The impact of student characteristics and teacher efficacy on teachers’ predictions of student success

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�Correspondifax: +1718 982

E-mail addre

(N. Tournaki).

Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 299–314

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

The impact of student characteristics and teacher efficacyon teachers’ predictions of student success

Nelly Tournaki�, David M. Podell

College of Staten Island, The City University of New York, 2800 Victory Blvd., Staten Island, NY 10314, USA

Abstract

This study examined how the interaction between student and teacher characteristics affects teachers’ predictions of

students’ academic and social success. Three hundred and eighty-four general education teachers responded to (a) one

of 32 possible case studies describing a student, in which gender, reading achievement, social behavior, and

attentiveness were manipulated experimentally and (b) to a 16-item teacher-efficacy scale. Results showed that

(1) teachers with high efficacy make less negative predictions about students, and seem to adjust their predictions when

student characteristics change, while low efficacy teachers seem to be paying attention to a single characteristic when

making their predictions. (2) All teachers respond similarly to students who exhibit a combination of aggressive and

inattentive behaviors, that is, if students are friendly, inattentiveness is tolerated more than if they are aggressive. (3) All

teachers make higher predictions of academic success for students reading on grade level even when they are aggressive,

than for students reading below grade level even when they are friendly. The authors discuss the importance of

attending to the complexity of characteristics each student brings in to the classroom.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Special educators; General educators; Teacher efficacy; Student characteristics

The concept of inclusion holds many differentmeanings for people, although it is generally takento mean educating all students with disabilities inthe general education setting (Reddy, 1999). As themomentum of the inclusion movement continuesto grow, general education teachers are faced with

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserv

te.2005.01.003

ng author. Tel.: +1718 982 3728;

3443.

ss: [email protected]

classrooms in which students demonstrate anincreasingly wide variety of academic and beha-vioral characteristics.Research demonstrates that teachers respond

differently to various student characteristics (e.g.,Tournaki, 2003). Given the diversity of the generaleducation classroom and teachers’ differentialresponses to that diversity, one might ask whethersome teachers are more equipped than others indealing with heterogeneous classrooms. Gerber(1988) theorized that teachers could optimally

ed.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Tournaki, D.M. Podell / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 299–314300

address only a limited range of student character-istics given finite resources, of which personnel andinternal teacher characteristics, such as knowledgeand expertise, are the primary elements. Accordingto this theory, the interaction between teacher andstudent characteristics, along with the availabilityof material resources, determines ‘‘teacher toler-ance.’’ In addition, Comer (1988) observed thatwhen there is an absence of a match between whatthe student brings and what the teacher expectswithin the context of the classroom, the studentfaces constraints to educational opportunity.Therefore, in the present study, we investigatedhow student characteristics, taken together withteacher characteristics, influenced teachers’ predic-tions of student success (PSS).The specific teacher characteristic studied were

aspects of teacher efficacy, which is considered tobe one of the few teacher characteristics thatconsistently relates to teaching and learning(Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Bandura’s (1986) socialcognitive theory, from which the construct of self-

efficacy is drawn, suggests that perceptions of theself mediate human behavior: ‘‘individuals givemeaning and weight to events in their environmentthrough the filter of their beliefs about themselves’’(Soodak & Podell, 1998, p. 78). Thus, individualspursue activities and situations in which they feelcompetent and avoid situations in which theydoubt their capability to perform successfully (seeBandura, 1993, 1997; Pajares, 1992).When applied to the field of education, teacher

efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs in their ability toaffect student outcomes. Teachers’ sense of efficacyhas been examined in relation to variables such asstudent achievement (Armor et al., 1976; Ashton &Webb, 1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1998)as well as classroom management. More particularly,teachers with a high sense of their own efficacytended to have less custodial perspectives aboutstudent control (Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990),used more positive behavior management strategies(Emmer & Hickman, 1991; Saklofske, Michayluk, &Randhawa, 1988) and had more preventative, ratherthan restorative beliefs with regard to behaviorproblems (Jordan, Kircaali-Iftar, & Diamond, 1993).In general, teachers who believe they can

successfully instruct students who have learning

or behavioral problems are more likely to includesuch students in their classroom than are teacherswho doubt their ability to instruct or motivatethese students (Ashton & Webb, 1986). Also,teachers with high self-efficacy concentrate onindividualized instruction, adapt teaching prac-tices to student needs (Minke, Bear, Deemer, &Griffin, 1996; Saklofske et al., 1988), are morelikely to use hands-on teaching methods (Riggs &Enochs, 1990), are more involved in collaborativeactivities with others (Gibson & Dembo, 1984;Minke et al., 1996), and provide students who haddifficulty in learning with the additional helpneeded to succeed (Gibson & Dembo, 1984).Finally, they tend to take greater responsibilityfor the outcomes of their own actions (Ross, 1998).In a review of research on teacher efficacy, Ross(1995) concluded that teachers who believe theyare effective set more challenging goals forthemselves and their students, take responsibilityfor student outcomes, and persist when faced withobstacles to learning. Therefore, he suggested thatefforts to improve schools should include attentionto teacher efficacy.In the early 1980s, Gibson and Dembo devel-

oped a 30-item teacher efficacy scale (TES). Factoranalysis of the items yielded a two-factor structure,which was consistent with Bandura’s social cogni-tive theory: self-efficacy and outcome expectancy.The first factor, teaching efficacy (TE), representsa teacher’s belief that teaching can overcomefactors external to the teacher, such as the homeenvironment. The second, personal TE, representsa teacher’s belief that he or she can personallyaffect changes in students (Gibson & Dembo,1984). In subsequent literature the second factor isreferred to as personal efficacy (PE). Althoughover the years inconsistencies of the scale havebeen identified and recently a new scale wasdeveloped, i.e. the Ohio State teacher efficacyscale (OSTES by Tschannen-Moran &WoolfolkHoy (2001)), the Gibson and Dembo scale remainswidely used.Using the short version of the Gibson and

