respectively, is ‘How much canyou do to get through to the most difficult students?’, ‘How much can you do to adjustyour lessons to the proper level for individual students?’, and ‘How much can you doto control disruptive behaviour in the classroom?’. Some items were altered so that thestem for each item became ‘How much can you do to . . . ?’. For example, ‘To what extentcan you make your expectations clear about student behaviour?’ became ‘How muchcan you do to make your expectations clear about student behaviour?’. Teachers ratedtheir perceived self-efficacy on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 = ‘Nothing’ to 9 = ‘A GreatDeal’. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) reported an overall alpha coefficientfor the TSES of .94, of .87 for the student engagement subscale, of .91 for instructionalstrategies, and .90 for classroom management. In the current study, the overall alphacoefficient for the TSES was .93, .85 for the student engagement subscale, .86 for theinstructional strategies subscale, and .85 for the classroom management subscale.

Teacher goal orientationTeachers’ goal orientation was measured using the mastery approaches to instructionand the performance approaches to instruction subscales of the PALS (Midgley et al.,2000). The two subscales are designed to measure teachers’ goal-oriented approachesto teaching and have been used successfully in the United States with teachers at theprimary, middle, and secondary school levels (Midgley et al., 2000). In the original scale,teachers rate statements about their mastery and performance goal orientation on a5-point Likert scale but in the current administration a 9-point Likert scale was usedranging from 1 = ‘Never’ to 9 = ‘All the time’ so that the PALS subscales were on thesame Likert scale as the TSES. An example of a mastery goal item is ‘To what extentdo 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 ofthe highest achieving students as an example?’ Midgley et al. (2000) report an alpha

8 Christine M. Rubie-Davies et al.

coefficient of .69 for each scale. However, in the current study, the alpha coefficientfor 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 themastery goal orientation scale to meet New Zealand conditions. For example, ‘I considerhow much students have improved when I give them report card grades’ was changedto: ‘To what extent do you consider how much students have improved when you arewriting their reports?’ Changes such as this were made since it is very uncommon forschools in New Zealand to assign students achievement grades in primary school sinceat present there is no required compulsory standardized testing in the country. It maybe that the combination of using a 1–9 Likert scale and small wording changes resultedin the low alpha coefficient for the mastery performance orientation scale. Furthermore,researchers in the field have begun to question the reliability of the PALS measure (L.H.Anderman, personal communication, May 3, 2010), but it is currently the only widelyused measure available designed to test teachers’ mastery goal orientation. Furthermore,an examination of the item-total correlations showed that all items correlated well withthe total scale (range r = .41 − r = .75) and hence, despite its limitations, the measurewas still used in the current study.

Overall, all teacher beliefs variables were normally distributed. The skewness valuefor the mastery goal orientation scale was −.74, while the values for the otherscales ranged from −.29 (performance goal orientation) to .16 (the total TSES scale).The kurtosis value for the mastery goal orientation scale was .78, while all otherdistributions had slight negative kurtosis ranging from −.68 (instructional strategies) to−.31 (performance goal orientation), indicating a slightly flatter than normal distribution.Thus, the scores for all variables represented a reasonable approximation to the normalcurve.

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 toprovide feedback on the measure. No difficulties were reported.

asTTle reading comprehensionThe asTTle resource is an assessment tool developed and used in New Zealand to assessstudents’ reading comprehension, mathematics, and writing. There is an English and tereo Maori (New Zealand indigenous language) version for the three curriculum areas.It can be used with students from Year 4–12 to track the progress and achievement ofboth individual students and groups of students against national norms. Using asTTle,teachers can create 40-min paper and pencil or on-line tests that they are able to designfor their particular students’ learning needs. Once the tests have been scored, theasTTle tool produces graphic reports that allow teachers to analyse student achievementagainst curriculum levels, curriculum objectives, and population norms (Ministry ofEducation, 2010) (For more information regarding asTTle go to www.asttle.com). Forthe purposes of the current study, data for each student from a reading comprehensiontest were used. The asTTle scores range from 100 to 1,500 across the year levelsso student progress can be tracked from Year 4 to 12. The student reports giveteachers a score for each student and also an equivalent curriculum level. An averagestudent in New Zealand will complete one curriculum level in any curriculum areaevery 2 years and asTTle further divides each curriculum level into three (basic,proficient, advanced) sublevels as an indication of how much of each level a student hascompleted.

