JournalofofDeaf

Journal Deaf Studies

Studies and
and Deaf Education

A National Perspective on Teachers’ Efficacy Beliefs in Deaf

Education
Carrie Lou Garberoglio*, Mark E. Gobble, Stephanie W. Cawthon
University of Texas at Austin

Received December 9, 2011; revisions received February 28, 2012; accepted February 29, 2012

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

Teachers’ sense of efficacy, or the belief that teachers have of Self-efficacy Theory
their capacity to make an impact on students’ performance, is
an unexplored construct in deaf education research. This ‘‘Self-efficacy’’ is a prominent aspect of social cognitive
study included data from 296 respondents to examine the theory that allows for a closer examination of the
relationship of teacher and school characteristics with relationship between individual beliefs and behavior.
teachers’ sense of efficacy in 80 different deaf education
settings in the US. Deaf education teachers reported high
Bandura (1997), defined self-efficacy as the belief that
overall efficacy beliefs but significantly lower efficacy beliefs one has of one’s capabilities to successfully organize and
in the area of student engagement than in instructional execute a desired course of action. Bandura maintained
strategies and classroom management. Teachers’ years of
that self-efficacy beliefs, or perception of ability, are
experience showed a significant relationship with efficacy
beliefs, yet it was the teachers’ perceived collective efficacy often the strongest predictor of resultant behavior, even
of their educational setting that ultimately predicted teachers’ more so than one’s actual ability. Individuals with
sense of efficacy. These findings lend credence to the need for a strong sense of self-efficacy have been found to take
further examination of school processes that influence teacher
beliefs and attitudes in deaf education settings.
on challenging tasks willingly (Bandura & Schunk,
1981), show increased persistence (Bandura & Schunk,
Over the last 3 decades, the literature supporting the
1981; Locke & Latham, 1990; Schunk, 1982), exert
need to investigate teacher beliefs and attitudes as
greater effort (Salomon, 1984), have lower anxiety
essential components involved in students’ learning
(Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Pintrich & De Groot,
and achievement outcomes has been steadily increas-
1990), self-evaluate their academic performance
ing. A conceptualization of teacher beliefs that is
accurately (Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990), and self-regulate
prominent in this literature is that of teachers’ efficacy
beliefs, beliefs that the teacher holds about their better than others (Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-
capacities to make a difference in student outcomes. Pons, 1992; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).
Teachers’ efficacy beliefs are an unexplored construct Self-efficacy is often domain specific, reflecting
in the field of deaf education and offer a new lens a perceived capacity for tasks required in a specific
through which to examine the complex dynamics context (Bandura, 1997). For teachers, the specific
involved in deaf education settings. This new lens context is one’s educational setting. The school as
offers a perspective that moves beyond a view of deaf a professional context is multifaceted and includes
students’ deficiencies to capturing a broader picture of policies, facilities and resources, colleagues, supervi-
teacher attitudes and beliefs, using the framework of sors, students, and parents, to name a few. Teacher
teachers’ self-efficacy, in the educational setting in self-efficacy in this context thus includes a teacher’s
which deaf students learn. sense of capacity to facilitate learning with these
students and in this setting. In this article, we concep-
*Correspondence should be sent to Carrie Lou Garberoglio, Department
of Educational Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 Univer-
tualize teachers’ sense of efficacy as the belief that the
sity Station, D5800, Austin, TX 78712 (e-mail: [email protected]). teacher has of their capacity to successfully organize


© The
The Author
Author2012.
2012.Published
PublishedbybyOxford
OxfordUniversity Press.
University AllAll
Press. rights reserved.
rights reserved. doi:10.1093/deafed/ens014
For Permissions, please
please email:
email:[email protected]
[email protected] Advance Access publication on April 2, 2012
2368Journal
Journal
of of DeafStudies
Deaf Studiesand
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education 17:3 June 2012

and execute tasks required to have a positive impact on important but also a malleable construct that can be
students and their achievement. influenced by changes in educational settings (Chester
The research literature supports the finding that & Beaudin, 1996; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007).
teachers’ perceived efficacy has a strong influence on
teacher behavior in the classroom, especially in teachers’
School Setting: Collective Efficacy
level of effort, perseverance through difficult situations,
and the goals they set. Teachers with a strong sense of When examining teacher beliefs and attitudes, the
efficacy are open to new ideas and willing to experiment environment in which the teacher works cannot be
with and apply new strategies to meet students’ needs neglected, especially when considering that self-
(Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellmann, 1977; efficacy beliefs are context sensitive. Teachers work
Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; R. Guskey, 1988; Ross, 1998; in a wide range of settings, from small private schools

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

Stein & Wang, 1988). Perhaps connected to openness to large public programs and have to adapt to
toward innovation in pedagogy, teachers with strong variations in teaching environments and student
levels of self-efficacy exhibit greater enthusiasm for populations that are inherent in those settings.
teaching (Allinder, 1994; T. Guskey, 1984). Noncontent However, the literature on self-efficacy beliefs show
area but critical skills such as levels of planning and findings that move beyond the specific contextual
organization (Allinder, 1994) and classroom manage- variations in school settings and give us a picture of
ment strategies are also found in teachers reporting environments that may be conductive to stronger
higher efficacy beliefs (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990; Woolfolk, efficacy beliefs. Higher self-efficacy beliefs are
Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990). Generally, teachers with high exhibited in teachers that perceive their school setting
efficacy beliefs believe that they can influence student to have a positive atmosphere, fewer impediments to
learning, even when faced with students who may be teaching, and shared decision-making responsibilities
more challenging to teach (Guskey & Passaro, 1994). (Moore & Esselman, 1992). Teacher beliefs about the
Those teachers are less critical of students (Ashton & expectations of student academic achievement shared
Webb, 1986), show more persistence in working with by other staff (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993) and the level of
low achieving students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), and collaboration among teachers (Rosenholtz, 1989) were
are less likely to refer students to special education also highly correlated with teachers’ sense of efficacy.
(Meijer & Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak The leadership style of administrators is also linked to
& Podell, 1994). These findings suggest that teachers teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Principals adopting
who believe that their actions are making a difference in transformational practices, such as motivating and
student learning exhibit behaviors that may then inspiring their employees, are more likely to have
facilitate positive outcomes for students. teachers with higher efficacy beliefs in their schools
Teachers’ sense of efficacy appears to be linked to than those principals who adopt transactional practices
greater academic success for their students. Countless such as a focus on rewards and goal-meeting (Hipp,
studies reveal that teachers’ sense of efficacy has a 1996; Hipp & Bredeson, 1995). The single greatest
positive relationship with student outcomes such as predictor of teachers’ sense of efficacy in a 1991 study
student achievement (e.g., Armor et al., 1976; Ashton was the teachers’ sense of community in a school (Lee,
& Webb, 1986; Bandura 1977, 1993; Gibson & Dembo, Dedick, & Smith, 1991). Teachers’ belief of their
1984; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992, and capacity to make an impact on student achievement
Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001), motivation (Midgley, is clearly influenced by the environment in which the
Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), and student engagement teaching happens.
(Good & Brophy, 2003). Clearly, teachers’ sense of The findings above support the need for further
efficacy is a construct that consistently shows significant investigation of how teachers’ beliefs and attitudes
relationships with outcomes of interest in both about the school setting are related to teachers’ sense
dimensions: teaching and learning. It is necessary to of individual efficacy in their own teaching. Group-
acknowledge that teachers’ efficacy beliefs are not only referent beliefs and attitudes about shared settings,
 National
NationalPerspective
Perspectiveonon
Teachers’ Efficacy
Teachers’ Beliefs
Efficacy Beliefs3693

