Introduction
The purpose of this literature review is to support a comparative study of teacher efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers from Malaysia and New Zealand. It seeks to answer the question, ‘Is the construct of teacher efficacy interculturally transferable?’ by exploring the contribution made by research in three areas: teacher efficacy, national culture, and the potential impact of national culture on teacher efficacy beliefs. Consequently, a number of sub-questions are posed: What is teacher efficacy? Why is it considered to be of importance? How might the construct of culture be conceptualised usefully? And how might culture impact on the measurement and understanding of teacher efficacy?
Both conceptual and empirical literature sources are considered. The literature for this review was selected after careful use of academic search engines and the use of reference lists of extensively cited papers. As teacher efficacy is a comparatively small field it was not necessary to set search limits. This was also the case when searching for ‘teacher efficacy and culture’, where very little research was evident. However, ‘culture’ is an extensively researched and theorised concept. Pragmatism guided the selection of literature exploring this area, with a focus on those sources supported by a functionalist methodology. Of these, Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) dimensions of culture was selected for discussion, due to its widespread use (Oettingen, 1995).
Teacher efficacy, a teacher’s belief about his or her ability to impact on student performance (Ho & Hau, 2004), is widely considered to be related closely to student success (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Much of the existing research about the efficacy beliefs of teachers has been conducted in Western countries, notably the United States (Ho & Hau, 2004). However more recently a number of studies have explored teacher efficacy in more diverse settings (Cheung, 2006; 2008; Gorrell & Hwang, 1995; Ho & Hau, 2004; Lin & Gorrell, 1998; Rich, Lev & Fischer, 1996). These studies have begun to investigate the impact of culture on this construct. Culture is defined by Hofstede (2007) as the: “collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (p. 413). Hofstede’s model is used widely in empirical research on the effects of national culture (Williamson, 2002).
The remainder of this literature review is divided into three sections: 1. Teacher efficacy; 2. Research about culture; and 3. Culture and teacher efficacy beliefs. Each section address questions outlined above and concludes with a discussion. The review then closes with a brief general conclusion.
The purpose of this literature review is to support a comparative study of teacher efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers from Malaysia and New Zealand. It seeks to answer the question, ‘Is the construct of teacher efficacy interculturally transferable?’ by exploring the contribution made by research in three areas: teacher efficacy, national culture, and the potential impact of national culture on teacher efficacy beliefs. Consequently, a number of sub-questions are posed: What is teacher efficacy? Why is it considered to be of importance? How might the construct of culture be conceptualised usefully? And how might culture impact on the measurement and understanding of teacher efficacy?
Both conceptual and empirical literature sources are considered. The literature for this review was selected after careful use of academic search engines and the use of reference lists of extensively cited papers. As teacher efficacy is a comparatively small field it was not necessary to set search limits. This was also the case when searching for ‘teacher efficacy and culture’, where very little research was evident. However, ‘culture’ is an extensively researched and theorised concept. Pragmatism guided the selection of literature exploring this area, with a focus on those sources supported by a functionalist methodology. Of these, Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) dimensions of culture was selected for discussion, due to its widespread use (Oettingen, 1995).
Teacher efficacy, a teacher’s belief about his or her ability to impact on student performance (Ho & Hau, 2004), is widely considered to be related closely to student success (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Much of the existing research about the efficacy beliefs of teachers has been conducted in Western countries, notably the United States (Ho & Hau, 2004). However more recently a number of studies have explored teacher efficacy in more diverse settings (Cheung, 2006; 2008; Gorrell & Hwang, 1995; Ho & Hau, 2004; Lin & Gorrell, 1998; Rich, Lev & Fischer, 1996). These studies have begun to investigate the impact of culture on this construct. Culture is defined by Hofstede (2007) as the: “collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (p. 413). Hofstede’s model is used widely in empirical research on the effects of national culture (Williamson, 2002).
The remainder of this literature review is divided into three sections: 1. Teacher efficacy; 2. Research about culture; and 3. Culture and teacher efficacy beliefs. Each section address questions outlined above and concludes with a discussion. The review then closes with a brief general conclusion.
Section One: Teacher Efficacy
Why is Teacher Efficacy Important?
Teacher efficacy beliefs are a teacher’s beliefs about his or her own ability to bring about student engagement and success in both motivated and less motivated students (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Empirical research appears to suggest that positive teacher efficacy beliefs lead to teachers who are: more committed (Coladarci, 1992; Evans & Trimble, 1986); enthusiastic about their work (Allinder, 1994; Guskey 1984; Hall, Burley, Villeme, & Brockmeier, 1992); less likely to leave the profession (Burley, Hall, Villeme, & Brockmeier, 1991; Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982); persistent, resilient, and less critical of failing students (Ashton & Webb, 1986); more likely to try innovative methods and be open to new ideas (Allinder, 1994; Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977; Cousins & Walker, 2000; Guskey, 1988; Meijer & Foster, 1988; Smylie, 1988); use ‘hands on’ teaching methods more regularly (Riggs & Enochs, 1990); and show signs of more effective planning and organisation (Allinder, 1994).
Hoy and Spero (2005) have argued that the importance of research into pre-service teachers’ professional efficacy beliefs is underlined by the apparent resilience of these beliefs once they are formed. Moreover, research has found that the teacher efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers are linked to attitudes towards children and classroom control (Saklofske, Michaluk, & Randhawa, 1988; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990), and have been found to closely match external appraisal of pre-service teacher competency (Walker, 1992).
Furthermore, the literature indicates that students taught by teachers with high teacher efficacy beliefs: demonstrated high levels of self-efficacy (Anderson, Greene, Loewen, 1988); were more motivated (Midgeley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Woolfolk, Rossof & Hoy, 1990); were higher achievers (Anderson, Greene & Loewen, 1988; Armor, Conroy-Oseguera, Cox, King, McDonnel, Pascal, Pauly, & Zellman, 1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992; Watson, 1991); and were more positive about their teachers and school (Woolfolk, Rossof & Hoy, 1990).
What is Teacher Efficacy?
Over the last three decades, teacher efficacy (sometimes called teaching efficacy), has evolved from Rotter’s (1966) locus of control theory (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Wheatley, 2002). However, it could be seen to draw more heavily on Bandura’s (1977) study of self-efficacy, evident in his social cognitive theory (Wheatley, 2002). Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy (2002), argue that these two conceptual strands have resulted in confusion surrounding the term ‘teacher efficacy’. They point out that whereas some educators have presumed Bandura’s (1977) perceived self-efficacy and Rotter’s (1966) internal locus of control are for the most part corresponding, there are important differences: the former refers to belief about one’s own ability to bring about an outcome, while the latter refers to beliefs about whether actions affect outcomes. Bandura (1997) has used data to demonstrate empirically that there is at best a weak correlation between these two constructs. He argues that self-efficacy is a strong indicator of behaviour, whereas internal locus of control is not.