Teacher efficacy, expectations, and goal orientation 9

Teacher expectation surveyIn order to gain a measure of teachers’ expectations, the teachers first made a classlist of students and estimated the asTTle level each student would reach by the end ofthe year. The expectations for achievement were then compared with actual beginningof year asTTle levels to determine expected progress over 1 year. Hence, the scaleprovided a measure of each teacher’s expectation for student progress. A differencemeasure was calculated to indicate overall teachers’ expectations for students in theirrespective classes. First, the differences between beginning of year reading levels andteacher expectations for end of year achievement were calculated for each student. Thetotal of these differences was calculated for each class and a mean difference figurecalculated for each teacher. The scores were collapsed in order to provide a measureof the teachers’ overall expectations for the class. Clearly expectations for individualswill vary but asking teachers to predict student progress (rather than achievement) hasbeen shown in previous studies (Rubie-Davies, 2007) to indicate teacher expectationbeliefs, that is, teachers who predict large gains for their students do so for all studentsin the class (high expectation teachers) relative to beginning year achievement, whilethe opposite has been found for low expectation teachers. The mean difference figureprovided an indication of the teachers’ expectations for their whole class, that is, largermeans indicated greater expectations of progress for all students. The mean differencescores ranged from −.23 to 2.5 meaning the teacher whose mean difference scorewas lowest was not expecting his/her students to make any overall gains in achievementduring the year (and arguably some decrease in achievement), while the one whose meandifference score was greatest was expecting his/her students to increase on average 2.5levels within asTTle across the year. This is a very high expectation as it indicates progressof almost an entire curriculum level. The mean difference score for teachers was 1.22levels of progress for the year (SD = 0.49).

ResultsBecause the sample size was small, power statistics were computed to determine theminimum correlation coefficient that is significant for a sample size of 68. The minimumr significant at a p value of .05 was 0.24; for a p value of .01, the minimum r was .31;and for a significance value of .001, the minimum correlation coefficient was .39.

Table 1 presents the means and SDs for the measures as well as the correlationsbetween measures, teacher characteristics, and school context variables. The means for

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for teacher beliefs variables and correlations between teacherbelief and school context and teacher characteristics variables

Socio-economic Class TeachingVariable M SD level level Gender experience

Teacher expectation 1.22 0.49 −0.11 −0.17 −0.01 0.06Instructional strategies 7.67 0.69 −0.37∗∗∗ −0.06 0.42∗∗∗ 0.02Classroom management 7.80 0.69 −0.35∗∗ −0.23∗ 0.30∗∗ 0.11Student engagement 7.11 0.84 −0.33∗∗ −0.21∗ 0.36∗∗ −0.006Performance goals 5.07 1.35 −0.01 −0.10 −0.23∗ 0.04Mastery goals 7.56 0.72 −0.28∗∗ −0.13 0.31∗∗ 0.04

Note: ∗p � .05; ∗∗p � .01; ∗∗∗p � .001.

10 Christine M. Rubie-Davies et al.

the subscales of the TSES in the current study are similar to those reported in the originalreliability and validity testing (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) for studentengagement (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 classroommanagement appears higher than that from the original sample (M = 6.7, SD = 1.1 inthe original sample). The SDs reflect a range of teacher beliefs among the sample. Themeans for the PALS scale are not directly comparable since the measure employs a 1–5scale usually and a 1–9 scale was used in the current study. However, while the mean forperformance 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 begreater in the current study (M = 3.44, SD = .76 in the original sample) but again theSDs indicate a dispersion of views.

Correlations between the two school context variables included in this study (socio-economic level and class level) and the teacher beliefs variables are also shown inTable 1. As can be seen, the statistically significant correlations between teaching efficacyin instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement and socio-economic level of the school and between a mastery goal orientation and socio-economiclevel of the school are negative, indicating that teachers in low socio-economic schoolshad higher teaching efficacy and were more likely to have a mastery goal orientation thanwere teachers in high socio-economic areas (and the converse). The reader is remindedof the atypical situation in New Zealand, whereby there is a strong commitment toensuring equitable access to educational resources for all students and a professionalethos among teachers that means that teaching in low socio-economic areas is valued.