Dembo scale, Soodak and Podell (1993) (Podell &Soodak, 1993) have demonstrated the salient roleof teacher efficacy in decisions pertaining tochildren with learning and behavior problems. In

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Tournaki, D.M. Podell / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 299–314 301

their studies, teachers’ PE beliefs were associatedwith their decisions to refer a difficult-to teachstudent out of their own classroom to a specialeducation setting. Teachers with high sense ofefficacy were more likely to recommend regulareducation placement and were less influenced byfactors unrelated to student achievement, such asstudent background (e.g., SES), when makingplacement decisions. Soodak and Podell (1994)found that, as compared to teachers with a lowsense of PE, teachers with a high sense of PE weremore willing to take responsibility for meeting theneeds of students with learning problems in theirown classrooms.The studies reviewed above have focused on

teachers’ decisions to refer a child to specialeducation but did not investigate the role of efficacyin general education teachers’ willingness to acceptstudents who have already been labeled. One suchstudy, by Brownell and Pajares (1999), reportedthat general education teachers’ efficacy beliefs hada direct effect on their perceived success ininstructing mainstreamed special education stu-dents. However, their study, as well as the studiesregarding referral to special education, did notexamine the possible interaction between teacherefficacy and specific characteristics of studentsexperiencing academic and behavioral difficulties.Therefore, in the present study, we examined the

relationship between general education teachers’sense of efficacy and their PSS as influenced by avariety of student characteristics. Specifically, be-cause empirical data indicate that gender, readingachievement, behavior, and attentiveness influenceteachers’ judgments about student outcomes (John-son-Fedoruk, 1991; Palardy, 1998; Tournaki, 2003;Zaher, 1996), we manipulated these four variablesexperimentally to determine possible interactionsbetween them and general education teachers’beliefs about their own efficacy as teachers.

1. Method

1.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 384 general educationelementary and middle school teachers from the

New York metropolitan area who were recruitedfrom graduate education courses for new teachers,local schools, and professional development pro-grams for experienced teachers. Their teachingexperience ranged from half an year to 29 years(M ¼ 3:3; SD ¼ 3:9). The study had a4� 2� 2� 2 design, described below, yielding 32cells; to determine sample size, we set power at .80and alpha at .05, with the expectation of a mediumeffect size (Cohen, 1977), which indicated a samplesize of 384, or 12 participants per cell. Participantswere randomly assigned to each of the 12experimental conditions.Most of the participants (90.9%) were female

and few (9.1%) were male, reflecting the genderdistribution of teachers in the elementary andmiddle schools from which the sample was drawn.The distribution of participants was almost evenacross grades. Only a quarter of the participantsindicated that they had had no previous experiencein teaching students with special needs, while most(58%) described themselves as having had someexperience in teaching students with special needs.Only 16% described themselves said they had hada great deal of experience.

1.2. Instruments

1.2.1. Measure of teachers’ predictions

Each participant read one of the 32 versions of acase study developed by the authors. One versionof the case study follows: ‘‘Kate is in the fourthgrade. She lives with her parents and youngerbrother near the school. She has been attendingpublic school since kindergarten. Kate is reading

on grade level. She is attentive. She is cooperative

and friendly in school.’’ The words in italicsrepresent the four characteristics of the studentthat varied: gender, reading achievement, atten-tiveness, and behavior. Three of the variables weredichotomous: Mike or Kate (gender); attentive orinattentive (attentiveness), and cooperative and

friendly or uncooperative and aggressive (behavior).We varied the conditions of the remaining variable(reading achievement) to allow us to detect theinfluence of students’ reading difficulties alone ascompared to reading problems with a labelattached. Further, we sought to determine the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


effect of the learning disabilities label in particular,as opposed to a more generalized term such aslearning difficulties, as they might relate to teacherefficacy. Finally, as a control condition, weincluded a category of student with no readingproblems. Thus, four conditions were used: thestudent was described as reading on grade level,reading two years below grade level, reading two

years below grade level due to learning difficulties,

or reading two years below grade level due to

learning disabilities.

After reading the case study, participantscompleted a nine-item PSS survey; the items andthe factor analysis of the Survey are presented inTable 1. For each item, participants were asked toindicate on a four-point Likert scale their level ofagreement (from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘stronglydisagree’’) with a statement about the student, e.g.‘‘The best placement for Mike/Kate will be aspecial education class’’.

1.2.2. Measure of teacher efficacy

Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed a 30-itemmeasure of teacher efficacy. Factor analysis con-firmed the existence of two factors, TE and PE. Inthe present study, the 16-item version of Gibsonand Dembo’s (1984) TES was used to measureparticipants’ beliefs about their own efficacy asteachers. Participants indicated, on a six-pointLikert scale, their degree of agreement (from‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’) to eachof the statements on the scale. Reliability of the

Table 1

Factor analysis of the predictions of student success (PSS) survey

Item

1. The best placement for [Mike/Kate] will be a special educ

2. [Mike’s/Kate’s] teacher will have a difficult time dealing w

3. [Mike/Kate] will benefit from the services of a reading sp

4. Two years from now, [Mike/Kate] will be reading on gra

5. [Mike/Kate] will perform poorly on standardized tests

6. The teacher who works with [Mike/Kate] will need specia

7. [Mike/Kate] will complete [his/her] current grade successf

8. [Mike/Kate] will be socially accepted by [his/her] peers

9. [Mike’s/Kate’s] laziness will prevent [him/her] from achie

instrument has been well documented (Gibson &Dembo, 1984). Factor analysis conducted on thedata of the present study confirmed a two-factorsolution that was consistent with the results ofGibson and Dembo (1984), as shown in Table 2.The two factors accounted for 35% of thevariance.

1.3. Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to one ofthe 32 conditions and were given a packet. Eachpacket included a cover letter asking for partici-pants’ voluntary and confidential participation,one of the case studies followed by the surveyitems, the Gibson and Dembo (1984) TES, and ashort demographic questionnaire.