In response to this confusion, Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy (1998) have developed a model of teacher efficacy that: “reconciles the two competing conceptual strands found in the literature” (1998, p.202). They look to Rotter’s (1966) locus of control theory for context and task analysis. However, they assume that the most significant influences on teacher efficacy beliefs are the ‘attributional analysis’ and interpretation of Bandura’s (1977, 1995) four sources of information about efficacy: mastery experience; physiological and emotional states; vicarious experience; and social persuasion.
According to Bandura (1995), the most powerful source of efficacy beliefs comes from what he terms mastery experience. Although failure can undermine self efficacy beliefs, success can lead to strong beliefs about one’s self efficacy. Bandura (1995) argues that negative mastery experiences are particularly damaging to self efficacy beliefs before they are strongly established. A second source are physiological and emotional states, though he argues that it is not the intensity of these that is significant in the formation of self efficacy beliefs, but rather how they are interpreted. They can be seen as either stimulating or debilitating factors. Bandura’s (1995) third source of self-efficacy belief comes in the form of vicarious experiences. He argues that when people see others like them succeed or fail it can have a powerful effect on their own self efficacy beliefs; the greater the similarity of the role model, the more significant their influence. Bandura (1995) states that social persuasion is more likely to convince people that they are not efficacious than it is to promote positive self efficacy beliefs. Once a negative belief is in place, behavioural validation often follows. However, he argues that realistic positive verbal persuasion can lead to greater, more sustained effort.
Two factors of teacher efficacy are commonly identified (Guskey, 1988; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Parker, Guarino, & Wade Smith, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), yet there has been much discussion as to their meaning. The least contested is that of personal teaching efficacy (PTE): “a teacher’s belief that they can facilitate learning” (Parker, Guarino, & Wade Smith, 2002, p. 936). However, the second factor, often called general teaching efficacy (GTE) is the belief that teachers in general can overcome external factors such as students’ destructive home backgrounds (Parker, Guarino, & Wade Smith, 2002). It is in this second factor that differences in Bandura’s (1977) and Rotter’s (1966) conceptual frameworks seem to be evident: Hickman (1990) preferred the term external influences which relates to Rotter’s (1966) construct of external control (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), whereas others such as Gibson & Dembo (1984); Emmer & Hickman (1990); and Soodak & Podell (1996), have looked to Bandura’s (1977) second component of social cognitive theory: ‘outcome expectancy’ (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy’s model offers two different, but related dimensions: “self perceptions of teaching competence” and “teaching task and its context” (1998, p. 228). The former is similar to PTE, where an individual estimates their strengths and their weaknesses in a particular context and forms a self efficacy belief. The latter, like GTE, balances the positive and negative factors evident in the teaching environment. This model recognises that teacher efficacy beliefs are in fact context-specific.
Labone (2004) has suggested that a weakness of the research into teacher efficacy is that it has not considered the context sufficiently. She applauds Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy’s model for its inclusion. Furthermore, she points out that their model is more cogent of meaning perspectives.
Criticisms of Teacher Efficacy
There is evidence in the literature of a critical response to the theoretical frameworks that underpin teacher efficacy beliefs, the empirical research that supports them and the research paradigm within which much teacher efficacy research has been based. Wheatley (2002) has argued that much of the available research confuses correlation with cause: the fact that effective teachers are found to have high level of teacher efficacy does not, in itself, prove that it is the high levels of teacher efficacy that have led to the effective practice. Furthermore, he posits that self doubt is important, resulting in learning, reflection, collaboration and “responsiveness to diversity” (Wheatley, 2002, p.13). Walker (1992) cited research which suggested that student teachers had unhelpfully unrealistic views of their own abilities and were overly optimistic.
Labone (2004) notes that teacher efficacy research has been largely quantitative as a result of its roots in psychology. She heeds Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy’s (1998) call: “to expand and enrich conceptions of teacher efficacy to include other perspectives and methodologies appropriate for their investigation” (1998, p. 203), by arguing that both interpretivist and post-structuralist paradigms have much to offer teacher efficacy research.
Discussion of Teacher Efficacy
Most of the literature reviewed here suggests that teacher efficacy beliefs are indeed important and result in better teacher and student experience. By grounding theory and research in Bandura’s theory of self efficacy, teacher efficacy can become a useful construct for supporting the development of pre-service teachers. However, the dissenting voices of Wheatley (2002) and others are important reminders of the dangers of falsely attributing causation when such conclusions are unwarranted.
Wheatley’s (2002) critique may suggest that further clarification of what is meant by teacher efficacy doubts is needed. He states that: “’Teacher efficacy doubts’ is used here to encompass everything from mild uncertainty to profound doubts about one’s efficacy...” (2002, p. 8). Such a broad definition would seem to be unhelpful. Some uncertainty may well lead to some of the benefits outlined previously; it resonates with Mezirow’s (1991, 2001) theory of transformational learning, where learning is triggered by a ‘disorientating dilemma’ when the learner finds their beliefs to be undermined by current circumstances. This leads to critical reflection and deep learning. However, ‘profound doubts’ may be more likely to result in paralysis. Hoy and Spero (2005) posit that self efficacy beliefs about learning to teach are needed to respond successfully to doubts.
This literature review supports Labone’s (2004) observation that research on teacher efficacy is largely quantitative. Her suggestion that interpretivist and critical theorist paradigms would both provide depth to the construct and educational reform are noted. Cheung’s (2008) mixed methods research may provide a way forward as it is capable of bridging the gap between quantitative and qualitative studies, offering both ‘empirical precision’ and ‘descriptive precision’ (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005) to the study of teacher efficacy beliefs.
Section Two: Research about Culture
How Might ‘Culture’ be Usefully Considered?
Culture is explored extensively in the research literature, where functionalist (Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 1992; and Trompenaars, 1993), interpretivist (Hammersley, 1992), and post-structuralist (Doherty and Singh, 2005; Prescott & Hellsten, 2005; and Singh, 2005) paradigms are evident. There is evidence that cultural research is problematic, contested, and reflects ideological conflict: Tuiha-Smith (1999) suggests that: “research is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary” and Crozier asks: “Is ethnography just another form of surveillance?” (2005, p. 95).
The word limit of this review allows only for a partial engagement with this wide-ranging topic. Therefore, this section will restrict its focus to research in the functionalist paradigm and in particular Hofstede’s (2001) research of dimensions of culture The functionalist paradigm is selected as a result of the credibility of the large scale studies focusing on limited variables, the comparability of findings, and what Williamson (2002) refers to as its ‘parsimony’, which enables more effective communication to both academics and practitioners. Hofstede (2001) is the primary focus of this review as his dimensions of culture have been cited extensively in the literature (McSweeney, 2002; Oettingen, 1995; Williamson, 2002) and offer a useful framework for examining the cultural impact of teacher efficacy beliefs (Oettingen, 1995). This section of the literature review begins with a brief summary of Hofstede’s (2001) research, it then considers McSweeney’s (2002) critique of Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) research, and finally it concludes with a discussion of the construct.