The statistically significant correlations between class level taught and the variousteacher beliefs were also negative, indicating that teachers with younger students hadgreater teacher efficacy for classroom management and student engagement than didteachers with older students (and vice versa). No statistically significant relationshipswere found between level of expectation for the class and either of the school contextvariables.

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 teachingefficacy for each subscale than males. Goal orientation provides a different picture. Thestatistically significant negative correlation for performance goals indicates that maleteachers were more performance orientated than females. In contrast, the statisticallysignificant correlation for mastery goal orientation indicates that female teachers weremore mastery orientated than males. However, it must be remembered that the smallnumbers of male participants in the current study does limit the generalizability of theresults. No statistically significant correlations were found between teaching experienceand any of the teacher beliefs variables. Furthermore, there were no statisticallysignificant relationships between class level teacher expectation and gender.

Relationships between types of teacher beliefsTo determine if there was any relationship between teacher expectations, teacherefficacy, and teacher goal orientation, a series of simultaneous linear regressions werecalculated in which the teacher beliefs were entered to predict teacher expectations,teacher efficacy (efficacy for instructional strategies, classroom management, and studentengagement), and goal orientation (performance and mastery), in turn. The first

Teacher efficacy, expectations, and goal orientation 11

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) that is a moderateeffect size according to Cohen (1988) (r = .32). This indicates that 29% of the variancein mastery goal orientation was explained by the model. Both efficacy for studentengagement (� = .71, p < .001) and classroom management (� = −.41, p < .01) weresignificant predictors of a mastery goal orientation (see Table 2). However, the negativebeta weight for classroom management suggests that the more efficacious teachers wereabout their classroom management strategies, the less likely they were to be masteryoriented.

The second simultaneous regression included teacher efficacy in reading for in-structional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement predicting aperformance 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 inperformance goal orientation could be explained by the model. Efficacy for instructionalstrategies marginally predicted a performance orientation but in a negative direction(� = −.34, p = .07) meaning that there was a trend for teachers who were moreperformance oriented to be less efficacious about their instructional strategies (and viceversa). Efficacy for classroom management and student engagement did not predict aperformance goal orientation (see Table 2).

The third in this series of simultaneous regressions included teacher efficacy inreading for instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagementpredicting class level teacher expectations. No statistically significant relationships werefound (see Table 2). Similarly, having a mastery (� = .04, p = .75) or a performance goalorientation (� = .05, p = .70) did not predict teacher expectation.

School context and teacher characteristics variables predicting teacher beliefsFollowing the preliminary calculation of correlations presented in Table 1, a series ofsimultaneous regressions were calculated to further explore whether school contextvariables (school socio-economic level and class level), and teacher characteristics(gender and teaching experience) predicted teacher beliefs (teacher efficacy in readingfor student engagement, instructional strategies and classroom management and teachermastery and performance goal orientation) (see Table 3). Because there were no

Table 2. Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary for teacher efficacy in student engagement,instructional strategies, and classroom management predicting teacher goal orientation and classexpectation

Predicting mastery Predicting performance Predicting teacher classgoal orientation goal orientation level expectation

Teacher efficacy B SEB � B SEB � B SEB �

Engagement 0.61 0.14 .71∗∗∗ 0.23 0.31 .14 −0.01 0.11 −.02Instruction 0.13 0.16 .13 −0.66 0.36 −.34† 0.08 0.13 .11Management −0.43 0.16 −.41∗∗ 0.02 0.36 .01 0.13 0.13 .19Constant 5.58 0.92 8.38 2.03 −0.33 0.74

†p � .10; ∗p � .05; ∗∗p � .01; ∗∗∗p � .001.

12 Christine M. Rubie-Davies et al.

Tabl

e3.

Sim

ulta

neou

sm

ultip

lere

gres

sion

anal

ysis

sum

mar

yfo

rsc

hool

cont

ext

and

teac

her

char

acte

rist

ics

pred

ictin

gte

ache

rbe

liefs

Pred

ictin

gTe

ache

rEf

ficac

yPr

edic

ting

goal

orie

ntat

ion

Stud

ent

enga

gem

ent

Inst

ruct

iona

lstr

ateg

ies

Cla

ssro

omm

anag

emen

tM

aste

ryPe

rfor

man

ce

Vari

able

BSE

B�

BSE

B�

BSE

B�

BSE

B�

BSE

B�

Soci

o-ec

onom

icle

vel

−0.1

00.