including atmosphere, shared decision making, expe- counteract this discrepancy and identify key factors
ctations, and collaborativeness, can be conceptualized that can rectify the achievement gap between deaf
as ‘‘perceived collective efficacy’’ beliefs (Bandura, children and their peers. As one of the most signifi-
1997; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). Bandura cantly malleable factors within educational settings,
defines perceived collective efficacy as those beliefs specific attention needs to be paid to the role of the
held by group members about ‘‘the performance ca- teacher in deaf education and ways to strengthen their
pability of a social system as a whole’’ (1997, p. 469). capacities (Luckner, 2006). Marschark, Lang, and
Within schools, perceived collective efficacy refers to Albertini (2002) also suggested that teacher factors
the beliefs that teachers hold about the potentials of might account for a considerable variability in deaf
the faculty and staff to successfully organize and exe- students’ achievement across all levels of learning.
cute tasks or actions required to have a positive effect If strong self-efficacy leads to higher student out-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

on students. comes, it is plausible that low achievement of deaf
Strong relationships have been found to exist students has a relationship with diminished efficacy
between teachers’ individual efficacy beliefs and the beliefs in deaf education teachers. Teachers with low
collective efficacy beliefs held by teachers about their efficacy beliefs may feel that they lack the power to
school setting (Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Goddard improve students’ achievement, if faced with difficulty
et al., 2000). Goddard et al. (2000) believe, ‘‘the effect may give up easily and have a tendency to blame
of an individual teacher’s efficaciousness may be either extenuating circumstances (Ashton & Webb, 1986,
attenuated or enhanced depending on the level of col- Bandura, 1997). The literature on teaching efficacy
lective efficacy in a school’’ (p. 498). In fact, collective in the context of working with low-achieving students
efficacy was found to be the only statistically signifi- or students at risk does not give us a clear picture of
cant predictor of teacher efficacy variation among the relationship between students’ achievement and
schools and accounted for all the variation between teachers’ sense of efficacy in these populations, but it
schools surveyed, above and beyond other contextual appears that teaching experience may influence this
variables such as socioeconomic status and student relationship. A research study in Singapore done spe-
achievement (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). The impact cifically with teachers who teach low-achieving students
of teachers’ perceived collective efficacy of the school shows as teachers gain experience, they report higher
setting may be strong enough to impede, or alterna- levels of teacher efficacy (Yeo, Ang, Chong, Huan, &
tively, enhance teachers’ sense of efficacy. Quek, 2008).

Teacher Efficacy and Deaf Education Teacher Beliefs in Deaf Education

Aside from teacher preparation, teachers’ sense of Teacher attitudes and beliefs are an underexplored
efficacy is one of the few teacher characteristics con- construct in deaf education research, but there are
sistently related to student achievement (Armor et al., some starting points. Studies that show deaf education
1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Bandura 1977, 1993; teachers have a higher tendency to exhibit teaching
Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Moore & Esselman, 1992; orientations of subordination (Marlatt, 2002), poten-
Ross, 1992, and Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). In tials of lower expectations in deaf education settings
the field of deaf education, deaf students’ poor (Marlatt, 2004b; Pagliaro & Kritzer, 2005; Wood,
achievement levels are an oft-debated topic. Test 1998) and that deaf education training programs
assessment results, most namely those of the Stanford rely heavily on behaviorist classroom management
Achievement Tests, show that deaf students’ norms lag techniques (Teller & Harney, 2005) lead us to further
behind those of their hearing peers as much as or more question the role of the teacher in deaf education.
than six grade levels below the norm (Traxler, 2000; Studies conducted in postsecondary settings exhibited
Qi & Mitchell, 2011). Educational researchers working that teachers working with deaf students in separate
within the field of deaf education are working to or mainstream settings reported differing attitudes
4370Journal
Journal
of of DeafStudies
Deaf Studiesand
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education 17:3 June 2012

toward teaching, with those in separate settings adopt- experienced teachers, all students or graduates of the
ing student-focused approaches to teaching and greater same teacher training program. The 2002 study of
focus on conceptual change, while those in mainstream teacher images revealed that deaf education teachers
settings were more likely to utilize an information trans- were more likely to view students as subordinates in
mission approach (Marschark, Richardson, Sapere, & need of supervision. A closer look at this finding
Sarchet, 2010). Brown and Paatsch (2010) posit that showed that the beginning education teachers were
deaf education teachers working in oral settings, spe- more likely to view students as peers than as subordi-
cifically, do reveal a strong relationship between their nates than the graduating education students, novice
underlying beliefs and the model of practice that is teachers, or experienced teachers. Marlatt suggests
adopted. However, their study did not account for that this data shows that deaf education teachers may
contextual factors such as student learning character- be socialized to view deaf students as subordinates

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

istics or the expectations of the instructional setting over time, emphasizing the caregiving aspect of the
that could be playing a role in teacher beliefs and teacher role. In the study on knowledge and practice
practice. among teachers of the deaf, it was reported that as
Teachers’ perceived efficacy has a relationship with they gained experience, teachers demonstrated lower
images that teachers hold of themselves, their teaching, expectations of their students (Marlatt, 2004b). While
and their students, serving as schemata in teachers’ preservice teachers reported high levels of expecta-
conceptual knowledge through which experiences are tions in the areas of student achievement, students’
embodied, filtered, and expressed. It has been proposed ability to assume responsibility for classroom work,
that teachers’ sense of efficacy is related to their and classroom deportment, expert teachers had the
orientation toward teaching, students, and instructional lowest level of expectations. However, these studies
practices (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Woolfolk & Hoy, neglected to account for a possible cohort effect and
1990). From one perspective, teaching orientations can did not follow the teachers over time and account for
be seen to fall on a continuum between custodial, where temporal changes as would have been possible in a lon-
there is a high reliance on authoritarian, extrinsic gitudinal study. We must also acknowledge that the
inducements, and negative sanctions, to humanist, participants in the Marlatt studies were all either stu-
where there is a focus on the individual student and dents or graduates of the same teacher training pro-
willingness to meet varying individual needs (Hoy, gram, so the specific characteristics of the training
2001). Teachers with a low sense of efficacy tend to program could be confounding the results.
favor a custodial orientation while teachers with a high Shifting the perspective from a broad picture of
sense of efficacy favor a more humanist orientation expectations for student achievement toward a more nar-
(Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). The custodial orientation row discussion of expectations within content areas for
referred to was found to be the most prevalent instruction, the likelihood of low expectations to be held
classroom management and learning strategy used by are also found in the classroom context. In a survey of
deaf education teacher training programs, as reported discrete mathematics knowledge and curriculum inte-
by 88% of program directors in the nation (Teller & gration thereof in deaf education settings, data were col-
Harney, 2005). The potential interaction of teacher lected from 290 teachers that revealed low expectations
images with teachers’ efficacy beliefs raise questions in these settings (Pagliaro & Kritzer, 2005). Teachers of
about the images that teachers hold of deaf students the deaf stated that discrete mathematics topics were too
and how deaf education training programs may be ‘‘high level’’ for their students. When looking at the role
playing a role in the formation of those images. of teacher experience, it was found that the expectations
Teacher beliefs are often shaped by the pedagogy of students did not significantly vary between teachers
and philosophies of the places they receive their train- with different levels of experience. These findings show-
ing. Marlatt (2002, 2004a, 2004b) undertook a series of ing teachers’ low expectations in deaf education settings
studies of deaf education teachers’ beliefs, images, and across all levels of experience raise questions about the
knowledge, surveying 163 preservice, novice, and potential role of teacher beliefs on student outcomes.
 National
NationalPerspective
Perspectiveonon
Teachers’ Efficacy
Teachers’ Beliefs
Efficacy Beliefs3715