Hofstede’s (1980; 2001) Dimensions of Culture
Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes one group or category of people from another (Hofstede, 2007, p. 423).
Hostede’s (1980, 2001) research, originally comparing employees of IBM (a company with a global presence) from 40 nations, has now been extended to compare 74 nations (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Using matched data, Hofstede’s (2001) analysis resulted in four dimensions of cultural difference: power difference; uncertainty avoidance; collectivism/individualism; and masculine/feminine. Based on his findings he then speculated about how these dimensions would be likely to be manifest in a number of contexts including educational establishments.
1. Power Difference (PD)
According to Hofstede (2001), cultures which are high in power difference are more tolerant of inequality. He suggests that this is evident in education, where learning is likely to be more teacher-centred and students less likely to see their teachers as equals. Hofstede (2001) speculates that in high PD settings students would be expected to show respect when meeting teachers and not be seen to challenge their authority. Interviews of Chinese students conducted in New Zealand by Holmes would appear to support this. One explained: “It is very impolite to ask teachers questions... [one should] not challenge [the teacher] in class. If you have problems, you can ask the teacher after class, not in class, because that makes [the teacher] feel embarrassed” (2005, p. 299).
2. Uncertainty Avoidance (UA)
Societies rated as being high in UA are more likely to adhere to absolute truths and prefer the security of structured, clear and predictable situations. Strong codes of conduct are more evident. Hofstede (2001) suggests that such societies can also be more intolerant and more aggressive. In contrast, low UA societies are more comfortable with ambiguity and more tolerant of difference. In education, students in high UA settings are said to prefer structure and correct answers, learn that truth is absolute, and see teachers as having all the answers.
3. Individualism/Collectivism (IC)
This dimension is also identified in a number of other studies, including Hwang, Francesco, and Kessler (2003); Triandis (1989); Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990), and is identified by Levine (2007) as the being the dominant theoretical perspective steering research in cross-cultural and inter-cultural matters. Collectivist societies might be defined as societies where people are likely to belong to ‘in-groups’ to which they owe considerable loyalty. This is contrasted with individualistic cultures where people are more likely to focus on their own needs and the needs of their immediate families.
Hofstede (2001) argues that in collectivist societies, the in-group/out-group distinctions developed within the family are transferred to schools where children from different ethnic backgrounds often form sub-groups. Conversely, individualist classrooms are more likely to aspire to meeting the unique needs of the student, and the ideal of critical engagement and discussion (Hofstede, 2001). Hwang, Francesco, and Kessler (2003) and VonDrass (2005) have found links between learning success and IC orientation.
4. Masculinity/Femininity (MF)
Hofstede suggests that masculine societies are more aggressive, competitive, and place stronger emphasis on gender difference. Traditional parenting roles are advocated with a societal expectation that women will be caring and men will be professionally successful. He argues that academic failure or success is much more significant in the lives of people in masculine societies, where poor performance can even lead to suicide. In more feminine societies, social skills are seen as more important and friendly teachers are valued more than academically outstanding ones.
McSweeney’s Critique of Hofstede’s Research
McSweeney undermines Hofstede’s model by critiquing its research paradigm, premises and findings. Firstly, he joins Anderson (1991) in his claim that nations are ‘imagined communities’ and Wallerstein (1990), who claims to be: “sceptical that we can operationalise the concept of culture...in any way that enables us to use it for statements that are more than trivial’ (p.34, cited in McSweeney, 2002, p.89). Secondly he identifies five ‘flawed’ assumptions upon which Hofstede’s theory is based:
1. IBM employees share a company culture and an occupational culture, therefore difference is likely to be explained by national culture
2. National culture is identifiable at the micro-level
3. National culture creates questionnaire response
4. National culture can be identified by response difference analysis
5. Culture is the same in any circumstance within a nation
(McSweeney, 2002, p. 95-107).
Williamson (2002) has noted that McSweeney (2002) disputes the value of functionalist paradigm, but then critiques Hofstede’s research from within it; contesting both the reliability and validity of his findings. He argues that such an inconsistent approach results in McSweeney’s (2002) critique itself being ‘flawed’. Despite a robust rebuttal of McSweeney’s (2002) conclusions, he acknowledges that three significant warnings should be heeded: firstly, the danger of imagining that people within nations are homogeneous and all share cultural attributes; secondly, that individuals are not ‘cultural dopes’ whose values and behaviour are completely culturally determined; and thirdly, readers of Hofstede’s research should be wary “of confusing scores for cultural dimensions, for which they are but approximate measures” (2002, p. 1391).
Research about Culture: Discussion
Mason argues that the concept of culture is hugely problematic. Societies are comprised of diverse individuals and are situated in a world that is: “characterised by increasing degrees of plurality, multiculturalism, interdependence, hybridity and complexity” (2007, p. 169). He warns that researchers of culture can: “face accusations of stereotyping, treating culture as monolithic and overstating its influence in a hybrid world characterised by complex interactions and influences” (p. 166). Indeed, such criticisms have been addressed to Hofstede (2001) by McSweeney (2002), yet, Hofstede has stated:
We do not compare individuals, but we compare what is called central tendencies in the answers from each country. There is hardly an individual who answers each question by the mean score of his or her group: The ‘average person’ from a country does not exist” (1991, p. 253).
In the light of this, it is perhaps less likely that readers will interpret his dimensions as being absolute and evident in all the citizens of a particular nation. It may be that Williamson’s (2002) pragmatic approach is valuable to those who would use this model; he recognises Hofstede’s (2001) dimensions provide only a: “rough approximation... [of the] complexities of cultural worlds” (2002, p. 1384), yet he celebrates: “the great advances it has made in unbundling the black box of culture” (2002, p. 1392).
Section Three: Culture and Teacher Efficacy Beliefs
How Might Culture Impact on the Appraisal and Measurement of Teacher Efficacy Beliefs?
This section considers how culture affects teacher efficacy beliefs. Firstly, it reviews Oettingen’s (1995) analysis of how each of Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions (power difference; uncertainty avoidance; individualism/collectivism; and masculinity/femininity) might affect the weighting, selection, and integration of Bandura’s (1977) sources of self efficacy beliefs (mastery experience; physiological and emotional states; vicarious experience; and social persuasion). Secondly, it examines the findings of the limited number of empirical studies researching culture and teacher efficacy beliefs. This section then closes with a brief discussion of the topic.
Culture and Self Efficacy Appraisal
Oettingen (1995) suggests that sources of efficacy vary across cultures in their prevalence, forms, and value. Praise may be used more sparingly in some cultures, feedback might be given more readily to groups than individuals in others, and being ranked first in the class may be of more value in some cultures than others. Oettingen (1995) explores these ideas by using Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions.