04−.

31∗∗

−0.1

00.

03−.

41∗∗

∗0.

090.

03−.

34∗∗

−0.0

80.

03−.

28∗

0.00

90.

06.0

2C

lass

leve

l−0

.03

0.03

−.10

0.02

0.02

.09

−0.0

30.

02−.

13−0

.007

0.03

−.03

−0.0

50.

05−.

13G

ende

r0.

800.

25.3

5∗∗0.

800.

19.4

3∗∗∗

0.56

0.20

.30∗∗

0.61

0.22

.32∗∗

−0.8

80.

45−.

24†

Teac

hing

expe

rien

ce0.

006

0.00

9.0

80.

007

0.00

7.1

10.

010.

007

.20†

0.00

80.

008

.11

0.00

40.

02.0

3C

onst

ant

7.27

0.37

7.65

0.29

8.00

0.31

7.59

0.33

5.94

0.67

Not

e:† p

�.1

0;∗ p

�.0

5;∗∗

p�

.01;

∗∗∗ p

�.0

01.

Teacher efficacy, expectations, and goal orientation 13

relationships between teacher expectation and either the school context or teachercharacteristics variables, a simultaneous regression was not performed to predict teacherexpectation.

The first simultaneous regression included school socio-economic level (1–10),class level, gender, and teaching experience (in years) predicting efficacy in studentengagement. This resulted in an adjusted R2 of .25 (F(4, 63) = 5.19, p < .001), whichwas a large effect size (r = .50). This means that 25% of the variance in efficacy for studentengagement could be explained by the model. Both school socio-economic level (� =−.31, p < .009) and gender (� = .35, p < .002) predicted efficacy in student engagement.The negative beta weight for school socio-economic level indicates that the lower thesocio-economic level of the school the more likely were teachers to feel efficacious aboutstudent engagement (and vice versa). Furthermore, being female predicted efficacy instudent engagement (see Table 3) (Male: M = 6.44, SD = 0.60; Female: M = 7.24, SD =0.82). But, again, it must be remembered that the number of male participants was small.

The second simultaneous regression included school socio-economic level, classlevel, 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 largeeffect size (r = .57). This means that 29% of the variance in efficacy for instructionalstrategies could be explained by the model. Both school socio-economic level (� = −.41,p < .001) and gender (� = .43, p < .001) predicted efficacy in instructional strategies.The negative beta weight for school socio-economic level indicates that the higher thesocio-economic level of the school the less likely were teachers to feel efficacious aboutinstructional strategies (and vice versa). Furthermore, being female predicted efficacy ininstructional strategies more so than being male (see Table 3). (Male: M = 7.02, SD =0.54; Female: M = 7.34, SD = 0.66).

The third simultaneous regression included school socio-economic level, class level,gender, and teaching experience predicting efficacy in classroom management. Thisresulted in an adjusted R2 of .26 (F(4, 63) = 5.61, p < .001), which was a large effectsize (r = .51). This means that 26% of the variance in efficacy for classroom managementcould be explained by the model. School socio-economic level (� = −.41, p < .001) andgender (� = .43, p < .001) predicted efficacy in classroom management. Furthermore,years of teaching experience marginally predicted efficacy in classroom management(� = .20, p < .08). The negative beta weight for school socio-economic level indicatesthat the higher the socio-economic level of the school the less likely were teachers tofeel efficacious about classroom management (and the converse). Furthermore, beingfemale predicted efficacy in classroom management more so than being male (Male: M =7.34, SD = 0.66; Female: M = 7.89, SD = 0.67) and there was a trend for more teachingexperience to be associated with more efficacy towards classroom management (seeTable 3).

