Objective

Across Europe, teacher shortages occur in both primary and secondary education, affecting the quality of students’ learning environment with class cancellations, combined classes, and overloaded teachers, leading to reduced learning opportunities for students. National policies go into the direction of increasing the influx of students into teacher education programmes, improving their study success and increasing retention rates of in-service teachers. Improving the status of the teaching profession and enhancing the reputation of teacher education are two policy lines often mentioned. Within these policy lines, opportunities for development of both novice and experienced teachers are emphasized, including a quality initial teacher education programme, an induction programme in school, and ample opportunities to continue professional development when working in school. But how is this teacher learning organized in European countries and does this relate to teaching quality? The current study sought to contribute to insights into the value of learning opportunities of teachers in primary and secondary education.

Framework

Teaching quality is a multifaceted concept and has been measured in direct (e.g. class observation by supervisors or researchers) and indirect ways (e.g. student evaluations or student achievement). Klieme, Pauli and Reusser (2009) distinguish three aspects of teaching quality focusing on classroom instruction. First, cognitive activation, which refers to the encouragement of students’ cognitive engagement by helping students to apply challenge tasks, explore theoretical conceptions and integrate knowledge. Second, classroom management, which refers to classroom rules and procedures, coping with disruptions, and supporting smooth transitions, which are crucial for students’ learning gains. Third, classroom climate support, which relates to various aspects of the teacher-student relationship. In order to enhance a positive climate, teachers should provide extra help when needed, respect students’ questions and care about students.

Teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy is another way of indirectly measuring teaching quality as it is strongly related to teachers’ teaching quality, their willingness to innovate their teaching and their job satisfaction as well as to student outcomes such as achievement, motivation and students’ own sense of efficacy (Burić & Kim, 2021; Hettinger et al. 2021; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001;Yada et al., 2022). Teachers’ self-efficacy refers to their beliefs in their ability to make a difference in student learning and to get through even to students who are difficult or unmotivated (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Teachers with a higher sense of efficacy exhibit greater enthusiasm for teaching, have greater commitment to teaching and are more likely to stay in teaching (Pfitzner-Eden, 2016; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Yet teachers may not feel efficacious equally across all areas. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) distinguished similar aspects of teacher self-efficacy as mentioned above: teachers’ feeling of self-efficacy with respect to 1) instructional strategies –similar to cognitive activation, 2) classroom management and 3) student engagement – similar to classroom climate support. These three elements of teachers’ self-efficacy has been confirmed in later studies (e.g, Duffin et al. 2012).

From the studies mentioned above teachers’ self-efficacy appears to be a crucial concept, not only to be included in research about teaching quality, but also as objective of teachers’ learning activities. The current study re-analyses the 2018 data from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) project of the OECD (2020) in order to contribute to insights into the value of learning opportunities of teachers in primary and secondary education in 24 EU countries. Four research question directed this study:

1. How are characteristics of initial teacher education related to teachers’ self-efficacy?
2. How is teachers’ induction related to their self-efficacy?
3. How are teachers’ professional development activities related to their self-efficacy?
4. How is teachers’ workplace learning related to their self-efficacy?

Methods The procedure of the development and administration of the TALIS 2018 questionnaire in the Netherlands and Flanders is reported in a technical report (OECD, 2019). This report also describes how the data collection has been monitored and which quality checks have been carried out. All documents relevant for information about TALIS 2018 (the questionnaires itself, the technical report on the data collection, the analysis plan containing the variables and possible analyses, and the conceptual framework underlying the questionnaire) can be accessed via the OECD website (https://www.oecd.org/ education/talis/talis-2018-data.htm). The questionnaire has been completed in 24 EU countries by 19846 teachers from 1411 primary schools in 7 EU countries and 77285 teachers from 4404 secondary schools. Teachers’ self-efficacy have been measured with items related to instruction (asking students questions, using variety of instruction and assessment strategies), classroom management (dealing with discipline problems, following class rules), and student engagement (motivating students, making them think critically). Four aspects of teacher professional development have been measured related to 1) initial teacher education (the extent to which teachers believe they are prepared for basic and advanced teaching tasks, and certificate they received), 2) induction programmes in school (formal and informal), 3) professional development (PD) activities during their in-service period (nature and content of PD activities, PD support, PD impact, PD needs and PD barriers) and 4) workplace learning in school (feedback from colleagues, collaborative teaching and collaborative learning). Multilevel regression analyses have been performed on each of the three self-efficacy scales with predictors related to the four aspects of teacher learning (initial teacher education, induction, professional development activities and workplace learning) at teacher, school and country level. Covariates were added including teachers’ age, teaching experience and motivation for teaching (teaching as social and personal value, social recognition of teaching, teaching as first choice of profession), their work load (of instruction in class, classroom management and activities outside class), their well-being, and school satisfaction variables such a safe learning and working climate, participation in decision making and a collaborative school climate.

Findings Variance components analyses show that countries, schools and teachers significantly differ in scores on all three aspects of teachers’ self-efficacy, with about 10% explained variance at the country level, 3% explained variance at the school level, and 87% explained variance at the teacher level. We expect to find the most strongest predictors at the teacher level, and related to professional development activities during teachers’ in-service teaching. Differences between countries with respect to these relationships might be observed with countries with stronger relationships between professional development activities and teachers’ self-efficacy and other countries with stronger relationships of both initial teacher education and induction programmes with teachers’ self-efficacy. Preliminary analyses of a part of the data set also showed that some covariates are strongly connected to teachers’ self-efficacy including teachers’ well-being in school, their work load of both instruction in class and classroom management, their motivation for teaching, and their feelings of a safe learning and working climate in school. The final analyses will lead to conclusion about the importance of initial teacher education, induction into the profession, professional development activities during the teaching career and workplace learning opportunities for teacher self-efficacy.

References Burić, I., & Kim, L. E. (2021). Job satisfaction predicts teacher self-efficacy and the association is invariant: Examinations using TALIS 2018 data and longitudinal Croatian data. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 103406. Duffin, L. C., French, B. F., & Patrick, H. (2012). The Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale: Confirming the factor structure with beginning pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 827-834. Hettinger, K., Lazarides, R., Rubach, C., & Schiefele, U. (2021). Teacher classroom management self-efficacy: Longitudinal relations to perceived teaching behaviors and student enjoyment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 103, 103349. OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 Technical Report. Parijs: OECD Publishing. Retrieved on 24 July 2021 from https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/talis-2018-data.htm. OECD. (2020). Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators. Parijs: OECD Publishing. Retrieved on 5 August 2021 from https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en. Pfitzner-Eden, F. (2016). I feel less confident so I quit? Do true changes in teacher self-efficacy predict changes in preservice teachers' intention to quit their teaching degree? Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 240-255. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248. Yada, A., Leskinen, M., Savolainen, H., & Schwab, S. (2022). Meta-analysis of the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes toward inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 103521.