1. Introduction

Previous research has paid much attention to the ‘instructional quality’ that promotes student learning outcomes (e.g., Nilsen & Gustafsson, 2016; Scherer, Nilsen, & Jansen, 2016). The concept of instructional quality is often used to evaluate and reflect the current levels and key features of teaching practices. In addition to instructional quality, teachers’ self-efficacy is another important factor to present their teaching effectiveness. In contrast with instructional quality that focuses on teachers’ actual teaching behaviours, self-efficacy concerns teachers’ beliefs on their teaching competence.

In the international large-scale assessments, such as Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), Singapore has been one of the highest scored countries. However, there is no overview of how its instructional quality is from the personal perspective, which means that the discrepancy among Singapore teachers in instructional quality is not explicit. Concerning the high correlations between instructional quality and self-efficacy, we employed teacher perspectives on instructional quality and self-efficacy as two criteria to clarify the potential profiles of their teaching conditions and corresponding subpopulations. Two research questions directed our study:
Q1: What types of profiles exist with regards to instructional quality and self-efficacy of Singapore teachers?
Q2: How the identified profiles associate with teachers’ background factors, teacher collaboration, and job satisfaction?

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Conceptualising instructional quality and teachers’ self-efficacy

As noted previously, the three-generic dimensional framework (Klieme et al., 2009) has been used to capture instructional quality in plenty of studies (e.g., Scherer et al., 2016). This framework consists of classroom management, cognitive activation and supportive climate. Besides, substantial studies applying international large-scale datasets from teacher self-reports (e.g., teacher questionnaire in TIMSS) have recognised clarity of instruction as an indicator of instructional quality.

Self-efficacy refers to individual’s beliefs about their capacities to accomplish the task with environmental demands. Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998) proposed three dimensions to compose of teachers’ self-efficacy: respectively motivational, instructional, and classroom management. As a belief-related variable, self-efficacy influences teachers’ goals, effort, persistence, job satisfaction, and other work performance.

2.2 Interaction between instructional quality and teachers’ self-efficacy in relation to teacher professional characteristics

A body of recent studies (e.g., Creemers & Kyriakides, 2015; Scheerens & Blömeke, 2016) found that teachers’ educational background is a possible predictor of instructional quality. Moreover, the level of teachers’ self-efficacy is found to be enhanced by increasing teaching experience (e.g., Al-Awidi & Alghazo, 2012). However, the inconsistent contributions of educational degree and teaching experience are discovered (Goe, 2007; Wayne & Youngs, 2003). In addition, Prior research has found strong and positive associations between teacher collaboration and teachers’ self-efficacy and their linkage to teaching practice (e.g., Chong & Kong, 2012).

2.3 Instructional quality and teachers’ self-efficacy and their associations with job satisfaction

A considerable amount of research on the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and their job satisfaction was conducted around the world (e.g., Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). For example, Yang Hansen, Radišić, Liu, and Glassow (2020) found positive correlations between teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction in four Nordic countries. Greater self-efficacy had stronger job satisfaction were also examined by Collie, Shapka, and Perry (2012) applying elementary and secondary school teachers data in Canada.

In general, although the above existing literature suggests the linkage between teachers' instructional quality and self-efficacy with their collaboration, job satisfaction and other background information, all the evidence is located on variable-centred perspectives. Considering that the difference of instructional quality among Singapore teachers was still not clear, our study first profiled the factors of instructional quality and self-efficacy of Singapore teachers, then linked them to teacher professional characteristics (i.e., teacher educational background, teaching experience, teacher collaboration) and job satisfaction.