Teachers’ Years of Experience Teacher–Student Relationship: Language

One of the variables that consistently emerge as an It is clear that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs interact
important factor in the malleability of teacher beliefs with a diverse, complex set of variables including
and attitudes is that of time. Taking a closer look at school-level differences such as collective efficacy
the interaction of teacher experience with teachers’ beliefs, resources available, and level of collaboration,
sense of efficacy, it appears that teachers’ self-efficacy in addition to individual-level differences, such as
beliefs are most malleable early in learning and generally years of experience and teacher training background.
stabilize over time (T. Guskey, 1984; R. Guskey 1988; Differences worthy of attention in this specific con-
Pajares, 1992; Woolfolk Hoy & Murphy, 2001). For text, deaf education, are the language of use in the
example, research by Soodak and Podell (1994) revealed school setting and the language proficiency of the
that teachers experience a significant drop in efficacy teacher. When considering how language comes into

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

levels during their first year of teaching. However, the play in educational settings for deaf students, it needs
change in self-efficacy beliefs in novice teachers is to be acknowledged that teachers’ preexisting beliefs
actually mediated by other variables such as the teach- about language and communication methodology may
er’s age, prior experience, and school practices such as also influence teacher beliefs on a broader scale that is
attitudes, resources, and support available (Chester & unique to this setting. Language plays a large role in
Beaudin, 1996; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). The deaf education, with language use in settings running
complex dynamics of school settings necessitate an the gamut from entirely auditory-verbal, mediated
examination of contextual variables that may serve as through sign language interpretation, or bilingual
mediators for change in self-efficacy beliefs in teachers
ASL/English programs. And those settings often
over time.
realistically include an array of language choices and
When looking at how teacher attitudes and beliefs
opportunities for deaf students, taking place in differ-
in deaf education settings are impacted by time and
ent contexts. It is not only language choice that comes
experience, we find that the expectations deaf educa-
into play in these settings but also the varying levels of
tion teachers have of their students appears to be lower
language proficiency used by the professionals in these
with years of experience (Marlatt, 2004b). The link
settings that make an impact on the quality of language
between teacher expectations and teachers’ sense of
and communication that is present.
efficacy has not been made empirically, but teacher
The role of language becomes especially significant
expectations are a significant aspect of teacher atti- when considering that language actually forms the
tudes and beliefs. If teachers have higher expectations mainstay of the relationship between the teacher and
of student achievement, this would seem to imply the student, facilitating communication on multiple
that teachers expect that they can make a difference levels. A study of efficacy beliefs in teachers who work
in student achievement, which is one indicator of with low-achieving hearing students in Singapore
high-efficacy beliefs. The finding that deaf education found that ‘‘conflict in the teacher–student relation-
teachers have lower expectations of their students over ship inversely predicts teacher efficacy in classroom
time is in contrast with studies that show teacher management and instructional strategies’’ (Yeo et al.,
efficacy beliefs to either be higher with years of expe- p. 202). This is especially significant because the deaf
rience (Campbell, 1996; de la Torre Cruz & Arias, educator’s primary challenge is often that of language
2007; Wilson & Tan, 2004; Yeo et al., 2008) or stable and communication with their students, which is an
over time (T. Guskey, 1984; R. Guskey 1988; Pajares, essential factor in the teacher–student relationship.
1992; Woolfolk Hoy & Murphy, 2001). If deaf The population of interest in the Yeo et al. study,
education teachers have lower expectations of students low-achieving students, supports further comparisons
as they gain more experience, this finding leads us to to the population of interest in this study, deaf
hypothesize that these teachers could also report students who also happen to have concurrent histories
reduced efficacy beliefs over time. of low achievement.
6372Journal
Journal
of of DeafStudies
Deaf Studiesand
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education 17:3 June 2012

To better understand the role of linguistic diversity Initially, the goal of this study was to capture a broad
in teacher efficacy beliefs, it is also beneficial to look at picture of teachers’ perceptions of their teaching effi-
research on regular education teachers who work with cacy when working with deaf students. A conceptual-
English language learners. In a study of elementary ization and measure of teachers’ sense of efficacy was
teachers working with students of varying language used that allows for a closer look at the three dimen-
backgrounds, the researchers posit that students’ sions of efficacy and how those may be manifested in
language backgrounds ultimately play a significant role the deaf education teacher’s perceptions: student
in teachers’ efficacy perceptions (Tasan, 2001). The engagement, instructional practice, and classroom
results of this study found that the teachers reported management. A scale of collective efficacy measured
the highest efficacy beliefs with English using students, teachers’ beliefs about the school setting as a contextual
then the non-English using students, and finally the variable of interest. Regression analyses allowed for an

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

nonstandard English using students. In special educa- investigation into what individual and contextual
tion settings where teachers work with students with variables predicted teachers’ sense of efficacy in deaf
disabilities, teachers reported feeling least efficacious education settings.
when working with those students who were culturally Specific research questions to be answered are
and linguistically diverse (Carlson, Brauen, Klein, below:
Schroll, & Willig, 2002). From these findings, it can
1. What is teachers’ sense of efficacy in deaf
be seen that the variation in students’ language back-
education settings?
grounds plays a role in teacher beliefs of whether or not
2. How do individual-level factors (teacher
their teaching makes a difference in student learning.
experience, time spent working directly with
In an examination of how language influences teach-
deaf students, hearing status, and ASL profi-
ers’ perceptions of their efficacy, it is important to also
ciency level) interact with teachers’ sense of
consider the teachers’ proficiency of the language being
efficacy in deaf education settings?
used in the setting. In a study of efficacy beliefs in
3. How do school level factors (perceived collec-
teachers working with English language learners with
tive efficacy, program enrollment, and language
disabilities, Paneque and Barbetta (2006) found that the
used in the setting) interact with teachers’ sense
most statistically significant predictor of efficacy beliefs
of efficacy in deaf education settings?
was the teacher’s proficiency in the native language of
4. What significant individual and/or school-level
the students. Other studies in English language learning
factors predict teachers’ sense of efficacy in deaf
settings where the teachers are not native users of
education settings?
English have found that as the teacher’s English
language proficiency increases, the teachers’ perceived
efficacy for motivating students and designing instruc- Method
tion increases (Chacón, 2005). These studies show that
Recruitment
the teachers’ proficiency in the language used by their
students and the language being taught interact with This project was a quantitative analysis of participant
teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Despite the paucity of studies responses using an online survey instrument. The goal
about the efficacy beliefs of teachers who work with deaf was to recruit participants from a wide range of
students and the influence of language in those settings, academic settings. To that aim, recruitment for this
it can be inferred from the literature on how language national survey of deaf education teachers occurred
interacts with teachers’ efficacy beliefs in varying through several different channels. Participants were
educational settings that language does matter. recruited through researchers’ personal contacts in
deaf education settings, national and state deaf educa-
Aims of This Study
tion email listservs, and targeted contacts to larger
This study took an explorative approach to investigat- school settings representative of a range of approaches
ing teachers’ sense of efficacy in deaf education. such as oral-only programs, mainstream programs,
 National
NationalPerspective
Perspectiveonon
Teachers’ Efficacy
Teachers’ Beliefs
Efficacy Beliefs3737

and stand-alone schools for the deaf. This multipronged This scale asks teachers to respond to a variety of ques-
approach resulted in representation from a broad range tions about beliefs of teaching, such as, ‘‘How much can
of educational settings that serve deaf students. All invi- you do to foster student creativity?’’ The available
tations included a request to share the invitation with responses about how much teachers feel that they are
colleagues in the field of deaf education and, through able to do are on a Likert scale that allows responses
a snowball effect, resulted in nearly 300 respondents. from nothing, some influence, or a great deal. The TSES
There is not available data on the number of teachers in has good internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alphas from
the nation who work with deaf students, which does not 0.81 to 0.86 (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
allow for a determination of what percentage of the true The third section of the survey utilizes the short
population is captured in this study. However, compa- version of the Collective Efficacy Scale (CE-Scale), as
rable national studies collecting data from deaf educa- developed by Goddard (2002a, 2002b). This instru-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