Power difference (PD): drawing on Hofstede’s (1980) ideas that parents and teachers have considerable authority in high PD societies, Oettingen (1995) suggests that the importance of the beliefs of ‘superiors’ will take on much greater significance for social persuasion in high PD societies. In low PD societies, the teacher’s opinion is more likely to be dismissed as invalid and questioned by students and their families. She speculates further that negative emotional arousal resulting from the: “unquestioned authority of teachers” (1995, p. 154) might more readily affect self efficacy beliefs in high PD societies. She suggests that this authority extends to vicarious experience, where peers may be seen through the eyes of the teacher. Those in low power difference societies are presented as having more opportunity to: “become creators of their own performance history” (1995, p. 154), thus having greater control over the mastery experience information that they internalise.
Uncertainty avoidance: Oettingen (1995) claims that in high UA settings, self efficacy beliefs are built through regular performance feedback and peer ranking throughout one’s formal education. She suggests that verbal feedback from influential others is also likely to be direct and unequivocal. In contrast she presents low UA societies as being less influenced by such social appraisal and having more potential for self-appraisal, allowing for more ‘self-enhancing’ judgements.
Individualism/collectivism: The in-group places an important role in the formation of self efficacy beliefs for those from collectivist cultures according to Oettingen (1995). It is this in-group that is most likely to be socially persuasive in the formation of self efficacy beliefs and also to offer suitable role models allowing vicarious experience to become a significant source of such beliefs. It is further suggested that group identity plays a much stronger role in collectivist societies, with group feedback being an important source of mastery information
Masculinity/Femininity: Oettingen (1995) argues that people in masculine societies place greater emphasis on competition as a source for self efficacy beliefs. Mastery is confirmed by demonstrating greater success than one’s peers. Emotional states can carry considerable weight in self efficacy evaluation under these circumstances.
Oettingen (1995) theorises that Bandura’s (1989) claim that strong self-efficacy beliefs result in greater persistence in the face of difficulty, lessened fear of failure, improved thinking skills, and raised aspirations, is in fact applicable universally. However she does acknowledge that the public expression of strong efficacy beliefs can be costly in some cultures, although she notes that: “collectivist individuals should feel no qualms about showing a strong sense of efficacy to members of out-groups” (1995, p. 170). She argues that despite the expected difference between the group welfare promoting goals of collectivists and the self-actualising goals of individualists, self efficacy beliefs are likely to be a predictor of goal achievement for both groups.
Empirical Studies on Culture and Teacher Efficacy.
Ho and Hau’s (2004) study of Chinese and Australian teachers led them to conclude that the construct of teacher efficacy was cross-culturally valid. However, they also found that it contained culturally specific elements. Whereas student guidance efficacy and control efficacy dimensions were individually evident for Australian teachers, these were integrated in the data collected from the Chinese students. They suggest that this reflected the more parent-like responsibility accepted by Chinese teachers. They also found that the Australian teachers recorded higher levels of teacher efficacy than the Chinese teachers in all areas, including discipline. They attribute this to both the culturally expected self-effacing tendencies of people from collectivist cultures and the higher expectations of teachers evident in Chinese society.
Lin, Gorrell and Taylor have also claimed that teacher efficacy belief: “draws heavily on cultural differences from country to country” (2002, p. 37). They suggest further that the two factor approach may be insufficient to measure teacher efficacy beliefs in different settings. They report that although Rich, Lev and Fischer’s (1996) Israeli study found a two factorial structure similar to those in US studies, Gorrell, Ares, and Boakari (1998); Gorrell, Hazareesingh, Carlson and Stenmalm-Sjoblom (1993); Gorrell and Hwang, 1995; Lin and Gorrell, (1998); (1999), found that the concept of teacher efficacy is: “more differentiated than was previously found and is strongly influenced by uniquely cultural variables” (2002, p. 37). They also found that pre-service teachers from different cultures reported different degrees of teacher efficacy. This is evident in their research where U.S. pre-service teachers are recorded as reporting higher teacher efficacy beliefs than their Taiwanese peers (Lin, Gorrell, & Taylor, 2002) and is further supported by the research findings of Ho and Hau (2004).
Lin, Gorrell and Taylor (2002), have highlighted important differences on individual efficacy items that may reflect both culture and context. Taiwanese pre-service teachers placed more emphasis on the need for successful relationships with parents and had an increased awareness of the difficulty of teaching large classes. Moreover, they also suggested that Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) instrument for measuring teacher efficacy beliefs may not be suitable for use in cultures with different perspectives about teaching.
Cheung (2006; 2008), used Kennedy and Hui’s (2006) Chinese version of Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy’s (1998) Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSE). This Hong Kong Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (HK-TSE) was found to be valid and reliable in the Hong Kong context. Cheung (2008) extended this study by collecting further data from teachers in Shanghai for comparison. After further translation, the Shanghai Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy (S-TSE) was developed. In this study qualitative data was also collected asking participants to identify the sources of their efficacy beliefs. Cheung (2008) noted that the Shanghai teachers recorded significantly higher scores in the survey. He suggested that this may in part be explained by: “a cultural preference for being modest” (2008, p. 119).
Lin, Gorrell and Taylor’s (2002), Ho and Hau’s (2004), and Cheung’s (2006, 2008) research highlight differing cultural understanding of the role of the teacher, and how culture may obfuscate the meaning of answers given to the same question by those from diverse backgrounds.
Hoy and Spero (2005) have argued that the importance of research into pre-service teachers’ professional efficacy beliefs is underlined by the apparent resilience of these beliefs once they are formed. Moreover, research has found that the teacher efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers are linked to attitudes towards children and classroom control (Saklofske, Michaluk, & Randhawa, 1988; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990), and have been found to closely match external appraisal of pre-service teacher competency (Walker, 1992).
Furthermore, the literature indicates that students taught by teachers with high teacher efficacy beliefs: demonstrated high levels of self-efficacy (Anderson, Greene, Loewen, 1988); were more motivated (Midgeley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Woolfolk, Rossof & Hoy, 1990); were higher achievers (Anderson, Greene & Loewen, 1988; Armor, Conroy-Oseguera, Cox, King, McDonnel, Pascal, Pauly, & Zellman, 1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992; Watson, 1991); and were more positive about their teachers and school (Woolfolk, Rossof & Hoy, 1990).
What is Teacher Efficacy?
Over the last three decades, teacher efficacy (sometimes called teaching efficacy), has evolved from Rotter’s (1966) locus of control theory (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Wheatley, 2002). However, it could be seen to draw more heavily on Bandura’s (1977) study of self-efficacy, evident in his social cognitive theory (Wheatley, 2002). Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy (2002), argue that these two conceptual strands have resulted in confusion surrounding the term ‘teacher efficacy’. They point out that whereas some educators have presumed Bandura’s (1977) perceived self-efficacy and Rotter’s (1966) internal locus of control are for the most part corresponding, there are important differences: the former refers to belief about one’s own ability to bring about an outcome, while the latter refers to beliefs about whether actions affect outcomes. Bandura (1997) has used data to demonstrate empirically that there is at best a weak correlation between these two constructs. He argues that self-efficacy is a strong indicator of behaviour, whereas internal locus of control is not.