2. Results

2.1. Factor analysis of predictions of student

success survey

To determine whether the PSS survey itemsmeasured more than one aspect of teachers’responses to the case study, a factor analysis wasperformed (see Table 1). Examination of the factorloadings and Cattell’s (1966) scree test suggested atwo-factor solution. These two factors collectivelyaccounted for 51.8% of the variance (35.1% forthe first factor and 16.7% for the second factor).

Factor

1 2 h2

ation class .57 .39 .48

ith [Mike’s/Kate’s] behavior .14 .78 .63

ecialist. .75 �.20 .60

de level �.54 �.08 .30

.77 .05 .60

lized training .62 .27 .46

ully .65 �.39 .57

�.07 �.73 .54

ving .06 .69 .48

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Factor analysis of the teacher efficacy scale

Item Factor

1 2 h2

1. When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exerted a little

extra effort

.43 .17 .22

2. The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the influence

of the home environment

�.10 .54 .31

3. The amount a student can learn is primarily related to family background .01 .56 .32

4. If students are not disciplined at home, they are not likely to accept my discipline .01 .59 .35

5. When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, Iam usually able to

adjust it to his/her level

.46 �.26 .28

6. When a student gets a better grade than usual, it is generally because I found

better ways of teaching the student

.68 .00 .46

7. When I really try, I can get through to most difficult students .66 �.11 .45

8. A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve, because a student’s home

environment is a large influence on his/her achievements

�.01 .78 .61

9. When the grades of my students improve, it is usually because I found more

effective teaching strategies

.68 .20 .49

10. If a student masters a new concept quickly, this might be because I knew the

necessary steps in teaching that concept

.70 .17 .52

11. If parents would do more with their children, I could do more .16 .63 .42

12. If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would

know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson

.61 .00 .38

13. If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know

some technique to redirect him quickly

.48 �.01 .23

14. The influences of a student’s home experiences can be overcome by good

teaching

.42 �.34 .29

15. If one of my students could not do an assignment, I would be able to accurately

assess whether the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty

.48 �.01 .24

16. Even a teacher with good teaching abilities may not reach many students �.01 .30 .09


An orthogonal varimax rotation was utilizedbecause the two factors were essentially uncorre-lated (r ¼ �:13). Five items contributed signifi-cantly to the first factor alone, as shown in Table2; these items (e.g., ‘‘Mike/Kate will performpoorly on standardized tests.’’) relate to predic-tions of the student’s academic success. Theremaining four items contributed significantly onlyto the second factor. These items (e.g., ‘‘Mike’s/Kate’s teacher will have a difficult time dealingwith Mike’s/Kate’s behavior.’’) concern predic-tions of the student’s social success.An additive method was used to compute

participants’ scores on the two factors, which werelabeled predictions of academic success and predic-

tions of social success respectively. The test–retestreliability of the two scales, determined by admin-

istering the PSS survey items to 59 teachers whowere not part of the study sample, were .82 for theacademic success scale and .83 for the socialsuccess scale. Data from the same sample wereused to determine the split-half reliability withSpearman–Brown correction. The coefficientswere .88 and .92 for the academic and socialsuccess scales respectively.The validity of the two scales was supported by

the factor analysis inasmuch as the two separatefactors had no overlapping items and all itemsloaded on one or the other factor.

2.2. Analyses of variance

Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were per-formed on participants’ responses to the measures

ARTICLE IN PRESS


of the two dependent variables, predictions ofacademic success and predictions of social success,using independent variables that were both experi-mentally manipulated (gender, reading achieve-ment, behavior, and attentiveness) and non-manipulated (PE and TE). Participants weredivided into two groups on both PE and TEthrough median splits. The latter method wasselected because the medians were found to be veryclose to the means: for PE, the median of 4.07 wasvery near to the mean of 4.00 (SD ¼ :62); for TE,the median of 3.71 was almost identical to themean of 3.72 (SD ¼ :68). These ANOVAs, whichincluded only main, first-order, and second-ordereffects, were followed by post hoc comparisonswhen appropriate.

2.2.1. Predictions of academic success

An ANOVA yielded main effects for all four ofthe manipulated independent variables and onenon-manipulated variable. A Gender effect (F (1,380) ¼ 5.91, po:02) indicated that participantsmade more positive predictions of academicsuccess of girls (M ¼ 2:38; SD ¼ :56) than of boys(M ¼ 2:32; SD ¼ :47). A Reading Achievementeffect (F (3, 380) ¼ 153.10, po:001), analyzedusing the Tukey procedure, indicated that teachersmade more positive predictions of the academicsuccess of students reading on grade level(M ¼ 2:98; SD ¼ :41) than of those reading 2years below grade level with no explanation given(M ¼ 2:26; SD ¼ :36), reading 2 years below gradelevel due to learning difficulties (M ¼ 2:09;SD ¼ :35), or reading below grade level due tolearning disabilities (M ¼ 2:07; SD ¼ :31). Asignificant difference was also found between thepredictions regarding those reading 2 years belowgrade level with no explanation given as comparedto those whose reading deficit was attributable tolearning difficulties or learning disabilities. AnAttentiveness effect (F (1, 380) ¼ 18.21, po:001)indicated that teachers made more positive pre-dictions of the academic success of attentivestudents (M ¼ 2:43; SD ¼ :52) than of inattentivestudents (M ¼ 2:26; SD ¼ :50). A Behavior effect(F (1, 380) ¼ 16.57, po:001) indicated that tea-chers made more positive predictions of theacademic success of aggressive students

