The proposed paper considers the relationships between self-efficacy of teachers and the socioeconomic status of their students across nine countries, including Australia, Finland, Latvia, Mexico, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Spain, and the United States of America. Researchers analyzed the data from 2013 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), teacher questionnaire in this quantitative study.

The objective of this paper is to respond to the following research questions:

• How do teachers describe their efficacy in classroom management, instruction, and student engagement across nine countries?
• How do teachers of students with higher and lower socioeconomic status compare in terms of their self-efficacy in classroom management, instruction, and student engagement?
• How do teachers of students with higher and lower socioeconomic status compare in their self-efficacy of teaching mathematics?

As described by Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is the “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3).  Bandura (1997) explained that the expectations of self-efficacy are not static, but rather responsive to the amount of effort expended and time sustained in the face of failures and obstacles.  Bandura (2006) attempted to operational teachers’ self-efficacy to reflect beliefs about the capability they will espouse.  The shift in phrasing considered what teachers can do rather than what they will do.  Bandura (2006) further suggested that self-efficacy measures were not reflective of the whole teacher, but instead, were context specific.  Looking at self-efficacy as a domain functioning in contrast to global functioning allows teachers to identify their perceived efficacy related to accomplishing particular tasks in contrast to generalized abilities of their teaching. 

Schwarzer and Hallum (2008) further explored the difference self-efficacy makes in how people think, feel and act.  Lower reports of self-efficacy are associated with helplessness, anxiety, and depression, as well as decreased self-esteem and increased pessimism.  Self-efficacy levels can promote or interfere with motivation. According to Schwarzer and Hallum (2008) self-efficacy and action are connected to motivation. A person with a high self-efficacy will continue to invest effort, resulting in more action.  This cycle continues and can result in a strong predictive value in actual behavior.

In educational literature, researchers are finding connections between teachers’ self-efficacy and the influence of teaching behaviors on students’ motivation and achievement (Nurlu, 2015; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).  Teachers with lower self-efficacy tend to experience greater challenges in teaching, greater amounts of job-related stress (Betoret, 2006), and reduced levels of job satisfaction (Klassen, Usher, and Bong, 2008).  In order to gain deeper insight into teacher self-efficacy, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) developed a measure to examine multiple domains of perceived efficacy.  This tool supported research by Bandura (1997, 2006) that considered the context-bound efficacy as opposed to the more global perceptions of teachers. Nurlu (2015) reported findings that suggested teachers who expressed higher efficacy in their mathematics instruction also demonstrated other unique characteristics in their practice, in contrast to teachers who had reported a lower self-efficacy.  These characteristics included increased effort and persistence when working with students, building relationships, and taking risks with innovative methods and materials in their instructional practice. 

Workplace environments may influence self-efficacy through the interactions and persuasion of supervisors (Bandura, 1997). For teachers, self-efficacy might been shaped by favorable experiences in their environment including meaningful relationships with colleagues, as well as supportive leadership.  Positive relationships with students and parents, as well as interactions with highly effective colleagues may also influence self-efficacy. (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Self-efficacy is not a static measurement and it shifts and changes with experiences, interactions, and fluctuates over the course of time. 

Bandura, A. (1982). Self Efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. In M. Rosenberg & H. Kaplan (Eds.), Social psychology of the self-concept (pp.38-50). Illinois: Harlan Davidson. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on psychological science, 1(2), 164-180. Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self‐efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among secondary school teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology, 26(4), 519-539. Gordon, C. (1982). Self-Conceptions: Configurations of content structure. In M. Rosenberg & H. Kaplan (Eds.), Social psychology of the self-concept (pp.13-24). Illinois: Harlan Davidson.Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741. Nurlu, Ö. (2015). Investigation of Teachers' Mathematics Teaching Self-Efficacy. International Electronic Journal Of Elementary Education, 8(1), 21-40. Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self‐efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied Psychology, 57(s1), 152-171. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and teacher education, 26(4), 1059-1069. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher education, 17(7), 783-805. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.