The fourth simultaneous regression in the series included school socio-economiclevel, 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 mediumeffect size (r = .43). This means that 13% of the variance in mastery goal orientationcould be explained by the model. School socio-economic level (� = −.28, p = .02) andgender (� = .32, p = .008) predicted a mastery goal orientation. Hence, being femalepredicted a mastery goal orientation more so than being male (Male: M = 7.05, SD =0.62; Female: M = 7.65, SD = 0.70) and again the negative beta weight for school socio-economic level suggests that the higher the socio-economic level of the school the lesslikely were teachers to have a mastery goal orientation and vice versa (see Table 3).

14 Christine M. Rubie-Davies et al.

The final simultaneous regression included school socio-economic level, class level,gender, and teaching experience predicting a performance goal orientation. This resultedin an adjusted R2 of .07 (F(4, 63) = 1.18, p = .33). Only gender marginally predicted aperformance goal orientation (� = −.24, p = .05), the negative beta indicating a trendfor being male to predict a performance goal orientation (see Table 3) (Male: M = 5.78,SD = 0.71; Female: M = 4.93, SD = 1.40).

DiscussionThere is a paucity of research that explores the interrelatedness of teacher beliefs’variables. It seems unlikely, for example, that teachers with beliefs about their efficacyfor teaching will not also have beliefs about how their instruction should be delivered,and so, it seems opportune to explore types of teacher beliefs as potential moderatorsof the instruction ultimately delivered to students. In combination, specific instructionalbeliefs can impact on the instructional decisions that teachers make and therefore onstudent opportunity to learn. Furthermore, it seems possible that particular combinationsof beliefs could lead to greater or lesser effects on the ways in which teachers structuretheir classrooms and teach lessons. There are already several studies showing that certainbeliefs can lead to greater or lesser effects on student outcomes (e.g., Chacon, 2005;McKown & Weinstein, 2008). Since teacher expectations may be considered to relateto where teachers believe their students will get to, teacher efficacy to what teachersbelieve they can do to get students there, and goal orientation to how they believe lessonsshould be structured, it was predicted that a relationship would be found between thesetypes of teacher beliefs.

Indeed, a relationship was found between teacher efficacy and teacher goal orienta-tion (as in the study by Deemer, 2004) and the effect size was moderate. Higher teacherefficacy for engagement of students predicted a mastery goal orientation. Conversely,however, there was a negative relationship between efficacy for class management and amastery goal orientation. This means that teachers high on efficacy for class managementwere less likely to have mastery goal beliefs and those low on class management efficacywere more likely to have mastery goal beliefs. It may be that teachers who have strongbeliefs in their ability to manage students’ disruptive behaviour have a more plannedapproach to management that they are confident works but which on the other handallows teachers to feel able to engage students and provide a range of instructionalstrategies with them. On the other hand, Woolfolk, Rosoff, and Hoy (1990) suggest thatless experienced teachers take a more structured approach to management, and thesample in this study was less experienced than the general teaching population inNew Zealand. So, this may be another explanation for the inverse relationship foundbetween efficacy in class management and a mastery goal orientation. Interestingly,though, the means in the current study for efficacy in class management were higherthan those in the sample on which reliability figures were based, meaning that overallteachers in this study were confident in their ability to manage disruptive students.

Although the effect size was small, teacher efficacy for instructional strategiesnegatively predicted a performance goal orientation, so teachers who were confident intheir 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 needswere more likely to be performance oriented. This may be expected since teachers whoare high in efficacy for meeting the instructional needs of their students report using avariety of pedagogical approaches such as experimenting with instructional methods to

Teacher efficacy, expectations, and goal orientation 15

better cater for student needs and using inquiry learning and small group approaches toteaching (Chacon, 2005; Cousins & Walker, 2000). These approaches do not align wellwith the practices of high performance-oriented teachers who have been found to adopta strong focus on individual test performance and formal assessments and to use moreclass-based approaches to teaching (Anderman et al., 2002).

No relationship was found between teacher class level expectation and teacherefficacy factors or goal orientation. This was an unexpected finding since the beliefs andpractices of high expectation teachers (e.g., using flexible grouping, providing studentswith choice and autonomy in their learning, managing student behaviour positively,and using effective teaching practices) (Rubie-Davies, 2007, 2008a) seem to align withhigh teacher confidence in teachers’ ability to engage students, manage their behaviourand use a variety of instructional strategies (teacher efficacy) (Woolfolk Hoy et al.,2009), and with a mastery approach to teaching (Anderman et al., 2002). However,to our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the interrelatedness of these socialpsychological variables and hence is an area that warrants further investigation.

