Modeling teacher self-efficacy as a function of peer observation, administrative feedback, job satisfaction, and work enjoyment

43 
Nguyen Phuoc Hong Chau, Aaron Samuel Zimmerman Vol. 128, No. 6B, 2019
78 
6. Discussion and conclusion 
The results indicate that first, teachers who are more satisfied with their teaching perfor‐
mance are most likely to have a higher level of instructional self‐efficacy than those who are not. 
Second, teachers who spend more time observing the teaching of their peers tend to be more 
confident in their ability for instruction as opposed to those spending less time in so doing. 
Third, teachers with more work enjoyment report having a higher level of self‐efficacy for in‐
struction compared with those with less work enjoyment. It is worth noting that of the three 
variables significantly contributing to informing teacher instructional self‐efficacy, teaching 
performance satisfaction is the most influential predictor; whereas, feedback from administra‐
tors does not appear to have an influence. These results are, on the one hand, consistent with 
Bandura’s (1997) theory as well as previous empirical research (e.g., Morris & Usher, 2011; 
Pfitzner‐Eden, 2016; Poulou, 2007; Tschannen‐Moran & Hoy, 2007) suggesting that enactive 
mastery experience (i.e., self‐perception of successful job performance) is the most powerful 
factor supporting the development of teachers’ instructional self‐efficacy. On the other hand, 
the results of this study contradict the assertion that verbal persuasion (i.e., appraisal and feed‐
back) is a primary source of teacher self‐efficacy (cf. Aydin & Hoy, 2005; Bandura, 1997; Milner, 
2002; Milner & Hoy, 2003; Pfitzner‐Eden, 2016; Phan & Lock, 2015). Regarding verbal persua‐
sion, Bandura (1997) and Parajes (2016) state that its potency depends on the credibility and 
knowledgeableness or expertise of the persuader. Similarly, Pitts, Davidson, and McPherson 
(2000) posit that appraisal and feedback are meaningful only when they are specific and ge‐
nuine. Due to the dearth of qualitative data, the reason for administrative feedback being an 
insignificant predictor of teacher self‐efficacy, in this study, is left unexplained. To address this 
limitation, more qualitative studies are needed to provide explanations for these quantitative 
findings. In addition, further research is also warranted to identify the remaining predictors of 
teacher self‐efficacy which are still unknown in this model. 
These limitations notwithstanding, the results of the present study significantly contri‐
bute to the field as well as offer several implications for practice – specifically, how teachers and 
school leaders should cultivate teachers’ self‐efficacy for instruction – and future research. 
7. Implications 
Teachers’ self‐efficacy correlates positively with teacher well‐being (e.g., Zee & Koomen, 
2016), teacher professional practices (e.g., Gibson & Dembo, 1984), teacher job satisfaction (e.g., 
Avanzi et al., 2013), teacher commitment to teaching (e.g., Chesnut & Burley, 2015), and student 
achievement (e.g., Kassen & Tze, 2014); thus, cultivating teachers’ self‐efficacy should be one of 
the primary goals within schools. The current study has important implications for schools to 
consider in this respect. First, as the results of this study indicate, teachers’ sense of efficacy can 
Jos.hueuni.edu.vn Vol. 128, No. 6B, 2019
79 
be nurtured through enactive, vicarious, and physiological and affective means with enactive 
experience being the most influential. It is hence desirable that teachers be, in Schön’s (1983) 
words, reflective practitioners. That is, they should self‐reflect on their own teaching perfor‐
mance regularly not only to gain real‐world experience or transform their professional practice 
(Dewey, 1933, 1938; Schön; 1983), but also to enjoy and celebrate their success since, as these 
findings reveal, experiencing a sense of instructional accomplishment will most likely streng‐
then teachers’ beliefs about their efficacy. According to Schön (1983), there are two ways in 
which teachers can reflect on their practice: reflection in action (i.e., teacher reflection occurs 
during or in the midst of ongoing action/teaching) and reflection on action (i.e., teacher reflec‐
tion takes place after action/teaching) (see Schön, 1983). 