(M ¼ 2:41; SD ¼ :55) than of friendly students(M ¼ 2:28; SD ¼ :47). Finally, teachers with highTE (M ¼ 2:40; SD ¼ :52; N ¼ 184) made morepositive predictions of students’ academic success(F (1, 380) ¼ 8.02, po:005) than did teachers withlow TE (M ¼ 2:29; SD ¼ :51; N ¼ 197).Three first-order interactions were detected. The

first, Reading Achievement�Behavior (F (3,130) ¼ 2.72), was significant at the .05 level. Posthoc tests using the Tukey method revealed that,when students were reading on grade level,teachers made more positive academic predictionswhen students were friendly (M ¼ 3:12; SD ¼ :46)than when students were aggressive (M ¼ 2:85;SD ¼ :29). No differences in teachers’ academicpredictions of friendly and aggressive studentswere found when students were reading belowgrade level. When rating students who wereaggressive, teachers had more positive predictionsof academic success for students who were readingon grade level (M ¼ 3:12; SD ¼ :46) than thosewho were reading 2 years below grade level withno explanation given (M ¼ 2:31; SD ¼ :36), read-ing 2 years below grade level due to learningdifficulties (M ¼ 2:15; SD ¼ :36), or reading 2years below grade level due to learning disabilities(M ¼ 2:09; SD ¼ :26). Further, when rating stu-dents who were friendly, the same patternemerged: teachers had more positive predictionsof academic success for students who were readingon grade level (M ¼ 2:85; SD ¼ :29) than thosewho were reading 2 years below grade level withno explanation given (M ¼ 2:20; SD ¼ :35), read-ing 2 years below grade level due to learningdifficulties (M ¼ 2:02; SD ¼ :34), or reading 2years below grade level due to learning disabilities(M ¼ 2:06; SD ¼ :36). But, perhaps most note-worthy, teachers predicted more positive academicsuccess for aggressive students who were readingon grade level (M ¼ 2:85) than for friendlystudents reading below grade level, regardless ofwhy. This pattern is illustrated in Fig. 1.The second first-order interaction, Attentive-

ness�TE (F (1, 380) ¼ 5.80), was significant at the.02 level. Tukey tests revealed that teachers withlow TE made significantly more negative academicpredictions when students were inattentive(M ¼ 2:18; SD ¼ :49; N ¼ 97) than when students

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

Reading Achievement

Pre

dic

tio

ns

of

Aca

dem

ic S

ucc

ess

Uncooperative

Cooperative

No Reading Problem 2 Yrs Below Grade Level "Learning Difficulties" "Learning Disabilities"

Fig. 1. Reading achievement�Behavior on predictions of academic success.

2.1

2.15

2.2

2.25

2.3

2.35

2.4

2.45

2.5

Attentiveness

Pre

dic

tio

ns

of

Aca

dem

ic S

ucc

ess

Low TE

High TE

AttentiveInattentive

Fig. 2. Attentiveness�TE on predictions of academic success.


were attentive (M ¼ 2:40; SD ¼ :51; N ¼ 100).However, no significant difference was foundbetween the predictions of teachers with high TEregarding attentive (M ¼ 2:47; SD ¼ :52; N ¼ 91)or inattentive (M ¼ 2:34; SD ¼ :50; N ¼ 93)students. Using the less rigorous LSD test, whenrating inattentive students, teachers with high TE(M ¼ 2:34) made more positive academic predic-tions than did teachers with low TE (M ¼ 2:18).These patterns are illustrated in Fig. 2.The third first-order interaction, Behavior�PE

(F (1, 380) ¼ 4.04) was significant at the .05 level.

Tukey tests, however, revealed no significantdifferences between groups.Three second-order interactions were also

found. The first, Gender�Reading Achieve-ment�TE (F (3, 380) ¼ 3.92), was significant atthe .01 level. Tukey tests revealed that high TEteachers rating female students made more positiveacademic predictions when the students werereading 2 years below grade level with noexplanation given (M ¼ 2:48) than when thestudent’s reading performance was attributed tolearning difficulties (M ¼ 2:09; SD ¼ :35; N ¼ 22)

ARTICLE IN PRESS


or learning disabilities (M ¼ 1:94; SD ¼ :29;N ¼ 26); this pattern was not obtained forteachers with high TE making predictions aboutmale students or for teachers with low TE. Thispattern is illustrated in Fig. 3.A second second-order interaction, Reading

Achievement�Attentiveness�Behavior (F (3,380) ¼ 2.65), was significant at the .05 level. Tukeytests revealed several significant differences. Whenstudents had no reading difficulties, teachers mademore positive academic predictions of studentswho were attentive and friendly (M ¼ 3:28;

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

Reading Ac

Pre

dic

tio

ns

of

Aca

dem

ic S

ucc

ess

2 Yrs Below Grade Level

Male Student - Low T

Female Student - High TE Teache

No Reading Problem

Fig. 3. Reading achievement�Gender�TE

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

Reading A

Pre

dic

tio

ns

of

Aca

dem

ic S

ucc

ess

Attentive - Cooperative

Inattentive - Cooperative

Attentive - Uncooperative

Inattentive - Uncooperative

No Reading Problem 2 Yrs Below Grade Level

Fig. 4. Reading achievement�Attentiveness�Be

SD ¼ :36) than when students were attentive andaggressive (M ¼ 2:89; SD ¼ :27) or inattentive andaggressive (M ¼ 2:81; SD ¼ :31). When studentswho were reading 2 years below grade level wereaggressive, teachers made more positive predic-tions of students who were attentive (M ¼ 2:38;SD ¼ :27) than of those who were inattentive(M ¼ 2:03; SD ¼ :33); this pattern did not holdtrue, however, among friendly students. Thesepatterns are illustrated in Fig. 4.The third second-order interaction, Attentive-

ness�Behavior�PE (F (1, 380) ¼ 4.65) was

hievement

"Learning Difficulties" "Learning Disabilities"

E Teacher

Female Student - Low TE Teacher

Male Student - High TE Teacher

r

on predictions of academic success.

chievement"Learning Difficulties" "Learning Disabilities"

havior on predictions of academic success.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


significant at the .05 level. Tukey tests revealed nomeaningful differences between groups.