tion teachers have similar sample sizes (n 5 314; 391) ment measures collective efficacy beliefs held by
(Cawthon, 2009; Cawthon & Wurtz, 2008). The teachers about their educational setting. This scale
suggested rule of 15 responses per predictor in multiple asks teachers to respond to a variety of questions about
regression analyses to allow for the generalizability of teacher attitudes or beliefs in their educational setting,
findings (Stevens, 2009) shows our sample size (n 5 such as, ‘‘Teachers in this school believe that every
296) to be more than sufficient. child can learn.’’ The responses are on a Likert scale
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The CE-Scale
Instruments. The first section of the survey collected has strong validity and internal reliability, with a Cron-
demographic data of the participants and the educational bach’s alpha of .94 (Goddard 2002a, 2002b).
setting, asking teachers to consider their experiences
when working with deaf students in particular. The Participant demographics. The data set consists of 296
participant demographic characteristics collected include participants who completed the full survey and were
position, training background, years of experience teach- teachers or administrators who worked directly with at
ing, time spent working directly with deaf students, hear- least one deaf student in the academic year of 2009–
ing status, and proficiency in American Sign Language, 2010. The majority of our respondents spent the
referring to the Sign Communication or Language entire week working directly with at least one deaf stu-
Proficiency Interview levels of proficiency (SCPI/SLPI, dent, with 60.4% of respondents stating that they
Caccamise & Newell, 1995). The school setting charac- worked more than 26 hr a week directly with deaf
teristics collected include program enrollment of deaf students. A small number (6.7%) of respondents stated
students, language used, and size of program. that they worked directly with deaf students only 1 to 5
The second section of the survey utilized the Teach- hr a week. Survey participants worked in a variety of
ers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), as developed by roles in the instructional setting: from high school to
Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) to assess both teacher early childhood, special education, content areas, admin-
competence and task demands in specific teaching istration, and as itinerant teachers. The majority of
contexts. This 24 item TSES measures three subscales participants, 46%, had more than 10 years of teaching
of teacher efficacy beliefs: efficacy in student engage- experience with students who are deaf, whereas 20.5%
ment, efficacy in instructional strategies, and efficacy in had from more than 5 to 10 years of experience, 25.2%
classroom management. Factor analyses show high reli- had more than 1 to 5 years of experience, and 8.4% had
abilities for those subscales (engagement, instruction, a year or less of experience. The majority of respondents
and management) ranging from 0.72 to 0.86, offering were hearing (68.5%), and 31.5% were deaf or hard of
strong reliability for those three components of teachers’ hearing.
efficacy beliefs. Second-order factor analyses also show Over 85% of respondents received formal training
high reliability, with factor loadings from 0.74 to 0.84, in deaf education. Participants were almost equally
allowing us to use this scale to measure the underlying divided on whether or not they had received formal
construct of efficacy as well as the subscales of efficacy. training in bilingual ASL/English education, with
8374Journal
Journal
of of DeafStudies
Deaf Studiesand
andDeaf
DeafEducation
Education 17:3 June 2012

51.7% of the respondents having none and 48% with in Table 1, indicating satisfactory reliability when used
some level of formal training. To collect information with this population. Deaf education teachers in this
on language proficiency, teachers were asked to report sample reported efficacy beliefs on the high end of
their level of proficiency with ASL, referring to Sign the scale, with an overall mean of 7.41, measured on
Communication or Language Proficiency Interview a scale from 1 to 9. Teachers’ reported efficacy scores
scores (SCPI/SLPI, Caccamise & Newell, 1995) when were further broken down into the subscales of class-
available. The majority of respondents reported ASL room management, instructional strategies, and student
proficiency levels (97.6%), with 36.1% of the partic- engagement, as shown below in Table 1. We are exam-
ipants reporting superior levels, 34.7% advanced, ining both the overall teachers’ sense of efficacy score as
13.4% intermediate, 7.9% survival, 4.5% novice, well as the subscale scores, as previous factor analyses
and 3.4% no functional skills. show both the first-order factors of these subscales

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

(management, instruction, and engagement) and sec-
Educational setting. The 296 study participants worked ond-order factor of the underlying construct of teacher
in an extensive variety of educational settings, including efficacy to be reliable (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
residential schools for the deaf, oral programs, and A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)
mainstream programs. Over 80 different schools and was conducted as an overall test of differences to evalu-
programs were represented in the respondents of this ate whether deaf education teachers had different effi-
survey. Respondents worked in educational settings cacy beliefs in each of the subscales. Mauchly’s test
serving a wide-ranging numerical range of deaf stu- indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been
dents: from 1 to 5 to more than 400 students in the violated, v2 (2) 5 6.20, p , .05, therefore multivariate
school or program. The largest number of the respond- tests are reported (e 5 .98). The results show that
ents, 26.6%, worked in settings that had more than 300 teachers’ efficacy beliefs are significantly different among
deaf students enrolled. Smaller programs were also the subscales, V 5 .34, F2, 294 5 75.59, p , .001.
represented well in this sample, with 23.6% of respond- Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction
ents working in settings with 1 to 30 deaf students were conducted to examine differences among the
enrolled. American Sign Language only was used by subscales. The results indicated that within this study
43.3% of the respondents in instructional settings with sample, the mean sense of efficacy in instructional
deaf students, whereas 41.9% used mixed methods strategies was higher than the mean sense of efficacy
including, but not limited to, ASL, signed communica- in classroom management (7.63 vs. 7.41) and student
tion, signed and oral communication together, oral engagement (7.63 vs. 7.14), which were statistically
communication, and signed language interpreters. A significant (p , .001). The mean sense of efficacy in
smaller percentage, 13.8%, used oral methods only, classroom management was also higher than the mean
and 1% only used a sign language interpreter. sense of efficacy in student engagement (7.46 vs. 7.41),
which was statistically significant (p , .001).
Results
Relationship of Teacher Characteristics with Efficacy
Deaf Education Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Beliefs

Internal consistency estimates of reliabilities were com- Correlation coefficients were computed between the
puted for the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale, shown overall TSES score, TSES subscale scores, and the
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of teachers’ sense of efficacy and subscales
Mean Standard deviation Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
TSES classroom management 7.46 1.27 0.94
TSES instructional strategies 7.63 1.09 0.93
TSES student engagement 7.14 1.16 0.91
TSES overall 7.41 1.09 0.97
Note. N5 296.
 National
NationalPerspective
Perspectiveonon
Teachers’ Efficacy
Teachers’ Beliefs
Efficacy Beliefs3759

individual-level variables of interest in this study, as years of experience had a noticeable effect on teachers’
shown in Table 2. The results of the correlational efficacy beliefs, with the most experienced teachers
matrix presented show that teacher experience had reporting significantly higher efficacy beliefs than the
the only significant relationships with teachers’ overall novice teachers. A line graph is depicted in Figure 1
sense of efficacy. Further breaking down of teachers’ that shows the relationship between years of experience
sense of efficacy into subscales of student engagement, and efficacy beliefs in deaf education teachers.
instructional strategies, and classroom management
shows continued significant relationships with years Relationship of School Setting Characteristics with
of experience. A small significant relationship was Efficacy Beliefs
found between hearing status of the teachers and
Correlation coefficients were computed between the
teachers’ sense of efficacy in instructional strategies,
overall TSES score, TSES subscale scores, and the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