Relationships between teacher characteristics (gender and teaching experience) andschool context variables (class level taught and socio-economic level of the school) andteacher beliefs (teacher efficacy, goal orientation and class level expectations) were alsoexplored in this study. Gender (being female) predicted teacher efficacy in all threeareas (instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management), andthe effect size was large, although it must be remembered that in the current studynumbers of males was small. Other studies of teacher efficacy have reported a similarfinding, however (Lee, Buck, & Midgley, 1992; Ross, 1998). One suggestion could bethat teaching (particularly in the primary school levels) is considered by some to be apredominantly female occupation and that as a result of this, female teachers may reflectmore 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 efficacyfor classroom management. A finding of a relationship between overall teaching efficacyand 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 maybe expected that a relationship would be found since it is would seem reasonable thatteachers with more teaching experience would have more confidence in their abilityto manage their students. Those who were unable to manage students would possiblyleave the profession. Indeed, the ability to manage student behaviour is often reportedby teachers early in their careers as their greatest concern (Veenman, 1984).

The socio-economic level of the school in which teachers was located negativelypredicted efficacy in all three areas (student engagement, instructional strategies, andclass management) and the effect size was large. This is contrary to existing researchthat suggests that teachers in low socio-economic areas have lower efficacy than thosein middle-class schools (Bandura, 1993). The result in the current study is thought torelate to the New Zealand context where, as explained above, many highly experiencedteachers choose to teach in low socio-economic areas. Schools in such areas are wellresourced 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 inhigh socio-economic areas are often under considerable pressure from parents to ensuresuccessful outcomes for their children and this may affect teachers’ beliefs about theirefficacy. Evidence has also been found in New Zealand of more high expectation teachers

16 Christine M. Rubie-Davies et al.

being found in low socio-economic schools and the opposite (Rubie-Davies, 2006).Hence, it is acknowledged that the findings in the current study related to teacherefficacy, and socio-economic level of the school may not be generalizable to othergeographic locations.

Relationships between school contextual variables and teacher factors were alsoexamined in relation to goal orientation. A similar trend to that reported above wasfound in that, again, being female predicted a mastery goal orientation and there was anegative relationship between the socio-economic level of the school and a mastery goalorientation. The effect size in this case was moderate. On the other hand, being malepredicted having a performance goal orientation, although the effect size was small.No studies were located that had examined gender or socio-economic levels in relationto goal orientation and hence, this study provides a basis on which the evidence intosuch relationships can be extended in future studies. Based on the literature related toteacher efficacy, it would be predicted that the finding of females having mastery andmales having performance goal orientation would be confirmed. Male students havebeen shown to be more performance oriented and females more mastery (Anderman &Midgley, 1997).

The finding of no relationship between level of teacher expectation and either theschool context variables or the teacher factors is interesting in itself. Previous researchhas suggested that teachers in junior classes perhaps have higher expectations for theirstudents than those in higher levels of schooling (Rubie-Davies, 2006) but this was notfound in the current study. However, the study of Rubie Davies had a much smallersample size and so that may have influenced the results. But in other work by Rubie-Davies (2007, 2008b), no relationship was shown between school socio-economic leveland teachers’ expectations, a finding confirmed in the current study. Again, this iscontradictory to the US evidence that suggests teachers have lower expectations forstudents in low socio-economic areas (see, e.g., 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 teachersinvolved in the study was quite small and especially the numbers of male teachers. Aconsequence of the small number of participants was that this precluded more powerfulanalyses such as structural equation modelling. Secondly, the sample was not trulyrepresentative in that more teachers from high socio-economic areas participated andthe 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, meantthat quite a large proportion then became ineligible to participate. Fourthly, despite thelow alpha level found for the mastery goal orientation subscale, it was still used inthe current study mainly because it was the only measure that could be located thattests teachers’ mastery goal orientation. A final limitation in the current study was thatbecause the small numbers precluded path modelling, the relationships of the teacherbeliefs variables were examined separately as both a cause and an effect rather thansimultaneously. It is acknowledged that these various limitations may have influencedthe results and limit generalizability.