2.2.2. Predictions of social success

An ANOVA yielded main effects for all fourmanipulated independent variables. A Gendereffect (F (1, 380) ¼ 4.46, po:05) indicated thatteachers made more positive social predictions offemales (M ¼ 2:72; SD ¼ :63) than males(M ¼ 2:65; SD ¼ :62), although the effect size issmall.A Reading Achievement effect (F (3,

380) ¼ 4.72, po:01) was significant. While Tukeytests revealed no significant differences betweengroups, the less rigorous LSD test revealed thatteachers made more positive social predictions forstudents who were reading on grade level(M ¼ 2:82; SD ¼ :67) than for those who werereading 2 years below grade level with noexplanation given (M ¼ 2:64; SD ¼ :61) or whenthe reading performance was attributed to learningdifficulties (M ¼ 2:62; SD ¼ :63); the differencebetween students reading on grade level and thosewhose reading difficulties were attributed tolearning disabilities (M ¼ 2:66; SD ¼ :58) did notachieve statistical significance.An Attentiveness effect (F (1, 380) ¼ 29.03,

po:001) indicated that teachers made morepositive social predictions of students who wereattentive (M ¼ 2:83; SD ¼ :66) than those whowere inattentive (M ¼ 2:54; SD ¼ :55). Finally, a

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

Beha

Pre

dic

tio

ns

of

So

cial

Su

cces

s

Uncooperative

Fig. 5. Attentiveness�Behavior on

Behavior effect (F (1, 380) ¼ 171.27, po:001)indicated that teachers made more positive socialpredictions of students who were friendly(M ¼ 3:04; SD ¼ :54) than of those who wereaggressive (M ¼ 2:33; SD ¼ :49). The latter effectsize was found to be large, that is, greater than thepooled standard deviation between the groups.One first-order interaction was found. An

Attentiveness�Behavior effect (F (1,380) ¼ 12.05) was significant at the .001 level.Tukey tests revealed that teachers’ social predic-tions were the most positive when students wereattentive and friendly (M ¼ 3:28; SD ¼ :48), lesspositive when students were inattentive and(M ¼ 2:81; SD ¼ :49), and least positive whenstudents were attentive and aggressive (M ¼ 2:39;SD ¼ :50) or inattentive and aggressive (M ¼ 2:28;SD ¼ :47). This interaction is illustrated in Fig. 5.Three second-order interactions were found.

The first, Gender�Reading Achieve-ment�Attentiveness (F (3, 380) ¼ 2.79) was sig-nificant at the .05 level. Tukey tests revealed that,among male students who were inattentive,teachers made more positive social predictions ofmale students who were reading at grade level(M ¼ 2:85; SD ¼ :46) than of male students read-ing 2 years below grade level (M ¼ 2:25;SD ¼ :56). This interaction is illustrated in Fig. 6.The second second-order interaction, Attentive-

ness�Behavior�PE (F (1, 380) ¼ 4.68) wassignificant at the .05 level. Tukey tests did not

viorCooperative

Attentive

Inattentive

predictions of social behavior

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3

Reading Achievement

Pre

dic

tio

ns

of

So

cial

Su

cces

sMale - Attentive

Female - Attentive

Male - Inattentive

Female - Inattentive

No Reading Problem 2 Yrs Below Grade Level "Learning Difficulties" "Learning Disabilities"

Fig. 6. Reading achievement�Gender�Attentiveness on predictions of social behavior.

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

Teachers' Personal Efficacy

Pre

dic

tio

ns

of

So

cial

Su

cces

s

Low High





Fig. 7. Attentiveness�Behavior�PE on predictions of social behavior.


reveal any meaningful comparisons. However, theless rigorous LSD test revealed that, when ratingaggressive students, teachers with high PE makemore positive social predictions of attentivestudents (M ¼ 2:48; SD ¼ :53) than that ofinattentive students (M ¼ 2:28; SD ¼ :46), whileno differences were found in the social predictionsof teachers with low PE of attentive students(M ¼ 2:28; SD ¼ :44) and inattentive students(M ¼ 2:28; SD ¼ :49). This interaction is illu-strated in Fig. 7.

The third second-order interaction, Attentive-ness�Behavior�TE (F (1, 380) ¼ 7.57) wassignificant at the .01 level. In a pattern identicalto the previous finding, LSD tests revealed that,when rating aggressive students, teachers with highTE made more positive social predictions ofattentive students (M ¼ 2:49; SD ¼ :50) thaninattentive students (M ¼ 2:26; SD ¼ :45), whileteachers with low TE did not differentiate betweenattentive (M ¼ 2:29; SD ¼ :49) and inattentive(M ¼ 2:30; SD ¼ :49) students in their social

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

Teaching Efficacy

Pre

dic

tio

ns

of

So

cial

Su

cces

s

Low High





Fig. 8. Attentivenss�Behavior�TE on predictions of social success.


predictions. Finally, when rating aggressive stu-dents who were attentive, teachers with high TE(M ¼ 2:49) made more positive social predictionsthan did teachers with low TE (M ¼ 2:29); thispattern did not apply for aggressive students whowere inattentive or for friendly students regardlessof attentiveness. These patterns are illustrated inFig. 8.