which revealed that hearing teachers were more likely
school-level variables of interest in this study, as shown
than deaf teachers to report a stronger sense of efficacy
in Table 3. The results of the correlational matrix
in instructional strategies.
presented in Table 3 show that teachers’ perceived
Teachers’ sense of efficacy was not significantly
collective efficacy of the school setting had the only
associated with the following teacher demographic var-
significant relationships with teachers’ overall sense of
iables: time spent working directly with deaf students,
efficacy. Further breaking down of teachers’ sense of
hearing status, or ASL proficiency level.
efficacy into subscales of student engagement, instruc-
To take a closer look at the relationship of teacher
tional strategies, and classroom management shows
experience with teachers’ sense of efficacy, a one-way
continued significant relationship with teachers’
independent analysis of variance was conducted. This
perceived collective efficacy of the school setting.
ANOVA allowed for an examination of the difference
Teachers’ sense of efficacy was not significantly
in teachers’ sense of efficacy scores among groups of
associated with the following school-level variables:
teachers who vary in years of experience: first year
program enrollment or language used in the setting.
teachers (1 or less), novice teachers (more than 1 to
5), experienced (more than 5 to 10), and most experi-
Predictors of Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy
enced (more than 10). Results showed that there was
a significant main effect of teacher experience on levels A multiple regression was conducted to predict teach-
of teachers’ efficacy beliefs, F3, 292 5 2.73, p , .05. ers’ overall sense of efficacy scores from individual-
The assumption of homogeneity of variance was tested level and school-level characteristics that showed
using Levene’s test, which showed no violation. Post significant relationships with teachers’ overall sense
hoc tests were conducted to compare all the groups, of efficacy. The regression was conducted in two steps:
using the Bonferroni correction to control for the first of which were a block of the individual-level
family-wise error rate. The only significant difference predictors and the second block the school-level
between groups of teachers among years of experience predictor of teachers’ sense of efficacy, and the results
was found between more experienced teachers and nov- are shown in Table 4.
ice teachers (mean difference 5 .39, 95% confidence The individual-level predictor of interest in this
interval 5 .77, .02, p , .05). This indicates that teacher analysis is teachers’ years of experience, categorized

Table 2 Correlations between TSES scores and individual-level variables

Time w/deaf students Years of teaching experience Hearing status ASL proficiency level
Overall TSES .11 .19** .11 .08
Student engagement .08 .15** .09 .07
Instructional strategies .11 .19** .15* .08
Classroom management .11 .19** .08 .08
Note. N 5 296. Significant correlations (two-tailed): *p , .05, **p , .01.
376 Journal
10 JournalofofDeaf
DeafStudies
Studies and
and Deaf
Deaf Education 17:3 June 2012

variable of perceived collective efficacy predicted teach-

ers’ sense of efficacy above and beyond participant
demographic characteristics. Perceived collective efficacy
accounted for a significant proportion of the variance
of teachers’ sense of efficacy scores, R2 change 5 .07,
F1, 288 5 22.43, p , .001. Perceived collective efficacy
independently significantly predicted teachers’ sense
of efficacy scores, p , .001. These results indicate that
as perceived collective efficacy increases, teachers’
sense of efficacy increases. More precisely, standard-
Figure 1 The relationship between teachers’ sense of effi- ized b of .27 for collective efficacy indicates that for
cacy and years of experience.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

each standard deviation increase in collective efficacy
in this study as first year teachers (1 year or less), (0.61), teachers’ sense of efficacy increases by .27 stan-
novice teachers (more than 1 year to 5 years), experi- dard deviations. The standard deviation of teachers’
enced teachers (more than 5 years to 10 years), and sense of efficacy scores is .98 and so this constitutes
more experienced teachers (10 years and more). As a change of .26 (0.27 3 0.98). Therefore, if collective
teacher experience is a categorical variable in this efficacy increases by 0.61, teachers’ sense of efficacy
study, this variable was dummy coded to allow for can be expected to increase by 0.26. This interpreta-
the inclusion of teacher experience in a multiple tion is true only if the effect of teachers’ experience is
regression analysis. The comparison group was first held constant. Results of these multiple regressions are
year teachers with 1 year of experience or less, as using shown in Table 4.
this group as a reference group allows for an exami-
nation of how teachers’ efficacy beliefs are influenced
Discussion
by their years of experience once they move past the
first year of teaching. This investigation aimed to take a closer look at deaf
The beta values in this first regression block repre- education teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about teaching
sent the shift in teachers’ sense of efficacy scores from and the potential influence they have on student learn-
first year teachers, compared with teachers who are ing, using the conceptual framework that self-efficacy
novice, experienced, or more experienced. No group offers. Despite significant relationships between teacher
of teachers differed significantly from the baseline of experience and teachers’ sense of efficacy, our results
first year teachers. Level of experience did not account show that the contextual variable of teachers’ perceived
for a significant amount of the variability of teachers’ collective efficacy of the educational setting may be the
sense of efficacy scores, R2 5 .026, F3, 289 5 2.62, p . best predictor of teachers’ efficacy beliefs, above and
.05, as shown in Table 4. These findings indicate that beyond any individual characteristics of the teachers.
only 2.6% of the variance in teachers’ sense of efficacy Generally, teachers who work with deaf students
can be explained by teacher experience. report overarching efficacy beliefs on the higher end of
The second step of the multiple regression analysis the scale, with an average score of 7.41 out of 9. This
was conducted to evaluate whether the school setting scale also captures the three dimensions of teachers’

Table 3 Correlations between TSES scores and school-level variables

Program enrollment Perceived collective efficacy Language used in classroom
Overall TSES 2.01 .24** .06
Student engagement .03 .24** .05
Instructional strategies .02 .22** .09
Classroom management 2.07 .19** .03
Note. N 5 296. Significant correlations (two-tailed): **p , .01.
 National
National Perspective
Perspective on
onTeachers’
Teachers’Efficacy
EfficacyBeliefs
Beliefs 377
11

Table 4 Multiple regression results

B SE B b
Step 1
Constant 7.33 .20
First year versus novice (11 to 5 years) 2.11 .23 2.05
First year versus experienced (51 to 10 years) .11 .23 .05
First year versus most experienced (101 years) .28 .22 .14
Step 2
Constant 5.51 .43
First year versus novice (11 to 5 years) 2.06 .23 .03
First year versus experienced (51 to 10 years) .14 .23 .06
First year versus most experienced (101 years) .28 .21 .14
Collective efficacy .43 .09 .27***

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

Note. R2 5 .026 for Step 1 (p . .05), nR2 5 .07 for Step 2 (p , .001). ***p , .001.

efficacy beliefs in instructional strategies, classroom when taking in consideration the highly diverse
management, and student engagement that ‘‘represent population of deaf students. Deaf students vary greatly
the richness of teachers’ work lives and the require- in language use and proficiency and have increased
ments of good teaching’’ (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, probability of additional disabilities. The latest demo-
2001, p. 801). Including these dimensions of teachers’ graphic data available from the Gallaudet Research
efficacy beliefs allows for an examination of the complex Institute shows that 39% of deaf students have addi-
dynamics involved in teaching in a variety of educa- tional disabilities, which is yet another component that
tional settings, and how teacher attitudes and beliefs needs to be considered when looking at teachers’
may vary across those dimensions. The teachers in this relationship with their deaf students (Gallaudet
sample had the lowest efficacy beliefs in the area of Research Institute, 2011). Yet, it has been proposed
student engagement, and the highest efficacy beliefs in that student engagement is a more complex, high-level
instructional strategies and classroom management. task in teaching environments, where greater focus is
To explore how deaf education teachers’ efficacy often placed on classroom management and instruc-
beliefs may differ from teachers working in other set- tional strategies, most namely for the novice teachers
tings, we will refer to the results from the develop- (Meister & Melnick, 2003; Pigge & Marso, 1997;
ment and validation of this Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). This could suggest
Scale used in a sample of 410 teachers in Ohio that teachers working with deaf students are dealing
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The findings from with extra challenges that may interfere with oppor-
this study found that teachers reported the highest tunities for teachers to attend to the more complex
efficacy beliefs in the dimensions of student engage- task of engaging with their students.
ment and instructional strategies and the lowest effi- If deaf education teachers report higher efficacy
cacy beliefs in classroom management. The teachers in beliefs in instructional strategies and classroom man-
the Ohio sample and our sample both reveal high agement than the teacher who works in general
efficacy beliefs in the dimension of instructional strat- education settings, this supports previous findings that
egies but differ when looking at student engagement deaf education training programs place greater
and classroom management. The finding that deaf ed- emphasis on the areas of classroom management, uti-
ucation teachers in our sample reveal differences in lizing external sanctions and reinforcements in highly
efficacy beliefs when compared with teachers working structured environments (Teller & Harney, 2005). Pre-
in general education settings strengthen the rationale vious studies on teacher beliefs and attitudes in deaf
for examining how beliefs and attitudes in the teacher education settings revealed that teachers are more
may present differently in deaf education settings. likely to view students as subordinates, which may
It is possible that deaf education teachers face be reinforcing the perceived need for increased class-
different challenges in the area of student engagement room management in instructional settings and
378 Journal
12 JournalofofDeaf
DeafStudies
Studies and
and Deaf
Deaf Education 17:3 June 2012