In response to this confusion, Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy (1998) have developed a model of teacher efficacy that: “reconciles the two competing conceptual strands found in the literature” (1998, p.202). They look to Rotter’s (1966) locus of control theory for context and task analysis. However, they assume that the most significant influences on teacher efficacy beliefs are the ‘attributional analysis’ and interpretation of Bandura’s (1977, 1995) four sources of information about efficacy: mastery experience; physiological and emotional states; vicarious experience; and social persuasion.
According to Bandura (1995), the most powerful source of efficacy beliefs comes from what he terms mastery experience. Although failure can undermine self efficacy beliefs, success can lead to strong beliefs about one’s self efficacy. Bandura (1995) argues that negative mastery experiences are particularly damaging to self efficacy beliefs before they are strongly established. A second source are physiological and emotional states, though he argues that it is not the intensity of these that is significant in the formation of self efficacy beliefs, but rather how they are interpreted. They can be seen as either stimulating or debilitating factors. Bandura’s (1995) third source of self-efficacy belief comes in the form of vicarious experiences. He argues that when people see others like them succeed or fail it can have a powerful effect on their own self efficacy beliefs; the greater the similarity of the role model, the more significant their influence. Bandura (1995) states that social persuasion is more likely to convince people that they are not efficacious than it is to promote positive self efficacy beliefs. Once a negative belief is in place, behavioural validation often follows. However, he argues that realistic positive verbal persuasion can lead to greater, more sustained effort.
Two factors of teacher efficacy are commonly identified (Guskey, 1988; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Parker, Guarino, & Wade Smith, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), yet there has been much discussion as to their meaning. The least contested is that of personal teaching efficacy (PTE): “a teacher’s belief that they can facilitate learning” (Parker, Guarino, & Wade Smith, 2002, p. 936). However, the second factor, often called general teaching efficacy (GTE) is the belief that teachers in general can overcome external factors such as students’ destructive home backgrounds (Parker, Guarino, & Wade Smith, 2002). It is in this second factor that differences in Bandura’s (1977) and Rotter’s (1966) conceptual frameworks seem to be evident: Hickman (1990) preferred the term external influences which relates to Rotter’s (1966) construct of external control (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), whereas others such as Gibson & Dembo (1984); Emmer & Hickman (1990); and Soodak & Podell (1996), have looked to Bandura’s (1977) second component of social cognitive theory: ‘outcome expectancy’ (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy’s model offers two different, but related dimensions: “self perceptions of teaching competence” and “teaching task and its context” (1998, p. 228). The former is similar to PTE, where an individual estimates their strengths and their weaknesses in a particular context and forms a self efficacy belief. The latter, like GTE, balances the positive and negative factors evident in the teaching environment. This model recognises that teacher efficacy beliefs are in fact context-specific.
Labone (2004) has suggested that a weakness of the research into teacher efficacy is that it has not considered the context sufficiently. She applauds Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy’s model for its inclusion. Furthermore, she points out that their model is more cogent of meaning perspectives.
Criticisms of Teacher Efficacy
There is evidence in the literature of a critical response to the theoretical frameworks that underpin teacher efficacy beliefs, the empirical research that supports them and the research paradigm within which much teacher efficacy research has been based. Wheatley (2002) has argued that much of the available research confuses correlation with cause: the fact that effective teachers are found to have high level of teacher efficacy does not, in itself, prove that it is the high levels of teacher efficacy that have led to the effective practice. Furthermore, he posits that self doubt is important, resulting in learning, reflection, collaboration and “responsiveness to diversity” (Wheatley, 2002, p.13). Walker (1992) cited research which suggested that student teachers had unhelpfully unrealistic views of their own abilities and were overly optimistic.
Labone (2004) notes that teacher efficacy research has been largely quantitative as a result of its roots in psychology. She heeds Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy’s (1998) call: “to expand and enrich conceptions of teacher efficacy to include other perspectives and methodologies appropriate for their investigation” (1998, p. 203), by arguing that both interpretivist and post-structuralist paradigms have much to offer teacher efficacy research.
Discussion of Teacher Efficacy
Most of the literature reviewed here suggests that teacher efficacy beliefs are indeed important and result in better teacher and student experience. By grounding theory and research in Bandura’s theory of self efficacy, teacher efficacy can become a useful construct for supporting the development of pre-service teachers. However, the dissenting voices of Wheatley (2002) and others are important reminders of the dangers of falsely attributing causation when such conclusions are unwarranted.
Wheatley’s (2002) critique may suggest that further clarification of what is meant by teacher efficacy doubts is needed. He states that: “’Teacher efficacy doubts’ is used here to encompass everything from mild uncertainty to profound doubts about one’s efficacy...” (2002, p. 8). Such a broad definition would seem to be unhelpful. Some uncertainty may well lead to some of the benefits outlined previously; it resonates with Mezirow’s (1991, 2001) theory of transformational learning, where learning is triggered by a ‘disorientating dilemma’ when the learner finds their beliefs to be undermined by current circumstances. This leads to critical reflection and deep learning. However, ‘profound doubts’ may be more likely to result in paralysis. Hoy and Spero (2005) posit that self efficacy beliefs about learning to teach are needed to respond successfully to doubts.
This literature review supports Labone’s (2004) observation that research on teacher efficacy is largely quantitative. Her suggestion that interpretivist and critical theorist paradigms would both provide depth to the construct and educational reform are noted. Cheung’s (2008) mixed methods research may provide a way forward as it is capable of bridging the gap between quantitative and qualitative studies, offering both ‘empirical precision’ and ‘descriptive precision’ (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005) to the study of teacher efficacy beliefs.
Section Two: Research about Culture
How Might ‘Culture’ be Usefully Considered?
Culture is explored extensively in the research literature, where functionalist (Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 1992; and Trompenaars, 1993), interpretivist (Hammersley, 1992), and post-structuralist (Doherty and Singh, 2005; Prescott & Hellsten, 2005; and Singh, 2005) paradigms are evident. There is evidence that cultural research is problematic, contested, and reflects ideological conflict: Tuiha-Smith (1999) suggests that: “research is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary” and Crozier asks: “Is ethnography just another form of surveillance?” (2005, p. 95).