3. Discussion

3.1. Findings on teachers’ predictions of academic

success

The present study demonstrated several ways inwhich student characteristics and teacher charac-teristics, both alone and taken together, relate toteachers’ predictions of students’ academic suc-cess. Students’ characteristics alone influenceteachers’ academic predictions in the followingways: teachers make significantly more positiveacademic predictions of girls, of students who readon grade level, of attentive, and of friendlystudents. Among students who read below gradelevel, teachers make more positive predictions ifthere is no explanation given for the student’sreading problems as opposed to when an explana-tion is present.Further, for students reading on grade level,

teachers make more positive predictions of

friendly than of aggressive students, while, forstudents reading below grade level, there is nodifference in teachers’ predictions relating to thestudents’ friendliness and cooperativeness. Thisfinding indicates that student behavior is onlypertinent to teachers’ predictions when the studentis doing well academically; when the student isdoing poorly, teachers seem to consider students’behavior as irrelevant to academic success. Inaddition, teachers predict higher academic successfor aggressive students reading on grade level thanfor friendly students reading below grade level.Therefore, we can conclude that teachers arefocusing on an appropriate student characteristic,i.e. reading performance, in predicting students’academic success.Finally, when students read on grade level and

are attentive, their degree of friendliness andcooperation influences teachers’ academic predic-tions of them. On the other hand, this pattern doesnot hold when students read below grade level:teachers make more positive predictions of ag-gressive students who are attentive than of thosewho are inattentive, but make the same predictionsfor friendly students regardless of whether they areattentive or not. From this last finding, we canconclude that the worst predictions of academicsuccess are made when a student who is readingbelow grade level is also aggressive and inattentive.The teacher characteristic teacher efficacy was

found in the present study to be pertinent to

ARTICLE IN PRESS


teachers’ academic predictions in that teacherswith high TE make more positive predictions ofstudents’ academic success than do teachers with alow sense of TE. However, further examinationreveals that TE interacts with the student char-acteristics attentiveness, gender, and readingachievement in affecting teachers’ academic pre-dictions. Teachers with low TE make significantlymore positive predictions about the academicsuccess of attentive than of inattentive students,while teachers with high TE do not differentiatestudents as a function of their attentiveness.Therefore, we can conclude that a high sense ofTE effectively ‘‘inoculates’’ teachers from makingnegative predictions of academic success. It seemsthat teachers with high TE, when compared withthose with low TE, believe that an inattentivestudent can still succeed academically.Further, teachers with high TE make more

positive academic predictions of female studentswhen they are reading 2 years below grade levelwith no explanation given for the cause of thedelay than when the students’ reading perfor-mance was attributed to learning difficulties orlearning disabilities. This pattern did not obtainfor teachers with high TE when making predic-tions about male students or for teachers with lowTE making predictions about either gender.Evidently, the reading difficulties of a femalestudent are looked upon differently by high TEteachers, who seem to have a more positiveoutlook on the female student. Low TE teachers,on the other hand, are not affected by studentgender.Taken overall, these findings suggest that

teachers’ sense of TE influences their academicpredictions, in relation to student characteristics,in a complex manner. They suggest that lowefficacy teachers predict poorer academic out-comes of students who display characteristics thatmight impede teaching and learning, while highefficacy teachers are more resilient.

3.2. Findings on teachers’ predictions of social

success

As in predictions of academic success, studentcharacteristics and teacher characteristics were

found in the present study to influence teachers’predictions of students’ social success. Specifically,teachers make more positive predictions of stu-dents’ social success if they are females and if theyare friendly, attentive, and reading on grade level.Predictions of social success decrease for studentswho are reading below grade level with noexplanation given as to the cause of the delay,followed by students reading below grade level dueto learning difficulties, and, lastly, by those whoread below grade level due to learning disabilities.Further analysis of the data revealed several

interactions among the variables: first, teachersmake more positive social predictions of studentswho are attentive and friendly, followed by thosewho are inattentive and friendly, and, lastly, bythose who are attentive and aggressive or inatten-tive and friendly. It seems that the most negativepredictions are made for students who areaggressive. This finding did not confirm that ofBor, Presland, Lavery, Christie, and Watson(1992), who reported that inattentiveness was themost commonly reported behavior, followed byaggression and unpopularity.Second, among male students who are inatten-

tive, teachers make more positive social predic-tions of students who are reading at grade levelthan of students reading 2 years below grade level.Third, when rating aggressive students, teacherswith high PE make more positive predictionsof social success of attentive students than ofinattentive students, while the predictions ofteachers with low PE of attentive students andinattentive students do not differ. Further, whenrating friendly students, teachers with either highor low PE make higher predictions for attentivethan inattentive students. Once again, it becomesapparent that teachers with high efficacy differ-entiated their responses as a function of studentcharacteristics. Teachers with low PE tend torespond in consistent ways even as one or morestudent characteristics vary.Fourth, in a pattern identical to the previous

finding, when rating aggressive students, teacherswith high TE make more positive social predic-tions of attentive students than of inattentivestudents, while teachers with low TE do notdifferentiate between attentive and inattentive

ARTICLE IN PRESS


students in their social predictions. Further, whenrating aggressive students who are attentive,teachers with high TE make more positive socialpredictions than do teachers with low TE; thispattern did not apply for the aggressive andattentive students or for friendly students regard-less of attentiveness.

4. Conclusions

The present study examined the ways in whichstudent and teacher characteristics interact indetermining teachers’ predictions of students’success in school. Results indicated that teachersadjust their predictions based on students’ char-acteristics and based on their own sense of efficacyof teaching in general (TE) or of themselves asteachers (PE). Consistent with Ross’ (1995) con-clusions, teachers with a greater belief in theeffectiveness of teaching expect more academicsuccess of their students than do their counterpartswith a lesser belief in the impact of teaching.Further, high TE seems to ‘‘inoculate’’ teachersfrom making negative predictions about students.Teachers with high efficacy seem to adjust theirpredictions to the characteristics, and perhapsneeds, of their students, while low efficacy teachersseem to be paying attention to a single character-istic and, even when others are added, theirpredictions tend to remain the same. For example,low efficacy teachers respond similarly regardlessof the students’ gender or the reason why a studentis not reading on grade level. On the other hand,high efficacy teachers differentiate their responsesbased on gender and the reason for reading delays.Further, the present study highlights the im-

portance of differentiating between attentivenessand other ‘‘problem’’ behaviors in the classroom,such as aggression and uncooperativeness. Someresearchers treat attentiveness and other ‘‘pro-blem’’ behaviors as one variable in reporting theirresults (e.g., Hemphill, 1996; Rowe & Rowe, 1992;Wehby, Dodge, Valente, & The Conduct Dis-orders Prevention Research Group, 1993). On theother hand, other researchers treat ‘‘problem’’behaviors as separate variables. For example,Stephenson, Linfoot, and Martin (2000) reported

