The Effect of Teacher Self-Efficacy on Referral Chance

Abstract

ratings and referral chances in a MANCOVA design. Pupil problem type (learning, behavioral, or both) also had a significant effect on both dependent variables. Implications for further research are discussed.

A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management

“…In a review of empirical studies on teacher e$cacy, Ross (1998) showed that teacher e$cacy predicts a multitude of critically important variables. Examples include student achievement and motivation (Bergman et al, 1977;Moore & Esselman, 1992), student self-esteem and prosocial attitudes (Borton, 1991;Cheung & Cheng, 1997), school e!ectiveness , teachers' adoption of innovations (Fuchs, Fuchs & Bishop, 1992), the success of program implementation (Guskey, 1988), teachers' referral decisions for special education (Meijer & Foster, 1988;Soodak & Podell, 1993), teachers' professional commitment (Coladarci, 1992), teachers' classroom management strategies (Woolfolk, Roso! & Hoy, 1990), teacher absenteeism (Imants & Van Zoelen, 1995), and teacher stress (Bliss & Finneran, 1991;Parkay, Greenwood, Olejnik & Proller, 1988).…”

A Study of Teacher Efficacy of Special Education Teachers of English Language Learners With Disabilities

“…Studies examining teacher efficacy in the field of special education have found that teachers with higher efficacy make fewer referrals to special education (Meijer & Foster, 1988;, feel more responsible for student learning (Soodak & Podell, 1994), report more success with students with learning and behavioral problems (Brownell & Pajares, 1996, 1999, and are more receptive to inclusion of students with disabilities in the mainstream classrooms (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 1999;Freytag, 2001;Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998).…”

Élaboration de l’Échelle du sentiment d’efficacité personnelle des enseignants en gestion de classe (ÉSEPGC)

“…de fait, la majorité des échelles relatives au seP des enseignants comporte très peu d'énoncés (1 à 5) sur la gestion de classe (p. ex., Betoret, 2009 ;Çakir & alici, 2009 ;dussault, villeneuve, & deaudelin, 2001 ;Friedman, 2003 ;Friedman & Kass, 2002 ;Gibson & dembo, 1984 ;Meijer & Foster, 1988 ;Paneque & Barbetta, 2006 ;rich, lev, & Fischer, 1996 ;rimm-Kaufman & sawyer, 2004 ;schwarzer & Hallum, 2008 ;siwatu, 2007 ;skaalvik & skaalvik, 2007 ;Woolfson & Brady, 2009 ;Yoon, 2004). d'autres échelles présentent un plus grand nombre d'énoncés sur le sujet (de 6 à 14), mais n'abordent toutefois que quelques-unes des cinq dimensions de la gestion de classe recensées par o'neill et stephenson (2011).…”

“…d'autres ont toutefois recours à une évaluation préliminaire de l'échelle (p. ex., Brownell & Pajares, 1999 ;Gibson & dembo, 1984 ;Meijer & Foster, 1988). la plupart des recherches présentent le niveau de consistance interne (coefficient alpha de cronbach) pour l'échelle, mais plus rarement les analyses factorielles appuyant la structure théorique.…”