The word limit of this review allows only for a partial engagement with this wide-ranging topic. Therefore, this section will restrict its focus to research in the functionalist paradigm and in particular Hofstede’s (2001) research of dimensions of culture The functionalist paradigm is selected as a result of the credibility of the large scale studies focusing on limited variables, the comparability of findings, and what Williamson (2002) refers to as its ‘parsimony’, which enables more effective communication to both academics and practitioners. Hofstede (2001) is the primary focus of this review as his dimensions of culture have been cited extensively in the literature (McSweeney, 2002; Oettingen, 1995; Williamson, 2002) and offer a useful framework for examining the cultural impact of teacher efficacy beliefs (Oettingen, 1995). This section of the literature review begins with a brief summary of Hofstede’s (2001) research, it then considers McSweeney’s (2002) critique of Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) research, and finally it concludes with a discussion of the construct.
Hofstede’s (1980; 2001) Dimensions of Culture
Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes one group or category of people from another (Hofstede, 2007, p. 423).
Hostede’s (1980, 2001) research, originally comparing employees of IBM (a company with a global presence) from 40 nations, has now been extended to compare 74 nations (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Using matched data, Hofstede’s (2001) analysis resulted in four dimensions of cultural difference: power difference; uncertainty avoidance; collectivism/individualism; and masculine/feminine. Based on his findings he then speculated about how these dimensions would be likely to be manifest in a number of contexts including educational establishments.
1. Power Difference (PD)
According to Hofstede (2001), cultures which are high in power difference are more tolerant of inequality. He suggests that this is evident in education, where learning is likely to be more teacher-centred and students less likely to see their teachers as equals. Hofstede (2001) speculates that in high PD settings students would be expected to show respect when meeting teachers and not be seen to challenge their authority. Interviews of Chinese students conducted in New Zealand by Holmes would appear to support this. One explained: “It is very impolite to ask teachers questions... [one should] not challenge [the teacher] in class. If you have problems, you can ask the teacher after class, not in class, because that makes [the teacher] feel embarrassed” (2005, p. 299).
2. Uncertainty Avoidance (UA)
Societies rated as being high in UA are more likely to adhere to absolute truths and prefer the security of structured, clear and predictable situations. Strong codes of conduct are more evident. Hofstede (2001) suggests that such societies can also be more intolerant and more aggressive. In contrast, low UA societies are more comfortable with ambiguity and more tolerant of difference. In education, students in high UA settings are said to prefer structure and correct answers, learn that truth is absolute, and see teachers as having all the answers.
3. Individualism/Collectivism (IC)
This dimension is also identified in a number of other studies, including Hwang, Francesco, and Kessler (2003); Triandis (1989); Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990), and is identified by Levine (2007) as the being the dominant theoretical perspective steering research in cross-cultural and inter-cultural matters. Collectivist societies might be defined as societies where people are likely to belong to ‘in-groups’ to which they owe considerable loyalty. This is contrasted with individualistic cultures where people are more likely to focus on their own needs and the needs of their immediate families.
Hofstede (2001) argues that in collectivist societies, the in-group/out-group distinctions developed within the family are transferred to schools where children from different ethnic backgrounds often form sub-groups. Conversely, individualist classrooms are more likely to aspire to meeting the unique needs of the student, and the ideal of critical engagement and discussion (Hofstede, 2001). Hwang, Francesco, and Kessler (2003) and VonDrass (2005) have found links between learning success and IC orientation.
4. Masculinity/Femininity (MF)
Hofstede suggests that masculine societies are more aggressive, competitive, and place stronger emphasis on gender difference. Traditional parenting roles are advocated with a societal expectation that women will be caring and men will be professionally successful. He argues that academic failure or success is much more significant in the lives of people in masculine societies, where poor performance can even lead to suicide. In more feminine societies, social skills are seen as more important and friendly teachers are valued more than academically outstanding ones.
McSweeney’s Critique of Hofstede’s Research
McSweeney undermines Hofstede’s model by critiquing its research paradigm, premises and findings. Firstly, he joins Anderson (1991) in his claim that nations are ‘imagined communities’ and Wallerstein (1990), who claims to be: “sceptical that we can operationalise the concept of culture...in any way that enables us to use it for statements that are more than trivial’ (p.34, cited in McSweeney, 2002, p.89). Secondly he identifies five ‘flawed’ assumptions upon which Hofstede’s theory is based:
1. IBM employees share a company culture and an occupational culture, therefore difference is likely to be explained by national culture
2. National culture is identifiable at the micro-level
3. National culture creates questionnaire response
4. National culture can be identified by response difference analysis
5. Culture is the same in any circumstance within a nation
(McSweeney, 2002, p. 95-107).
Williamson (2002) has noted that McSweeney (2002) disputes the value of functionalist paradigm, but then critiques Hofstede’s research from within it; contesting both the reliability and validity of his findings. He argues that such an inconsistent approach results in McSweeney’s (2002) critique itself being ‘flawed’. Despite a robust rebuttal of McSweeney’s (2002) conclusions, he acknowledges that three significant warnings should be heeded: firstly, the danger of imagining that people within nations are homogeneous and all share cultural attributes; secondly, that individuals are not ‘cultural dopes’ whose values and behaviour are completely culturally determined; and thirdly, readers of Hofstede’s research should be wary “of confusing scores for cultural dimensions, for which they are but approximate measures” (2002, p. 1391).
Research about Culture: Discussion
Mason argues that the concept of culture is hugely problematic. Societies are comprised of diverse individuals and are situated in a world that is: “characterised by increasing degrees of plurality, multiculturalism, interdependence, hybridity and complexity” (2007, p. 169). He warns that researchers of culture can: “face accusations of stereotyping, treating culture as monolithic and overstating its influence in a hybrid world characterised by complex interactions and influences” (p. 166). Indeed, such criticisms have been addressed to Hofstede (2001) by McSweeney (2002), yet, Hofstede has stated:
We do not compare individuals, but we compare what is called central tendencies in the answers from each country. There is hardly an individual who answers each question by the mean score of his or her group: The ‘average person’ from a country does not exist” (1991, p. 253).
In the light of this, it is perhaps less likely that readers will interpret his dimensions as being absolute and evident in all the citizens of a particular nation. It may be that Williamson’s (2002) pragmatic approach is valuable to those who would use this model; he recognises Hofstede’s (2001) dimensions provide only a: “rough approximation... [of the] complexities of cultural worlds” (2002, p. 1384), yet he celebrates: “the great advances it has made in unbundling the black box of culture” (2002, p. 1392).
Section Three: Culture and Teacher Efficacy Beliefs
How Might Culture Impact on the Appraisal and Measurement of Teacher Efficacy Beliefs?
This section considers how culture affects teacher efficacy beliefs. Firstly, it reviews Oettingen’s (1995) analysis of how each of Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions (power difference; uncertainty avoidance; individualism/collectivism; and masculinity/femininity) might affect the weighting, selection, and integration of Bandura’s (1977) sources of self efficacy beliefs (mastery experience; physiological and emotional states; vicarious experience; and social persuasion). Secondly, it examines the findings of the limited number of empirical studies researching culture and teacher efficacy beliefs. This section then closes with a brief discussion of the topic.