Furthermore, this investigation’s findings demonstrate that verbal persuasion (i.e., ap‐
praisal and feedback) from administrators do not seem to contribute significantly to teachers’ 
instructional self‐efficacy. Given these findings, administrators should, perhaps, rely less on 
administrative feedback as the primary mode for increasing teachers’ instructional self‐efficacy. 
Instead, the results of this study suggest that it may be far more effective for schools to create 
opportunities for teachers to observe one another, and more importantly, engage in peer review 
of one another’s teaching (see Bernstein, 2008). It merits noting that teachers should be involved 
in these activities (i.e., peer observations, and/or – to quote Bernstein (2008, p. 48) – “peer re‐
view of teaching”) in a frequent manner because, as postulated by Bandura (1997) and Morris et 
al. (2017), not only the quality of events, but also the frequency an individual takes part in those 
events is of crucial importance in building teacher self‐efficacy. As Morris et al. (2017) explain, 
“[T]eachers may become more confident from their observations of other teachers, but if oppor‐
tunities to watch their colleagues are limited, so too may be the influence of these vicarious ex‐
periences on teaching self‐efficacy” (p. 823). 
The results of this study also, as noted earlier, suggest directions for future research. Spe‐
cifically, although the coefficients estimated within this regression model were statistically sig‐
nificant, the model itself explained only approximately 6% of the variability observed in the 
dependent variable. Thus, future research should continue to investigate causes of how and 
why teachers feel confident to implement different instructional strategies in their classrooms. 
Additionally, it is worth noting that the current study utilized data taken from an international 
sample of teachers. Future studies may want to examine how teacher self‐efficacy is cultivated 
within different local contexts and to see if Bandura’s model is mediated by contextual va‐
riables. 
Nguyen Phuoc Hong Chau, Aaron Samuel Zimmerman Vol. 128, No. 6B, 2019
80 
References 
1. Anderson, R. N., Greene, M. L., & Loewen, P. S. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ 
and students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of 
Educational Research, 34(8), 148–165. 
2. Avanzi, L., Miglioretti, M., Velasco, V., Balducci, C., Vecchio, L., Fraccaroli, F., & Skaal‐
vik, E. M. (2013). Cross‐validation of the Norwegian teacher's self‐efficacy scale 
(NTSES). Teaching and Teacher Education, 31(3), 69–78. 
3. Aydin, Y. C., & Hoy, A. W. (2005). What predicts student teacher self‐efficacy? Academic 
Exchange Quarterly, 9(4), 123–127. 
4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New 
Jersey, NJ: Prentice‐Hall, Inc. 
5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. 
6. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self‐efficacy scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Ado-
lescents, 5(1), 307–337. 
7. Bernstein, D. J. (2008). Peer review and evaluation of the intellectual work of teach‐
ing. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(2), 48–51. 
8. Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self‐efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among sec‐
ondary school teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology, 26(4), 519–539. 
9. Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived 
self‐efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(3), 239–25. 
10. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as deter‐
minants of teachers' job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 821–832. 
11. Chesnut, S. R., & Burley, H. (2015). Self‐efficacy as a predictor of commitment to the 
teaching profession: A meta‐analysis. Educational Research Review, 15, 1–16. 
12. Chwalisz, K., Altmaier, E. M., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Causal attributions, self‐efficacy 
cognitions, and coping with stress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,11(9), 377–400. 
13. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal 
of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323–337. 
14. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode 
surveys: The tailored design method. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 
Jos.hueuni.edu.vn Vol. 128, No. 6B, 2019
81 
15. Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in 
school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 173–184. 
16. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educa-
tive process. Boston, MA: Heath. 
17. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. 
18. Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self‐efficacy, and com‐
mitment to teaching among preservice teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 
81–85. 