3. Method 3.1 Participants The current study used the data from TALIS which was organised by OECD. A sample of 3262 secondary teachers from Singapore participated in TALIS 2018. There were 2091 females, accounting for 64.10%. 3.2 Measures 3.2.1 Teachers’ background information Teachers’ background information consists of teaching experience, gender and educational degree. In addition, teachers’ gender and educational degree were imported as observed variables. 3.2.2 Teachers’ instructional quality Instructional quality was assessed with 12 items, which were grouped into three factors, i.e., the clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, and classroom management. Teachers reported their frequency with each item, ranging from 1 (‘Never or almost never’) to 4 (‘Always’). 3.2.3 Teachers’ self-efficacy The TALIS employed 12 items to measure teachers’ self-efficacy. The scale contains three dimensions with four items of each one. The three dimensions were self-efficacy in classroom management, instruction, and student engagement respectively. Teachers reported their agreement with each item, ranging from 1 (‘Not at all’) to 4 (‘A lot’). 3.2.4 Teacher collaboration Teacher collaboration was investigated with two subscales, including exchange and co-ordination among teachers and professional collaboration in lessons among teachers with four items for each one. Teachers reported how often they performed with each item, ranging from 1 (‘Never’) to 6 (‘Once a week or more’). 3.2.5 Teachers’ job satisfaction There were two factors identified, namely job satisfaction with the work environment and the profession. Each of them had four items. Teachers reported to what extent they agree with each item, ranging from 1 (‘Strongly disagree’) to 4 (‘Strongly agree’). 3.3 Data analysis To clarify the potential profiles of instructional quality and teachers’ self-efficacy, LPA was employed and conducted with Mplus. Based on the identified profiles, ANOVA and Chi-square statistics tests were conducted to examine the occurring difference among the profiles with SPSS.

4. Results 4.1 Profile of instructional quality and teachers’ self-efficacy Based on the results of LPA, the three-profile model was decided as the most appropriate model. These three profiles represented three degrees of instructional quality and self-efficacy, including low, medium, and high degrees. Specifically, the first profile had the lowest mean scores on all six factors of instructional quality and self-efficacy, with 17.32% of the participants. The second profile was conceptualised as the medium of instructional quality and self-efficacy, with 51.32% of the participants. In the third profile, the highest mean scores on the factors of instructional quality and self-efficacy were observed and 31.36% of participants were included in this profile. 4.2 Factors associated with teachers’ profiles of instructional quality and self-efficacy 4.2.1 Teachers’ background factors The results showed that the three profiles were significantly different in the years of teaching at the current school and on the career. Concerning the gender of the participants, the chi-square results displayed that there was no significant difference among the three profiles. Moreover, the participants’ educational degree was examined. The Chi-square result suggested that teachers’ educational degree was significantly different among the three profiles. 4.2.2 Teacher collaboration and job satisfaction Based on the results of ANOVA, both the two factors of teacher collaboration were significantly different among the three profiles. Furthermore, the participants in the profile with high instructional quality and self-efficacy had the highest mean scores on teacher collaboration. Similar results were also observed on teachers’ job satisfaction, which means the three profiles were significantly different in the participants’ job satisfaction.

Al-Awidi, H. M., & Alghazo, I. M. (2012). The effect of student teaching experience on preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration in the UAE. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 923-941. Chong, W. H., & Kong, C. A. (2012). Teacher collaborative learning and teacher self-efficacy: The case of lesson study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(3), 263-283. Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1189. Creemers, B., & Kyriakides, L. (2015). Developing, testing, and using theoretical models for promoting quality in education. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(1), 102-119. doi:10.1080/09243453.2013.869233 Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. 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. Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom(s 137), 160. Nilsen, T., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (2016). Teacher Quality, Instructional Quality and Student Outcomes: Relationships across Countries: Springer Nature. Scheerens, J., & Blömeke, S. (2016). Integrating teacher education effectiveness research into educational effectiveness models. Educational Research Review, 18, 70-87. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.03.002 Scherer, R., Nilsen, T., & Jansen, M. (2016). Evaluating Individual Students' Perceptions of Instructional Quality: An Investigation of their Factor Structure, Measurement Invariance, and Relations to Educational Outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00110 Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68-77. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122.