Culture and Self Efficacy Appraisal
Oettingen (1995) suggests that sources of efficacy vary across cultures in their prevalence, forms, and value. Praise may be used more sparingly in some cultures, feedback might be given more readily to groups than individuals in others, and being ranked first in the class may be of more value in some cultures than others. Oettingen (1995) explores these ideas by using Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions.
Power difference (PD): drawing on Hofstede’s (1980) ideas that parents and teachers have considerable authority in high PD societies, Oettingen (1995) suggests that the importance of the beliefs of ‘superiors’ will take on much greater significance for social persuasion in high PD societies. In low PD societies, the teacher’s opinion is more likely to be dismissed as invalid and questioned by students and their families. She speculates further that negative emotional arousal resulting from the: “unquestioned authority of teachers” (1995, p. 154) might more readily affect self efficacy beliefs in high PD societies. She suggests that this authority extends to vicarious experience, where peers may be seen through the eyes of the teacher. Those in low power difference societies are presented as having more opportunity to: “become creators of their own performance history” (1995, p. 154), thus having greater control over the mastery experience information that they internalise.
Uncertainty avoidance: Oettingen (1995) claims that in high UA settings, self efficacy beliefs are built through regular performance feedback and peer ranking throughout one’s formal education. She suggests that verbal feedback from influential others is also likely to be direct and unequivocal. In contrast she presents low UA societies as being less influenced by such social appraisal and having more potential for self-appraisal, allowing for more ‘self-enhancing’ judgements.
Individualism/collectivism: The in-group places an important role in the formation of self efficacy beliefs for those from collectivist cultures according to Oettingen (1995). It is this in-group that is most likely to be socially persuasive in the formation of self efficacy beliefs and also to offer suitable role models allowing vicarious experience to become a significant source of such beliefs. It is further suggested that group identity plays a much stronger role in collectivist societies, with group feedback being an important source of mastery information
Masculinity/Femininity: Oettingen (1995) argues that people in masculine societies place greater emphasis on competition as a source for self efficacy beliefs. Mastery is confirmed by demonstrating greater success than one’s peers. Emotional states can carry considerable weight in self efficacy evaluation under these circumstances.
Oettingen (1995) theorises that Bandura’s (1989) claim that strong self-efficacy beliefs result in greater persistence in the face of difficulty, lessened fear of failure, improved thinking skills, and raised aspirations, is in fact applicable universally. However she does acknowledge that the public expression of strong efficacy beliefs can be costly in some cultures, although she notes that: “collectivist individuals should feel no qualms about showing a strong sense of efficacy to members of out-groups” (1995, p. 170). She argues that despite the expected difference between the group welfare promoting goals of collectivists and the self-actualising goals of individualists, self efficacy beliefs are likely to be a predictor of goal achievement for both groups.
Empirical Studies on Culture and Teacher Efficacy.
Ho and Hau’s (2004) study of Chinese and Australian teachers led them to conclude that the construct of teacher efficacy was cross-culturally valid. However, they also found that it contained culturally specific elements. Whereas student guidance efficacy and control efficacy dimensions were individually evident for Australian teachers, these were integrated in the data collected from the Chinese students. They suggest that this reflected the more parent-like responsibility accepted by Chinese teachers. They also found that the Australian teachers recorded higher levels of teacher efficacy than the Chinese teachers in all areas, including discipline. They attribute this to both the culturally expected self-effacing tendencies of people from collectivist cultures and the higher expectations of teachers evident in Chinese society.
Lin, Gorrell and Taylor have also claimed that teacher efficacy belief: “draws heavily on cultural differences from country to country” (2002, p. 37). They suggest further that the two factor approach may be insufficient to measure teacher efficacy beliefs in different settings. They report that although Rich, Lev and Fischer’s (1996) Israeli study found a two factorial structure similar to those in US studies, Gorrell, Ares, and Boakari (1998); Gorrell, Hazareesingh, Carlson and Stenmalm-Sjoblom (1993); Gorrell and Hwang, 1995; Lin and Gorrell, (1998); (1999), found that the concept of teacher efficacy is: “more differentiated than was previously found and is strongly influenced by uniquely cultural variables” (2002, p. 37). They also found that pre-service teachers from different cultures reported different degrees of teacher efficacy. This is evident in their research where U.S. pre-service teachers are recorded as reporting higher teacher efficacy beliefs than their Taiwanese peers (Lin, Gorrell, & Taylor, 2002) and is further supported by the research findings of Ho and Hau (2004).
Lin, Gorrell and Taylor (2002), have highlighted important differences on individual efficacy items that may reflect both culture and context. Taiwanese pre-service teachers placed more emphasis on the need for successful relationships with parents and had an increased awareness of the difficulty of teaching large classes. Moreover, they also suggested that Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) instrument for measuring teacher efficacy beliefs may not be suitable for use in cultures with different perspectives about teaching.
Cheung (2006; 2008), used Kennedy and Hui’s (2006) Chinese version of Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy’s (1998) Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSE). This Hong Kong Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (HK-TSE) was found to be valid and reliable in the Hong Kong context. Cheung (2008) extended this study by collecting further data from teachers in Shanghai for comparison. After further translation, the Shanghai Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy (S-TSE) was developed. In this study qualitative data was also collected asking participants to identify the sources of their efficacy beliefs. Cheung (2008) noted that the Shanghai teachers recorded significantly higher scores in the survey. He suggested that this may in part be explained by: “a cultural preference for being modest” (2008, p. 119).
Lin, Gorrell and Taylor’s (2002), Ho and Hau’s (2004), and Cheung’s (2006, 2008) research highlight differing cultural understanding of the role of the teacher, and how culture may obfuscate the meaning of answers given to the same question by those from diverse backgrounds.
Discussion of Teacher Efficacy and Culture
The reviewed literature acknowledges the intercultural validity of teacher efficacy research, yet it cautions that cultural factors must be considered if research findings are to be of value. Cheung’s (2008) study highlights that even within one nation, culture might distort answer selection. Oettingen (1995) drawing on Hofstede (1980), presents ideas of how culture might affect the selection, integration, and weighting of sources of self efficacy beliefs. She uses Hofstede’s (1980) framework and research as a warrant for her ideas, yet it would appear that extensive empirical research is needed to validate them further.
It is apparent that questions still need to be asked about what TE might mean in non-western cultures, about differences in understanding of the role of the teacher, how TE beliefs might be strengthened in a variety of settings, and how teacher education programmes influence the building of TE beliefs in culturally diverse cohorts of pre-service teachers. The reviewed literature suggest that intercultural studies investigating teacher efficacy beliefs are valuable, but complex.
