Running head : EFFICACY , KNOWLEDGE , AND BELIEFS Modeling Teachers ’ Efficacy , Knowledge , and Pedagogical Beliefs

Although teacher efficacy has been related to many positive educational outcomes, little research assessing its relation to pedagogical knowledge or pedagogical beliefs has been conducted. This work explored the relations among these constructs. We tested a proposed model wherein efficacy served as a mediator between teachers’ demonstrated knowledge, pedagogical beliefs, and performance. One-hundred-twenty preservice and 102 practicing teachers completed measures assessing demographic information, knowledge, efficacy, beliefs, and ability to gauge instructional situations. Correlational analyses demonstrated a significant relation between pedagogical beliefs and efficacy. The data for preservice and practicing teachers were fit to the proposed model and analyzed by path analyses. The resulting models differed by group. Both models are discussed in relation to the existing literature and educational practice. Efficacy, Knowledge, and Beliefs 3 Modeling Teachers’ Efficacy, Knowledge, and Pedagogical Beliefs Teacher efficacy is related to many positive educational outcomes (e.g., TschannenMoran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). However, little research has examined the nature of this construct in relation to pedagogical knowledge or pedagogical beliefs, although such associations are presumed or expected (Fives, 2003b). The present study explored the relations among these constructs. Specifically, we tested a proposed path model in which teacher efficacy mediates the relation between teachers’ demonstrated knowledge, pedagogical beliefs, and their subsequent performance on an instructional task. Teacher efficacy can be defined as teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to organize and execute courses of action necessary to bring about desired results (Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998). So defined, teacher efficacy research takes the more general construct of efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and applies it to educators and the teaching context. The construct of teacher efficacy has become a pillar in the research on teachers’ beliefs. The persistent interest in this construct lies in its continued predictive and relational power in research on teachers and teaching. Teachers’ beliefs in their ability to perform instructional tasks have been related to student achievement (e.g., McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978), student motivation (e.g., Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), teacher valuing of educational innovations (e.g., Cousins & Walker, 2000), classroom management skills (Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990), and teacher stress (Greenwood, Olejnik, & Parkay, 1990). Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) offered an extensive review of the construct of teacher efficacy and its relation to salient educational outcomes and precursors. This review concluded with a model depicting the cyclical influence of teacher efficacy on subsequent performance and beliefs. Specifically, the Tschannen-Moran et al. model hypothesized that the sources of efficacy Efficacy, Knowledge, and Beliefs 4 beliefs (i.e., mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological cues) influence teachers’ cognitive processing, which is reflected in teachers’ analysis of instructional tasks and assessment of their personal competence. Such analyses and assessments thereby contribute to teachers’ efficacy, which carries into their goals, persistence, and other “consequences of teacher efficacy,” as Tschannen-Moran et al. label them. Because these consequences influence performance, and subsequently become additional sources of efficacy information, the Tschannen-Moran et al. model conveys a cyclical nature to teacher efficacy beliefs. However, this model does not provide explicit information as to the nature or product(s) of the efficacy sources that serve to affect efficacy beliefs and consequences. It is our contention that those sources of efficacy information, those experiences, do not lead directly to cognitive processing, but rather contribute to the development of knowledge and beliefs within the teachers’ cognitive system. Those knowledge and beliefs then influence how teachers analyze the task and evaluate their own competence, resulting in efficacy beliefs. Thus, we contend that experiences alone do not affect subsequent cognitive processing. Rather, these experiences allow teachers to construct knowledge and belief structures that subsequently influence cognitive processing. Therefore, the question the present investigation seeks to answer is how knowledge and beliefs influence teacher efficacy and performance. Relations among Teacher Efficacy, Knowledge, and Beliefs There have been a limited number of quantitative research studies conducted that have explored the relation of teacher efficacy to teacher knowledge or beliefs. And none that could be found that explored relations among these three constructs. Here we will briefly