that less confident teachers expressed higher levelsof concern about aggression, distractibility, anddisobedience and wanted more support for dealingwith such problems. Further, Pickering, Szaday,and Duerdoth (1988) reported that the mostcommon kind of problem was inattentivenessand impulsiveness, followed by disruptiveness(i.e., anxious, low self-esteem and withdrawn,inattentive). In our study, we found that teachersrespond more positively to an uncooperative/aggressive student who is attentive than to onewho is inattentive, but they respond the same wayto a student who is cooperative/friendly regardlessof whether the student is attentive or inattentive.Apparently, inattentiveness is tolerated if a studentis cooperative/friendly.Finally, several conclusions were drawn with

regard to reading achievement. In predictingacademic success, teachers make more positivepredictions of aggressive students who read ongrade level than of friendly students reading belowgrade level. It is obvious that teachers attend to arelevant variable, i.e., reading achievement, whenmaking academic predictions. On the other hand,in predicting the social success of inattentive boys,teachers make more positive predictions when theyare reading on grade level than when they arebehind in reading. In this case it seems thatacademic success is perceived as compensation forbeing an inattentive boy, when teachers makepredictions about social success.In examining the various results of the study, we

can conclude that teachers’ predictions are influ-enced by the interaction of student and teachercharacteristics. Among low efficacy teachers, one

student characteristic will dominate over theothers and determine teachers’ predictions. Onthe other hand, among high efficacy teachers,more than one student characteristic, in combina-tion, determines teachers’ predictions. Thus, itseems that students will benefit from havingteachers with high efficacy beliefs inasmuch assuch teachers tend to be more aware of, or lessnegatively influenced by, the complexity of char-acteristics each student brings into the classroom.A noteworthy observation regarding the find-

ings is that student characteristics were far moreoften to interact with TE (i.e., the belief that

ARTICLE IN PRESS


teaching in general affects student outcomes) thanwith PE (i.e., the belief that the teacher personallyaffects student outcomes). Our results indicatethat, as teachers consider the relation betweenstudent characteristics and student outcomes, theyare more likely to perceive teaching in general, asopposed to their own teaching, as having aninteractive effect. One interpretation for this mightbe, from a psychodynamic perspective, that PEbeliefs are related to one’s ego: a teacher whobelieves that ‘‘I’m a good teacher’’ may take morecredit for a positive student outcome and a teacherwho believes that ‘‘I’m not a good teacher’’ maytake responsibility for a negative student outcome,with little consideration for the student’s char-acteristics. TE beliefs, on the other hand, whichlack the involvement of one’s own ego, may beunderstood by teachers to have a more complexinteraction with students’ characteristics in affect-ing student outcomes. We note, however, thatliterature on the teacher efficacy construct hasraised questions about the meaning and measure-ment of it and of the two factors that are presumedto underlie it (Soodak & Podell, 1996; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Tschannen-Mor-an, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998) and, therefore,our findings should be understood in light of thisongoing discussion.Several limitations of this investigation should

be considered. First, two self-report instrumentswere employed in the study. Measures of actualteacher behaviors (e.g., classroom observations,videos of teaching contexts, interviews withteachers) are also needed to corroborate thefindings reported here. Second, the order ofpresentation to the participants (i.e., the PSSSurvey preceding the TES) may have introduceda bias inasmuch as answering questions abouttheir predictions regarding a given student mayhave influenced participants’ responses to theefficacy items. A future study might counter-balance the order of presentation. Third, theparticipants were elementary and middle schoolteachers. The results may have been different forsecondary school teachers, since Soodak andPodell (1993), in a cross-sectional study, founddistinctly different patterns of teacher efficacy inthe career paths of elementary and secondary

teachers. Fourth, the study was conducted in NewYork metropolitan area and the findings of thestudy should be verified by looking at a broadergeographical area.

4.1. Implications for research and practice

Future research should explore whether generaleducation teachers who hold more efficaciousbeliefs are more likely to engage in effectiveeducational practices than their less efficaciouscolleagues when faced with students with academicand behavior problems. As noted by Wheatley(2002), observations of teachers’ actual teachinghave been very rare in the field of efficacy. Webelieve that continued research examining therelationship among teacher efficacy, student char-acteristics, and teachers’ instructional practices isboth warranted and essential. In addition, theextent to which teachers’ efficacy beliefs are subjectto change as a result of training or school changesshould be explored. Finally, future research shouldalso examine possible differences between generaland special education teachers in relation to thesevariables. More and more special and generaleducation teachers are teaching in the samesettings and their beliefs are affecting students’well being in the classroom.Given the evident deleterious effect of low

teacher efficacy, and the demonstrated pattern ofthe decline of teacher efficacy in the first years ofteaching (Soodak & Podell, 1997), general educa-tion teachers, in their preparation and first years ofteaching, should have the experience and supportthat they need to prepare them to work success-fully with students with combinations of problems.Many general education teachers—indeed, onequarter of the sample in the present study—havehad no experience with students with special needs,that is the very students who demonstrate a varietyof behaviors and characteristics that challengeteaching and learning. Under such conditions, howcan inclusion be successful?If, as the present study demonstrates, teachers’

beliefs in their own effectiveness interact with thecharacteristics of difficult-to-teach students, itbehooves us to examine how to support thedevelopment and maintenance of positive efficacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS


beliefs in teachers. Bandura (1997) notes foursources of individuals’ efficacy expectations: one’sown accomplishments, vicarious learning throughthe accomplishments of others, verbal persuasion,and emotional/physiological arousal.We recommend that teacher education students