Conclusion
This literature review has identified limited, yet credible empirical research that suggests that teacher efficacy is interculturally transferable (Lin, Gorrell & Taylor, 2002; Ho & Hau, 2004; Cheung, 2006; 2008). Furthermore, it has been able to identify a survey instrument that can be used in a range of settings: Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy’s (1998) Teachers’ sense of efficacy scale (Cheung, 2006; 2008). Further research is clearly needed to expand this body of knowledge as little is known about: how TE beliefs are formed in non-western cultures; how different understanding of the role of the teacher might impact upon TE beliefs; and how TE beliefs might be strengthened in a variety of settings. Such research is justified by the considerable work that suggests that teacher efficacy beliefs are important to teachers and students. However inter-cultural TE studies should take into account discussions of culture which recognise it as a powerful force in peoples’ lives, but also as a complex and often unsatisfactory construct that at best approximates shared beliefs and behaviour.
References
Allinder, R.M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities. London: Verso.
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165.
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, O., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a Difference: Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Student Achievement. New York: Longman
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Pyschological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.) Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Burley, W.W., Hall, B.W., Villeme, M.G., & Brockmeier, L.L. (1991). A path analysis of the mediating role of efficacy in first year teachers’ experiences, reactions, and plans. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Cheung, H.Y. (2006). The measurement of teacher efficacy: Hong Kong primary in-service teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 435-451.
Cheung, H.Y. (2008). Teacher efficacy: a comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghai Primary School Teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 103-121.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 323-337.
Cousins, J.B., & Walker, C.A. (2000). Predictors of educators’ valuing of systematic inquiry in schools. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, (special issue), 25-53.
Crozier, G. (2005). Is ethnography just another form of surveillance? In G. Troman, B. Jeffrey, & G. Walford, (Eds.), Methodological issues and practices in ethnography. London: Elsevier
Doherty, C., & Singh, P. (2005). How the West is done: Simulating Western pedagogy in a curriculum for Asian international students. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 53-74). Hong Kong: Springer.
Emmer, E., & Hickman, J. (1990). Teacher decision making as a function of efficacy, attribution and reasoned action. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
Evans. E.D. & Trimble. M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self efficacy and commitiment to teaching among pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 81-85
Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.
Glickman, C. & Tamashiro, R. (1982). A comparison of first year, fifth year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in Schools, 19, 558-562.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A.E. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: its meaning, measure and effect on student achievement. American Education research Journal, 37, 479-507.
Gorrell, J., Ares,N., & Boakari, F. (1998). Beliefs in school efficacy: An expansion of notions of teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
Gorrell, J., Hazareesingh, N.A., Carlson, H.L., & Stenmalm-Sjoblom, L.S. (1993). A comparision of efficacy beliefs among pre-service teachers in the United States, Sweden, and Sri Lanka. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Toronto, Canada.
Gorrell, J., & Hwang, Y.S. (1995). A study of self-efficacy beliefs among pre-service teachers in Korea. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28, 101-105.
Guskey, T.R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245-259.
Guskey, T.R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self concept, and attitudes towards the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and teacher Education, 4(1), 63-69.
Hall, B., Burley, W., Villeme, M., & Brockmeier, L. (1992). An attempt to explicate teacher efficacy beliefs among first year teachers. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What is wrong with ethnography? London: Routledge.
Ho, I.T., & Hau, K.T. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: similarities and differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 313-323.
Holmes, P. (2005). Ethnic Chinese students’ communication with cultural others in a New Zealand university [Electronic version]. Communication Education. 54(4), 289-311.
Hoy W.K., & Spero, R.B (2005). Changes of teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: a comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356.
Hoy. W.K. & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research, 27, 279-300.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G.H. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Hofstede, G. (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(4), 411-420.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Culture and Organizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hwang, A., Francesco, A. M., & Kessler, E. (2003). The relationship between individualism-collectivism, face, and feedback and learning processes in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(1), 72.
Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: maturing the concept through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 341-359.
Levine, T. R. (2007). Some conceptual and theoretical challenges for cross-cultural communication research in the 21st century. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 205-221.
Lin, H., & Gorrell, J. (1998). Pre-service teachers’ efficacy beliefs in Taiwan. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32(1), 17-25.
Lin, H., & Gorrell, J. (1999). Exploratory analysis of pre-service teacher efficacy in Taiwan. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 17(5), 623-635.
Lin, H., Gorrell, J., & Taylor, J. (2002). Influence of culture and education on U.S. and Taiwan pre-service teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Journal of Education Research, 96(2), 37-46.
Mason, M. (2007). Comparing cultures. In Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (Eds) Comparative Education Research (pp. 165-196). Hong Kong: Springer.
McSweeney, B. (2002).Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118.
Meijer, C., & Foster, (1988). The effect of teacher self efficacy on referral chance. Journal of Special Education, 22, 378-385.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2001). Learning as Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Midgeley,C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J., (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258.
Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992). Teacher efficacy, power, and school climate: a desegregating district’s experience. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross cultural perspectives on self-efficacy In A. Bandura (Ed.) Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Social Research Methodologies, 8(5), 375-387.
Parker, M.J., Guarino, A.J. & Wade Smith, R. (2002). Self-efficacy in a sample of education majors and teachers. Psychological Reports, 91, 935-939.
Prescott, A., & Hellsten, M. (2005). Hanging together even with non-native speakers: The international student transition experience. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellsten, (Eds) Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy, (pp. 75-96). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Centre.
Rich, Y., Lev, S., & and Fischer, S. (1996). Extending the concept and assessment of teacher efficacy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(6), 1015-1025.
Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education 74, 625-638.
Ross, J.A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of student coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 71, 51-65.
Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.
Saklofske,D., Michaluk, B., & Randhawa, B. (1988). Teachers’ efficacy and teaching behaviours. Pyschological Report, 63, 407-414.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical test in 20 countries. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26, 1-65.
Singh, M. (2005). Enabling transnational learning communities: Policies, pedagogies and politics of educational power. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.) Internationalizing higher education: critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 53-74). Hong Kong: Springer.
Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1-30.
Soodak, L. & Podell, D. (1996).Teacher efficacy: Towards an understanding of a multi facetted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401-412.
Triandis, H.C. (1989). The self and social behaviour in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
Triandis, H.C., McCusker,C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multi method probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 395-415.
Trompenaars. F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Economist Books.
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A.E., (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A.E., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
Tuiha-Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books: London.
VonDras, D. D. (2005). Influence of Individualism-Collectivism on Learning Barriers and Self-Efficacy of Performance Ratings in an Introductory Life-Span Development Course. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society in Los Angeles.
Walker, L. (1992). Perceptions of pre-service teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational research Association, Knoxville, TN.
Wallerstein, I. (1990). Culture as the ideological battleground of the modern world-system. Theory, Culture and Society, 7, 31-55.
Wheatley, K.F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and teacher Education,18, 5-22.
Williamson, D. (2002). Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s national culture. Human Relations, 55(11), 373-1395.
Woolfolk, A.E., & Hoy, W.K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.
Woolfolk, A.E., Rossof, B., & Hoy, W.K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and teacher Education, 6, 137-148.
No comments:
Post a Comment