decreasing the value of building relationships with efficacy. The most significant predictor of teachers’
students (Marlatt, 2002). Putting all the above findings sense of efficacy in deaf education was teachers’ per-
together, it appears that deaf education teacher train- ceived collective efficacy of the educational setting. In
ing and instructional settings may prioritize instruc- regression analyses, results show a significant impact of
tional strategies and classroom management over as much as 27% of a standard deviation improvement in
student engagement. teachers’ sense of efficacy with a one unit increase in
collective teacher efficacy. Despite a considerable
amount of unexplained variability in teachers’ efficacy
Years of Experience
beliefs, our results show that the teacher’s beliefs of the
Analyses of teacher characteristics found that deaf ed- collective ability of the educational setting to make an
ucation teachers with more than 10 years of teaching impact on student outcomes significantly influences

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

experience had significantly higher efficacy beliefs beliefs of their individual ability to make a difference
when compared with teachers who had more than 1 in student outcomes. This finding is supported by pre-
to 5 years of experience. This result aligns with vious work that indicates that novice teachers’ drop in
previous work done in Spain (de la Torre Cruz & efficacy beliefs is actually mediated by other contextual
Arias, 2007), Singapore (Yeo et al., 2008), America, variables such as the availability of school resources and
and Scotland (Campbell, 1996) revealing that more verbal persuasion, defined as support from administra-
experienced teachers report higher levels of efficacy. tors, colleagues, parents, and other community
Other studies show teachers’ efficacy beliefs to members (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007).
hold stable through time, however (Chacón, 2005;
T. Guskey, 1984; Pajares, 1992). Deaf education teach-
Sources of Efficacy Beliefs
ers’ efficacy beliefs did not significantly differ among
first year teachers or teachers with 6 or more years of To consider how teachers’ efficacy beliefs may be
experience, though, which leads us to consider that the influenced by the school climate, the sources of effi-
specific period of years two to five of teaching may find cacy beliefs will be addressed. It has been argued that
teachers’ efficacy beliefs fluctuating. the sources of individual and collective efficacy beliefs
The first 5 years of teaching have been said to be are actually similar (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy per-
critical periods of determining whether or not teachers ceptions are formed from four sources: mastery expe-
will continue in the profession, and this appears to be riences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and
a period of flux in our sample of teachers. National physiological and emotional states (Bandura, 1995).
statistics show that 33% of teachers leave the profession Bandura posited that mastery experiences are the most
within the first 3 years of teaching and 50% drop out effective way of creating a strong sense of efficacy,
within 5 years of teaching (Alliance for Excellent through ‘‘acquiring the cognitive, behavioral, and
Education, 2004). As self-efficacy beliefs are related self-regulatory tools for creating and executing appro-
with persistence, decision-making, and goal commit- priate courses of action to manage ever-changing life
ment, there could be a relationship between teacher circumstances’’ (1995, p. 3). Vicarious experiences
commitment and efficacy beliefs. Researchers who have come into play when successful actions, skills, and
examined the relationship of teacher commitment with attitudes are observed being utilized by social models
teachers’ efficacy beliefs find that those who leave teach- that are perceived as similar and as acting in similar
ing report lower efficacy beliefs than those who stay in contexts. Social persuasion also serves as an effective
the field (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982). We did not way to increase beliefs in one’s capabilities, and more
directly inquire about commitment to the profession specifically, increase the likelihood to exert greater
in our study, however, and cannot make that link here. effort and sustain it (Bandura, 1995). Finally, physio-
Despite the relationship of teachers’ experience logical and emotional states influence self-efficacy
with efficacy beliefs, teacher characteristics did not beliefs through the interpretation of physical status,
play a significant role in predicting teachers’ sense of stress, and emotional reactions.
 National
National Perspective
Perspective on
onTeachers’
Teachers’Efficacy
EfficacyBeliefs
Beliefs 379
13

It is likely that school climate has the power of Social persuasion, one of the sources of self-effi-
enabling or suppressing the experiences posited by cacy, also takes place through collaborative work that
Bandura as essential components of forming teachers’ can interact positively or negatively with teachers’
efficacy beliefs. When considering that collective efficacy beliefs. The emphasis on encouraging growth
efficacy perceptions are higher in school settings and new goals found in school settings where princi-
where teachers have greater ownership of school direc- pals use transformational leadership, a commitment to
tions in areas such as shared school goals, school-wide supporting growth and elevating the goals of organi-
decision making, and fit of plans with school needs, it zational members (Hipp, 1996; Hipp & Bredeson,
is possible that when the school climate allows for 1995), creates settings with more highly efficacious
greater decision-making power by teachers, greater teachers. The leadership styles of school administra-
opportunities for ongoing mastery opportunities and tors are a clearly critical aspect of social persuasion.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

experiences exist (Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, The school climate can also influence psychological
Hogaboam-Gray, & Gray, 2004). and emotional states, one of the sources of self-efficacy,
When looking at mastery experiences on the as evidence shows that teacher stress negatively influen-
collective level, the best proxy may actually be school ces teachers’ sense of efficacy (Brissie, Hoover-Dempsey,
achievement, as that is a school-level shared experi- & Bassler, 1988; Greenwood, Olejnik, & Parkay, 1990).
ence that can serve as an indicator of previous success. It is clear that school processes contribute significantly
This is a complicated outcome to consider in deaf to the four sources of efficacy beliefs ‘‘by influencing
education settings, as teacher perception of student teacher cognitions about mastery experiences, by pro-
achievement of their deaf students may vary across viding opportunities for vicarious experience, through
settings and contexts. In larger stand-alone programs, persuasion, and by protecting teachers from the dys-
achievement can be measured through test scores, functional effects of negative emotional states’’ (Ross
whereas in smaller programs where deaf students et al., 2004, p. 178).
consist only of one class, that achievement is more
difficult to measure. However, it is important to
Limitations
address the finding that achievement levels of a school
may have a reciprocal relationship with collective effi- Finally, it should be acknowledged that there are some
cacy beliefs (Bandura, 1993; Goddard & Goddard, limitations to this study that affect the strength of the
2001; Goddard et al., 2000; Ross et al., 2004). Yet, interpretations of these findings. One limitation that is
other interactional situations in school settings such immediately apparent is that the respondents in this
as collaboration and leadership can determine whether sample may not be fully representative of the national
or not teachers interpret prior school achievement as population of teachers working with deaf students, as
evidence of mastery. increasing numbers of deaf students are now served in
Vicarious experiences are another powerful source fully mainstreamed settings. The most recent informa-
of self-efficacy beliefs, as learning happens from other tion we have from the Gallaudet Research Institute
social models that are performing in similar contexts Annual Surveys show that 57.1% of deaf students
and facing similar challenges. Teachers’ sense of effi- are served in regular school settings with hearing
cacy is significantly associated with the likelihood of students (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2011).
collaborating with other teachers (Chester & Beaudin, However, a high proportion of the teachers in our
1996; Rosenholtz, 1989; Ross, 1992). Teachers’ effi- sample (60.4%) worked exclusively with deaf students,
cacy beliefs may be strengthened through engaging as opposed to the GRI sample, supporting the
in collaborative help seeking, problem solving, and in- proposal that these findings are indicative of the expe-
structional experimentation that occurs when schools rience of teachers who work primarily with deaf
expect, or enable, highly collaborative environments students. The sample in this study could also reveal
with more potential for learning from other social a possible self-selection bias, as this opt-in survey
models (Ross et al., 2004). could result in those teachers who were more
380 Journal
14 JournalofofDeaf
DeafStudies
Studies and
and Deaf
Deaf Education 17:3 June 2012