Nevertheless, several interesting findings pave the way for future research to furtherexplore teacher psychosocial variables and their relationships with other school andteacher factors. Because of the acknowledged influence of teacher beliefs on teacherpractice, a future study could incorporate larger numbers of teachers to further examinethe interrelationship between teacher beliefs, particularly those investigated in thecurrent study since as argued above they can theoretically be considered to relate.

Teacher efficacy, expectations, and goal orientation 17

Such research could then also examine the collection of teacher beliefs that weremost beneficial in terms of student outcomes and learning. This could result in ateacher beliefs profile similar to the teacher instructional profiles proffered to alignwith effective teaching. Instructional practices do not just happen. They are predicatedon beliefs and hence further exploration in this area could result in understandingsabout teachers of which we are not currently cognisant. Such studies could lead to atheoretical understanding of the combinations of teacher beliefs that are important forstudent outcomes. Overall, this preliminary study has uncovered some important andinteresting relationships between various teacher and school variables and between someteacher psychosocial variables. Constructs such as teacher efficacy, teacher class levelexpectations, and teacher goal orientation all recognize the individuality of teachers andpoint to a need to consider teacher difference when exploring student learning outcomesand social development. It may be argued that at times student outcomes vary becauseteachers vary in their instructional practices, in their beliefs, in their expectations, in theirefficacy for teaching, in their goal orientation, and in the ways in which they constructthe socio-emotional climate of the classroom, rather than that student outcomes alwaysvary because students differ. While the authors are not proclaiming that all students arethe same, they are arguing that not all teachers are the same. Hattie (2009) has shownover a number of years the significance of the teacher for student learning. All educationsystems have at their core the desire for all students to achieve to their potential and tobecome well rounded, socially competent citizens of society. If such ambitions are tobe realized, there is a need for research to consider more closely teacher variables thatpotentially influence student learning. We know much about the instructional practicesthat enhance student learning but the core of teaching relates not just to the instructionalenvironment of the classroom but also to the socio-emotional climate that teachers create(Babad, 2009; Ennis, 1998). These social relationships depend on teacher attributes andhence, there is a need for research to explore more closely the inherent qualities ofteachers that facilitate student learning and social outcomes. ‘It is the differences in theteachers that make the difference in student learning’ (Hattie, 2009, p. 236).

ReferencesAnderman, 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.1996.0926Anderman, 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_3Brooking, 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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences.

New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

18 Christine M. Rubie-Davies et al.

Chacon, C. T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign languageteachers 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-serviceteachers. 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, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cousins, J. B., & Walker, C. A. (2000). Predictors of educators’ valuing of systemic inquiry inschools [Special issue]. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 25–52.

de la Torre Cruz, M. J., & Arias, P. F. C. (2007). Comparative analysis of expectancies ofefficacy 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 linksbetween teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research, 46 , 73–90.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 urbanAfrican American children. Journal of School Psychology, 37(4), 403–424. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00027-8

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (2001). Teacher efficacy in writing: Aconstruction 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 Zealand: 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.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). NewYork: Routledge.

Kalaian, H. A., & Freeman, D. J. (1994). Gender differences in self-confidence and educationalbeliefs 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, SanFrancisco, CA.

McCarty, F., Abbott-Shim, M., & Lambert, R. (2001). The relationship between teacher beliefsand 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. ID number: 15276

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context and theachievement 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 Universityof 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’ commu-

nication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 102,35–58.

Teacher efficacy, expectations, and goal orientation 19

Plourde, L. A. (2002). The influence of student teaching on preservice elementary teachers’ scienceself-efficacy 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, CT: JAI Press.

Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2006). Teacher expectations and student self-perceptions: Exploring relation-ships. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 537–552. doi:10.1002/pits.20169

Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high andlow 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. 25–39). 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 bi-directional investigation of their relationship and implicit beliefs of ability with

final grades. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Diego, CA.

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 EducationalResearch 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 andspecial 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 andmeasure. 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 pri-mary social studies. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education,13, 209–222. doi:10.1080/10382040408668516

Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs aboutmanaging 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 contextof teaching low achieving students. Current Psychology, 27, 192–204. doi:10.1007/s12144-008-9034-x

Received 15 September 2010; revised version received 10 January 2011