19. Evers, W. J., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self‐efficacy: A study on 
teachers' beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Nether‐
lands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 227–243. 
20. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 
21. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of 
Educational Psychology, 76(8), 669–682. 
22. Hendricks, K. S. (2016). The sources of self‐efficacy: Educational research and implica‐
tions for music. National Association for Music Education, 35(1), 32–38. 
23. Johnson, D. (2010). Learning to teach: The influence of a university‐school partnership 
project on pre‐service elementary teachers’ efficacy for literacy instruction. Reading Hori-
zons, 50(1), 23–48. 
24. Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self‐efficacy, personality, and teaching ef‐
fectiveness: A meta‐analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76. 
25. Klassen, R. M., & Usher, E. L. (2010). Self‐efficacy in educational settings: Recent research 
and emerging directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in motivation 
and achievement: Vol. 16A. The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and 
achievement (pp. 1–33). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group. 
26. Mertler, C. A., & Reinhart, R. V. (2017). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Prac-
tical application and interpretation. New York, NY: Routledge. 
27. Mills, N. (2011). Teaching assistants’ self‐efficacy in teaching literature: Sources, personal 
assessments, and consequences. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 61–80. 
28. Milner, H. R. (2002). A case study of an experienced English teacher’s self‐efficacy and 
persistence through “crisis” situations: Theoretical and practical considerations. The High 
School Journal, 86(1), 28–35. 
Nguyen Phuoc Hong Chau, Aaron Samuel Zimmerman Vol. 128, No. 6B, 2019
82 
29. Milner, H. R., & Hoy, A. W. (2003). A case study of an African American teacher’s self‐
efficacy, stereotype threat, and persistence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 263–276. 
30. Morris, D. B., & Usher, E. L. (2011). Developing teaching self‐efficacy in research institu‐
tions: A study of award‐winning professors. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(3), 
232–245. 
31. Morris, D. B., Usher, E. L., & Chen, J. A. (2017). Reconceptualizing the sources of teaching 
self‐efficacy: A critical review of emerging literature. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 
795–833. 
32. OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Par‐
is: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/school/talis‐2013‐
results.htm 
33. Pajares, F. (2006). Self‐efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for teach‐
ers and parents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 117–
137). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing. 
34. Palmer, D. H. (2006). Sources of self‐efficacy in a science methods course for primary 
teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 36(4), 337–353. 
35. Pfitzner‐Eden, F. (2016). Why do I feel more confident? Bandura’s sources predict preser‐
vice teachers’ latent changes in teacher self‐efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–16. 
36. Phan, N. T. T., & Locke, T. (2015). Sources of self‐efficacy of Vietnamese EFL teachers: A 
qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 73–82. 
37. Pitts, S. E., Davidson, J. W., & McPherson, G. E. (2000). Models of success and failure in 
instrumental learning: Case studies of young players in the first 20 months of learn‐
ing. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 146, 51–69. 
38. Poulou, M. (2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: Student teachers’ percep‐
tions. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 191–218. 
39. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement. 
Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51–65. 
40. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, 
NY: Basic Books. 
41. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher 
burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(9), 518–524. 
Jos.hueuni.edu.vn Vol. 128, No. 6B, 2019
83 
42. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self‐efficacy and teacher burnout: A study 
of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059–1069. 
43. Tschannen‐Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self‐efficacy 
beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956. 
44. Tschannen‐Moran, M., & Johnson, D. (2011). Exploring literacy teachers’ self‐efficacy be‐
liefs: Potential sources at play. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 751–761. 
45. Tschannen‐Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self‐efficacy: Four professional 
development formats and their relationship to self‐efficacy and implementation of a new 
teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 228–245. 
46. Urdan, T. C. (2017). Statistics in plain English. New York, NY: Routledge. 
47. Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self‐efficacy and its effects on classroom 
processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well‐being: A synthesis of 40 years 
of research. Review of Educational Research, 86, 981–1015.