self-efficacious being more likely to participate and settings and placements, of which we were not able
should be considered as another potential limitation. to entirely capture in the study design. Emergent find-
Another limitation of this study is that we use ings show differences in teacher attitudes and student
ASL proficiency as a measure of the language profi- learning outcomes in mainstream versus separate set-
ciency of the teacher, whereas ASL is not used in all tings for deaf college students (Marschark et al., 2010;
educational settings serving deaf students. The partic- Marschark, Sapere, Convertino, & Pelz, 2008) but are
ipants in our sample were more likely to use ASL as inconclusive in what specific factors mediate the dif-
the language of instruction, or at least to some extent ferences in teacher attitudes and student outcomes in
in the educational setting, with a large number of our those settings. When determining what data to collect
respondents (59.1%) reporting the use of ASL in the for this study, the choice was made to move beyond
classroom, with 43.3% using ASL only. And again, a distinction between separate and mainstream set-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

the population surveyed in our study differs from tings which may not always be clear, in order to make
findings from the Gallaudet Research Institute that an attempt to capture factors that allow for a compar-
show 27.4% of deaf education settings in the nation ison across varying settings. We chose to examine the
reported only using sign language, and when asked number of deaf students enrolled in the setting, as
about ASL in particular, 14.4% reported that ASL more indicative of the idea of a ‘‘critical mass’’ of deaf
was used regularly in the school (2011). However, students that has been posited as a potential factor in
the majority of our respondents did report at least successful deaf education settings. Mainstream
some extent of proficiency with ASL, from novice to settings with 100 deaf students enrolled in a program
superior (96.6%), indicating that teachers working in may differ extensively from mainstream settings with
a variety of settings may actually be utilizing ASL at ten deaf students enrolled, and separate settings with
some point or another, perhaps for varying purposes 500 deaf students enrolled may also differ extensively
or contexts. The extremely high proportion of teach- from separate programs with 50 deaf students
ers reporting some level of proficiency validates the enrolled. However, since the number of deaf students
use of ASL proficiency as a variable of interest when enrolled did not have a significant relationship with
looking at communication and language use in the teachers’ sense of efficacy, it is suggested that future
educational setting with deaf students. studies attempt to take a closer look at the contextual
It is important to also address a potential limita- influences of the school setting.
tion that may be particularly salient in deaf education
research; that student characteristics were not cap-
Conclusions
tured in this work. The growing heterogeneity of deaf
students has been addressed through numerous sour- Research on teachers’ efficacy beliefs has been con-
ces and plays a significant role in the challenges faced ducted within an extensive range of teaching settings
by the deaf education teacher. Teachers’ efficacy and populations from English language learners in
beliefs have a relationship with student characteristics Venezuela, low-achieving students in Singapore, urban
such as achievement levels, language backgrounds, schools in the United States, and English language
language proficiencies, and co-occurring disabilities learners with disabilities in the United States. This
(e.g., Tasan, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). is the first study that uses teachers’ sense of efficacy
However, the literature is not clear on how precisely as a conceptual framework for examining teacher
those student characteristics interact with teacher attitudes and beliefs in deaf education. Teacher train-
beliefs about their efficacy. Future research could ing and development can be strengthened with better
consider examining the relationship of student understanding of what impacts teachers’ sense of
characteristics and teacher attitudes and beliefs in deaf efficacy in deaf education settings. Collective efficacy
education settings. is also another dimension that has been unexplored in
An additional limitation worthy of consideration is deaf education settings. The results showing collective
related to the extensive variations of deaf education efficacy beliefs of the school setting to play a significant
 National
National Perspective
Perspective on
onTeachers’
Teachers’Efficacy
EfficacyBeliefs
Beliefs 381
15

role in teacher beliefs support the importance of ad- Brissie, J., Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Bassler, O. (1988). Individ-
ministrator training and professional development ual, situational contributors to teacher burnout. Journal of
Educational Research, 82(2), 106–112.
across the board as opposed to a microlevel focus on Brown, P. M., & Paatsch, L. (2010). Beliefs, practices, and
the teacher. These findings on teacher efficacy beliefs expectations of oral teachers of the deaf. Deafness and Ed-
within deaf education allow for an examination of po- ucation International, 12(3), 135–148. doi: 10.1179/
146431510X12626982043840.
tential impacting factors of teacher effectiveness and
Caccamise, F., & Newell, W. (1995). Evaluating sign language
integration with the broader research base that already communication skills: The sign Communication Proficiency
exists on teachers’ self-efficacy. Interview (SCPI). In R. Myers (Ed.), Standards of care for
the delivery of mental health services to deaf and hard of
Conflict of Interest hearing persons (pp. 33–35). Silver Spring, MD: National
Association of the Deaf.
No conflicts of interest were reported. Campbell, J. (1996). A comparison of teacher efficacy for pre and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

in-service teachers in Scotland and America. Education, 177,
References 2–11.
Carlson, E., Brauen, M., Klein, S., Schroll, K., & Willig, S.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004). Tapping the potential: (2002). Study of personnel need in special education. Rockville,
Retaining and developing high quality new teachers. Washington, MD: Westat Research Corporation.
DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Cawthon, S. (2009). Professional development for teachers of
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and students who are deaf or hard of hearing: Facing the assess-
the instructional practices of special education teachers and ment challenge. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(1), 50–61.
consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, Cawthon, S. W., & Wurtz, K. A. (2008). Alternate assessment
86–95. doi: 10.1177/088840649401700203. use with students who are deaf or hard of hearing: An
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, exploratory mixed-methods analysis of portfolio, checklists,
L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the and out-of-level test formats. Journal of Deaf Studies and
school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority Deaf Education. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enn027.
schools [Report No. R-2007-LAUSD; ERIC Document Chacón, C. T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among En-
Reproduction No. 130 243]. Santa Monica, CA: Rand glish as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in
Corporation. Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3),
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ 257–272. doi: 0.1016/j.tate.2005.01.001.
sense of efficacy and student achievement. White Plains, NY: Chester, M. D., & Beaudin, B. Q. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newly
Longman. hired teachers in urban schools. American Educational Research
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of Journal, 33(1), 233–257. doi: 10.3102/00028312033001233.
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi: de la Torre Cruz, M. J., & Arias, P. F. C. (2007). Comparative
10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191. analysis of expectancies of efficacy in in-service and pro-
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: spective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13,
A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 451–458.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive devel- Gallaudet Research Institute (2011). Regional and national sum-
opment and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), mary report of data from the 2009–2010. Annual survey of
117–149. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3. deaf and hard of hearing children and youth. Washington,
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, DC: GRI, Gallaudet University.
NY: Cambridge University Press. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experi-
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. ence, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward implementation
New York, NY: W.H. Freeman. of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education,
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, 13, 451–458. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00045-5.
self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A con-
self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, struct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4),
41, 586–598. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586. 569–82. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.76.4.569.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. (1982). A comparison of
(1977). Federal Programmes supporting educational change. first-year, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego
Vol. VII factors affecting implementation and continuation development, and problem solving. Psychology in the
(Report No. R-1589/ 7-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: The Schools, 19, 558–562.
Rand Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Goddard, R. D. (2002a). Collective efficacy and school organiza-
No. 140 432). tion: A multilevel analysis of teacher influence in schools.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of self-efficacy on per- Theory and Research in Educational Administration, 1, 169–184.
formance in a cognitive task. Journal of Social Psychology, Goddard, R. D. (2002b). A theoretical and empirical analysis of
130, 353–363. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1990.9924591. the measurement of collective efficacy: The development of
382 Journal
16 JournalofofDeaf
DeafStudies
Studies and
and Deaf
Deaf Education 17:3 June 2012