should observe and apprentice with teachers whoeffectively address the academic and behaviorproblems of students with special needs ininclusive settings. They should obtain both first-hand and vicarious experiences of success workingwith students with a variety of characteristics;indeed, teacher preparation programs shouldensure that their candidates have at least oneplacement in an inclusive setting. Finally, teachereducation students should be encouraged to useonly relevant information in making predictionsabout students’ academic and social success and toavoid the apparent tendency to use irrelevantinformation.Research has demonstrated that, once teacher

education students become teachers themselves,there is a sharp decline in their belief in their owneffectiveness (Soodak & Podell, 1997). Therefore,new teachers should have ample opportunity toengage in self-study and to benefit from thewisdom of more experienced colleagues in bothgeneral and special education through mentoring,consultation, and co-teaching. Forms of emotionalsupport, more commonly observed in teachereducation programs (e.g., student teaching semi-nars), should be maintained in teachers’ first yearsin the profession. Colleagues and supervisorsshould encourage and recognize new teachers’efforts to help students succeed. It is through moreimaginative and varied strategies that new teacherswill develop the belief in their own effectivenessthat will allow for successful teaching in inclusivesettings.

References

Armor, D., Conroy-Osequera, P., 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, REPORT NO. R-

2007-LAUSD, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 130–243).

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference:

teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New

York: Longman.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a

social cognitive theory. New York: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive devel-

opment and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28,

117–148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New

York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Bor, W., Presland, L., Lavery, B., Christie, R., & Watson, K.

(1992). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ adjustment

difficulties. In J. Elkins, & J. Izard (Eds.), Student behaviour

problems: context, initiatives and programs (pp. 77–92).

Hawthorne, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational

Research.

Brownell, M. T., & Pajares, F. (1999). Teacher efficacy and

perceived success in mainstreaming students with learning

and behavior problems. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 22(3), 154–164.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors.

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral

sciences (Rev. Ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Comer, J. P. (1988). Educating poor minority children.

Scientific American, 259(5), 42–48.

Emmer, T. E., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in

classroom management and discipline. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 51, 755–765.

Gerber, M. M. (1988). Tolerance and technology of instruction:

implications for special education reform. Exceptional

Children, 54, 309–314.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a

construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,

569–582.

Hemphill, S. A. (1996). Characteristics of conduct disordered

children and their families: a review. Australian Psycholo-

gist, 31, 109–118.

Johnson-Fedoruk, G. M. (1991). Student characteristics im-

plicated in early school achievement: kindergarten teacher

validated. Child Study Journal, 21, 235–249.

Jordan, A., Kircaali-Iftar, C., & Diamond, C. T. P. (1993).

Who has a problem, the student or the teacher? Differences

in teacher beliefs about their work with at risk and

integrated exceptional students. International Journal of

Disability, Development, and Education, 40, 45–62.

Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. M.

(1996). Teacher experiences with inclusive classrooms:

implications for special education reform. The Journal of

Special Education, 30, 479–491.

Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992). Teacher efficacy, power,

school climate and achievement: a desegregating district’s

experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research:

cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational

Research, 62, 307–332.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Palardy, J. M. (1998). The effects of teachers’ expectations on

children’s literacy development. Reading Improvement,

35(4), 184–186.

Pickering, D., Szaday, C., & Duerdoth, P. (1988). One in eleven:

social educational needs of Catholic schools in Victoria.

Burwood, Victoria: Victoria College, Faculty of Special

Education and Paramedical Studies.

Podell, D. M., & Soodak, L. C. (1993). Teacher efficacy and

bias in special education referral. Journal of Educational

Research, 86, 247–253.

Reddy, L. A. (1999). Inclusion of disabled children and school

reform: a historical perspective. In S. I. Pfeiffer, & L. A.

Reddy (Eds.), Inclusion practices with special needs students:

theory, research, and application (pp. 3–24). New York: The

Haworth Press, Inc.

Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development

of an efficacy beliefs: instrument for elementary teachers.

Science Education, 74(6), 625–637.

Ross, J. A. (1995). Strategies for enhancing teachers’ beliefs in

their effectiveness: research on a school improvement

hypothesis. Teachers College Record, 97(2), 227–251.

Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher

efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on

teaching, Vol. 7 (pp. 49–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Rowe, K., & Rowe, K. (1992). Impact of antisocial, inattentive

and restless behaviours on reading. In J. Elkins, & J. Izard

(Eds.), Student behaviour problems: context, initiatives,

programs (pp. 47–76). Hawthorne, Victoria: Australian

Council for Educational Research.

Saklofske, D. H., Michayluk, J. O., & Randhawa, B. S. (1988).

Teachers’ efficacy and teaching behaviors. Psychological

Reports, 63, 407–414.

Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and

student problems as factors in special education referral.

Journal of Special Education, 27, 66–81.

Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1994). Teachers’ thinking

about difficult-to-teach students. Journal of Educational

Research, 88, 44–51.

Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: toward

the understanding of a multi-faced construct. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 12(4), 401–411.

Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1997). Efficacy and experience:

perceptions of efficacy among preservice and practicing

teachers. Journal of Research and Development in Education,

30, 214–221.

Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1998). Teacher efficacy and the

vulnerability of the difficult-to-teach student. In J. Brophy

(Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 7 (pp. 75–110).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Stephenson, J., Linfoot, K., & Martin, A. (2000). Behaviors of

concern to teachers in the early years of school. International

Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47, 225–235.

Tournaki, N. (2003). Effect of student characteristics on

teachers’ predictions of student success. The Journal of

Educational Research, 96, 310–319.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher

efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K.

(1998). Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure. Review of

Educational Research, 68, 202–248.

Wehby, J. H., Dodge, K. A., Valente, E. & The Conduct

Disorders Prevention Research Group. (1993). School beha-

vior of first grade children identified as at-risk for develop-

ment of conduct problems. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 67–78.

Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher

efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 18, 5–22.

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., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’

sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137–148.

Zaher, S. (1996). Gender and curriculum in the school room.

Education Canada, 36(1), 26–29.

Documents

The impact of student characteristics and teacher efficacy on teachers’ predictions of student success