Introduction

Teachers’ self-efficacy has been received continued growth attention during the past decades. Teachers’ self-efficacy is a belief relating to confidence and perceived ability to provide academic instruction and create a positive learning environment (Bandura, 1997). It has been repeatedly proven it's predictable for teaching practice, for example, teaching strategies (Allinder, 1994), teachers' goals and aspirations (Muijs & Reynolds, 2002), attitudes toward innovation (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992); and teacher motivation to stay in the profession or burnout (Chwalisz, Altmaier, & Russell, 1992).

Many studies have demonstrated that teacher professionalization can influence teachers' self-efficacy in the world regions (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Tuchman & Isaacs, 2011). However, there is still a lack of empirical evidence on how formal, non-formal, and informal training can impact teachers' self-efficacy, especially for in-service teachers. To address this research gap, we used lower secondary teachers in Shanghai as an example because teacher education programs in Shanghai are well-structured in many ways. As a result, teachers are able to successfully develop their teaching skills (Han, 2019) due to educational reform policies. Structured teacher professionalization activities in Shanghai have been formed, including formal, non-formal, and informal education activities. Thus, such systematic teacher programs allow us to inspect how different three types of training influence teachers' self-efficacy.

Theoretical Framework

Construct of teacher self-efficacy

Teacher self-efficacy is a construct (OECD, 2019), which could be distinguished as: classroom management, instruction, and student engagement (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy; 2001; OECD, 2019). Teacher self-efficacy about classroom management relates to their views about their capacity to create an orderly learning environment (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000). Teacher self-efficacy in instruction refers to teachers' perceptions of using various teaching methods and assessment procedures. Teachers' beliefs about the emotional and cognitive support they can provide their students and their capacity to inspire student learning are addressed as teacher self-efficacy in student engagement (OECD, 2014). Three constructs have been proven empirically related, yet they are theoretically separated constructs (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

Types of teacher education and their influence on teacher self-efficacy

Teachers' professionalism could be further distinguished according to different forms and settings: formal, non-formal, and informal (CEDEFOP, 2009; Desimone, 2009). Formal learning activities refer to such as credited studies in higher education institutions, which is well organized and goal-oriented. Non-formal learning refers typically to, for example, the in-service workshops in schools or teacher centers, which is also structured in an intentional way, but compulsory. Both are often considered at the center of teacher professional development (Dumitru, 2018). In comparison, Informal learning is not structured and not restricted to a certain context, and usually refers to individual voluntary learning (Desimone, 2011).

Informal learning activities generally involved social interactions with others, which are most frequently reported as impactful learning experiences by teachers (Tuchman & Isaacs, 2011). This might be because teachers seek informal learning with similarly-focused peers to obtain verbal persuasion and vicarious experiences from other teachers or experts within the district, which often prompts reflection on mastery experiences (Barton & Dexter, 2020).

This study examines formal, non-formal, and informal training on secondary school teachers' self-efficacy in Shanghai. By considering the complexity of teachers' self-efficacy, a close look at domain-specific teachers' self-efficacy and its relation with various forms of teacher training might contribute to our knowledge about the influencing mechanism of teachers' self-efficacy.

Data The current study used lower-secondary teacher data in Shanghai using the Teaching and Learning International Survey 2018 (OECD, 2018). The sampling design is followed by the two-stage sampling (OECD, 2019). In each country/region, 200 schools were firstly randomly selected. Then, 20 teachers within a selected school were randomly selected. The sample size is 3,976. 74% were female; 86% of teachers completed short-cycle tertiary education (ISCED level 5) as the highest level of formal education. The mean of experiences as a teacher in total is 16.8 years (SD=9,65). Covariates We considered gender, the highest level of formal education and the number of years as a teacher as covariates. Female was coded as 1 and male is 0 (a reference group). The highest level of formal education is a categorical variable that includes the non-tertiary level of education, short-cycle tertiary education, bachelor's degree master's degree. The non-tertiary level of education is considered as a reference group. Measures Formal training. There are 10 items that ask teachers if the following elements were included in their formal education/ training. The responses are binary (Yes vs. No). We used the Rasch model to obtain a factor score of formal education for each teacher. Non-formal training. 10 items were asked teachers if they have participated personally in the six types of professional activities during the last 12 months. The responses are binary (Yes vs. No). We used the Rasch model to obtain a factor score of informal education for each teacher. Informal training. The construct of non-formal education was measured by 8 items. The question asked teachers about how often they do informal activities in school. The responses were 6 scales. We used the partial credit item response theory (IRT) to obtain a factor score of informal education for each teacher. Domain-specific self-efficacy. 12 items measured three domain-specific teacher self-efficacy: classroom management, instruction, and student engagement. We used directly the values of self-efficacy from the TALIS 2018 dataset. We used multiple regression analyses. The dependent variable is three domains of teacher self-efficacy. In Model 0, we first considered the three covariates (gender, the highest of education level, and years of teaching experiences) for each domain-specific self-efficacy, respectively. Then, we included formal education (Model 1) followed by informal education (Model 2) and non-formal education (Model 3). In sum, we conducted the multiple regression analyses 9 times (3 Models x 3 types of self-efficacy).

Our preliminary results showed that informal training positively predicted self-efficacy in classroom management, instruction, and student engagement; formal training positively predicted self-efficacy in instruction and engagement. However, non-formal training did not predict any domain-specific self-efficacy. In addition, our additional preliminary analysis demonstrated that formal and informal training positively predict general self-efficacy. Based on our findings, formal training might have a small impact on self-efficacy in classroom management. The possible reason might be that formal training mostly emphasizes subject-specific and pedagogical content knowledge, less on classroom management content. Moreover, to manage the classroom effectively, teachers need to accumulate enough teaching experiences to deal with the complex realities of teacher-student relationships (Tuchman & Isaacs, 2011). Informal training seems the most relevant factor to each domain-specific self-efficacy, that is in line with social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997). In addition to the prior knowledge of teaching, social interaction is a critical element of teacher professionalism. As teachers are engaged in sharing and working together, they are likely to learn new knowledge outside of structured training to deal with complex teaching situations.

Allinder, R.M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 86–95. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman. Barton, E. A., & Dexter, S. (2020). Sources of teachers’ self-efficacy for technology integration from formal, informal, and independent professional learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 89-108. Brouwers, A. and W. Tomic (2000), “A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 16/2, pp. 239-253, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8. Chwalisz, K., Altmaier, E. M., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Causal attributions, self-efficacy cognitions, and coping with stress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 377–400. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. Desimone,L. M.(2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68–71. Dumitru, T. C. (2018). Impact of non-formal education on the efficacy of school learning. Studia Universitatis Moldaviae (Seria Ştiinţe ale Educaţiei), 119(9), 229-233. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP). (2009). European guidelines for validating non formal and informal learning. Office for Official Publications of the European Union, Luxembourg. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptation for students at risk. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 70–84. Han, X. (2019). The Associations Between the Perception of Helpfulness of Teacher Induction Programs, Teacher Self-Efficacy, and Anticipated First-Year Teacher Retention in Shanghai Public Primary Schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Pacific). Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355–372. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and behaviors: What really matters? Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37(2), 3–15. OECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en. OECD (2018). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual Framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19939019 OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 technical report. Paris: OECD. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. Tuchman, E., & Isaacs, J. (2011). The influence of formal and informal formative pre‐service experiences on teacher self‐efficacy. Educational Psychology, 31(4), 413-433.