a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 148(5),
62(1), 97–110. doi: 10.1177/0013164402062001007. 349–57. doi: 10.1353/aad.2004.0005.
Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis Marlatt, E. A. (2004b). Practical knowledge storage among pre-
of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in service, novice, and experienced educators of students who are
urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), deaf and hard-of-hearing. Exceptional Child, 70(2), 201–214.
807–818. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00032-4. Marschark, M., Lang, H. G., & Albertini, J. A. (2002). Educat-
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Col- ing deaf students: From research to practice. New York, NY:
lective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact Oxford University Press.
on student achievement. American Educational Research Marschark, M., Richardson, J. T., Sapere, P., & Sarchet, T.
Journal, 37(2), 479–507. doi: 10.3102/00028312037002479. (2010). Approaches to teaching in mainstream and separate
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Col- postsecondary classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf,
lective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical 155(4), 481–487.
evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Convertino, C., & Pelz, J. (2008).
33(3), pp. 3–13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033003003. Learning via direct and mediated instruction by deaf stu-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th dents. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(4),
Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 546–561. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enn014.
Greenwood, G. E., Olejnik, S. F., & Parkay, F. W. (1990). Rela- Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of
tionships between four teacher efficacy belief patterns and math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course
selected teachers characteristics. Journal of Research and enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Jour-
Development in Education, 23(2), 102–106. nal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60–70. doi: 10.1037//
Guskey, R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes 0022-0663.82.1.60.
toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Meijer, C. J. W., & Foster, S. F. (1988). The effect of teacher
Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69. doi: 10.1016/ self-efficacy on referral change. Journal of Special Education,
0742-051X(88)90025-X. 22, 378–385.
Guskey, T. (1984). The influence of change in instructional Meister, D. G., & Melnick, S. A. (2003). National new teacher
effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. study: Beginning teachers’ concerns. Action in Teacher Ed-
American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245–259. ucation, 24, 87–94. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2003.10463283.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in
of construct dimensions. American Educational Research teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs
Journal, 31(3), 627–643. in mathematics during the transition to junior high school.
Hipp, K. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Influence of principal leadership Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247–258.
behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Moore, W. P., & Esselman, M. E. (1992). Teacher efficacy, empow-
American Educational Research Association, April, New York, erment, and a focused instructional climate: Does student achieve-
NY. Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service ment benefit? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
ED396409. American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
Hipp, K., & Bredeson, P. (1995). Exploring connections be- CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED350252).
tween teacher efficacy and principals’ leadership behaviors. Pagliaro, C. M., & Kritzer, K. L. (2005). Discrete mathematics in
Journal of School Leadership, 5, 136–150. deaf education: A survey of teachers’ knowledge and use.
Hoy, W. K. (2001). The pupil control studies: A historical, the- American Annals of the Deaf, 150(3), 251–259. doi: 10.1353/
oretical, and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Admin- aad.2005.0033.
istration, 39(5), 424–441. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005812. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research:
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Re-
and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary search, 307–332. doi: 10.2307/1170741.
School Journal, 93, 356–372. Paneque, O. M., & Barbetta, P. M. (2006). A study of teacher
Lee, V., Dedick, R., & Smith, J. (1991). The effect of the social efficacy of special education teachers of English language
organization of schools on teachers’ efficacy and satisfac- learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1),
tion. Sociology of Education, 64, 190–208. 171–193. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2006.10162871.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and Pigge, F., & Marso, R. (1997). A seven-year longitudinal multi-
task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. factor assessment of teaching concerns development through
Luckner, J. L. (2006). Evidence-based practices with students preparation and early years of teaching. Teaching and Teacher
who are deaf. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28(1), 49. Education, 13, 225–235. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00014-5.
doi: 10.1177/15257401060280010801. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self--
Marlatt, E. A. (2002). Images of teacher, students, and the class- regulated learning components of classroom academic per-
room held by preservice and in-service educators of students formance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. doi:
who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and 10.1037//0022-0663.82.1.33.
Deaf Education, 7(4), 346–60. doi: 10.1093/deafed/7.4.346. Podell, D. M., & Soodak, L. C. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias
Marlatt, E. A. (2004a). Comparing practical knowledge storage in special education referrals. Journal of Educational Re-
of deaf and hearing teachers of students who are deaf or search, 86, 247–253. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1993.9941836.
 National
National Perspective
Perspective on
onTeachers’
Teachers’Efficacy
EfficacyBeliefs
Beliefs 383
17

Qi, S., & Mitchell, R. E. (2011). Large-scale academic achieve- Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford achievement test: National
ment testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: Past, norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-
present, and future. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 16(4), 1–18. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enr028. Education, 5(4), 337–348. doi: 10.1093/deafed/5.4.337.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organi- Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher self-
zation of schools. New York, NY: Longman. efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential
51–65. doi: 10.2307/1495395. antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experi-
Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher enced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6),
efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching 944–956. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003.
(Vol. 7, pp. 49–73). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Wilson, P., & Tan, G. C. I. (2004). Singapore teachers’ personal
Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Gray, P. (2004). Prior stu- and general efficacy for teaching primary social studies.
dent achievement, collaborative school processes, and col- International Research in Geographical and Environmental

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/17/3/367/543126 by guest on 30 March 2022

lective teacher efficacy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, Education, 13, 451–458. doi: 10.1080/10382040408668516.
3(3), 163–188. doi: 10.1080/15700760490503689. Wood, K. (1998). Undergraduates’ life stories in the Deaf edu-
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is ‘‘easy’’ and print is ‘‘tough’’: cation English literacy system: Revealing discursive identi-
The differential investment of mental effort in learning as ties with coherence resources. Dissertation Abstracts
a function of preconceptions and attitudes. Journal of Edu- International, 60(04), 1110. (UMI No. 9924379).
cational Psychology, 76, 647–658. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Murphy, P. K. (2001). Teaching educa-
Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on tional psychology to the implicit mind. In B. Torff, & R.
children’s perceived self-efficacy and achievement. Journal Sterberg (Eds.), Understanding and teaching the intuitive
of Educational Psychology, 74, 548–556. mind (pp. 145–185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1994). Teachers’ thinking about Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense
difficult-to-teach students. Journal of Educational Research, of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational
88, 44–51. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1994.9944833. Psychology, 82(1), 81–91. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.82.1.81.
Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’
school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teach- sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students.
ing & Teacher Education, 4(2), 171–187. doi: 10.1016/ Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137–148. doi: 10.1016/
0742-051X(88)90016-9. 0742-051X(90)90031-Y.
Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social Yeo, L. S., Ang, R. P., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., & Quek, C.
sciences. New York, NY: Routledge. L. (2008). Teacher efficacy in the context of low achieving
Tasan, A. P. (2001). Teacher efficacy and diversity: Implications for students. Current Psychological Research and Reviews, 27(3),
teacher training . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 192–204. doi: 10.1007/s12144-008-9034-x.
American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Re- Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differ-
trieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and
ED453201. giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Edu-
Teller, H., & Harney, J. (2005). Views from the field: Program cational Psychology, 82, 51–59.
directors’ perceptions of teacher education and the educa- Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992).
tion of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of
Annals of the Deaf, 150(5), 470–479. doi: 10.1353/ self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American
aad.2006.0011. Educational Research Journal, 29, 663–676.