outline the quantitative research that has been conducted with regard to these constructs. Efficacy, Knowledge, and Beliefs 5 Knowledge and Efficacy Raudenbush, Rowan, and Cheong (1992) suggested that teacher efficacy mediates the relations between knowledge and action. The Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) captured this mediation in their model and argued that teacher efficacy and teacher knowledge, often considered independently, need to be considered in tandem (Raudenbush et al., 1992). If teacher efficacy is a mediator between knowledge and action, we need to know more about what teachers know and how that knowledge correlates with efficacy. A few researchers have looked at the extent to which teachers’ knowledge relates to efficacy beliefs. Specifically, this body of work can be configured into three distinct categories, based on the manner of knowledge assessment. The first category consists of studies in which formal education was used as proxy variable for teacher knowledge. In these studies, teachers’ knowledge was gauged by education level (Benz, Bradley, Alderman, & Flowers, 1992; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993) or by courses taken (i.e., Enochs, Scharmann, & Riggs, 1995). The second category focuses on the learning experiences of teachers or teacher-education students as measures for knowledge (Minke, Bear, Deemer, & Griffin, 1996; Parameswaran, 1998; Reid, Vasa, Maag, & Wright, 1994). These specific learning experiences were considered to be specialized opportunities that would enable participants to have some form of specialized knowledge. For example Minke et al. (1996) compared teachers with and without experience teaching in inclusive settings and considered those with experience to be more knowledgeable. The final category of research includes investigations that assessed participants’ demonstrated knowledge through paper-and-pencil assessments (Schoon & Boone, 1998; Sciutto, Terjesen, & Bender Frank, 2000). In this body of work, the efficacy of preservice or inservice teachers has been compared and the relations between knowledge and teacher efficacy Efficacy, Knowledge, and Beliefs 6 assessed. For the current study, we took this particular approach to the assessment of teacher knowledge by constructing a paper-and-pencil measure that required teachers to respond strategically to certain instructional situations. The consensus that has emerged across these categories is that individuals with higher levels of knowledge tend to have higher levels of efficacy (e.g., Benz et al., 1992; Minke et al., 1996; Schoon & Boone, 1998; Sciutto et al., 2000). One exception to this trend was reported by Enochs and colleagues (1995) who found significant negative correlations between preservice elementary teachers’ science knowledge, as assessed by number of science course taken in high school and college, and their efficacy for teaching science. In contrast, Schoon and Boone (1998) administered a paper-and-pencil test to preservice teachers on alternative conceptions of core science principles. They found that the preservice teachers with the greatest number of correct answers also reported higher feelings of science teaching efficacy. Moreover, Schoon and Boone (1998) found that holding particular alternative conceptions in science was related to lower levels of science teaching efficacy. Thus, this contradiction and the limited amount of research that has been done in this area are evidence of the need for more specific studies of knowledge and efficacy. Given the research findings, we anticipated finding a positive path from teacher knowledge to teacher efficacy in the present study. Further, because a majority of the research in this area has focused on preservice teachers, we were particularly interested in the knowledge and belief relations for practicing teachers. Efficacy and Belief Among the relatively few studies that have explored teacher efficacy in relation to other belief constructs, beliefs have been characterized in several ways. Here we differentiate these Efficacy, Knowledge, and Beliefs 7 studies into two groups; those that explored more ontological orientations, and those that explored more particularized beliefs. Specifically, two studies explored the extent to which teachers’ ontological orientations were related to their efficacy perceptions. Ontological orientations refer to how teachers perceive the world. The ontological orientations that have been investigated include classical philosophies (Anderson et al., 1988) and teachers’ degree of dogmatism versus open-mindedness (Payne, 1994). Anderson and colleagues (1998) found that practicing teachers who held a more pragmatic (i.e., practical, problem solving) philosophical orientation toward teaching were more likely to express higher levels of teacher efficacy than those who held to a classical idealism belief system. Payne (1994) found that urban teachers who reported a more open-minded (i.e., values the need to know above personal comfort) versus dogmatic or closed (i.e., focused on self concerns and is unable to examine personal beliefs) belief system also repor